Pound for Pound: What does it mean to you?

/thread

:deal

 

i agree totally, ans this is how i thought p4p was rated anyway

 

Make them both 168lb or 240lb with the same skillsets they have now and Ward schools Wlad, and I'm not a Ward fan. 'Pound for pound' is nothing to do with accomplishments or achievements, although obviously the more skilled a fighter is, the more accomplishments and achievement he is going to have.

 

I think that Resume comes into it a lot because you have guys like 'GGG' who look like beats atm so you think p4p this guy would ko people, but we haven't seen him produce the goods against good opposition, think its skill mixed with resume just to prove they can do it at a high level

 

Dammit I got a cold!

 

I dont think hypotheticals should really be included in a p4p matchup.
For instance you have no idea how Wlad would perform if he were the size of May or Pac. Would he fight the same? How powerful would he be in comparison? How the hell could anyone even know that?
I dont see how anyone could play the "shrink him down and he would lose to so and so" or "If so and so were as big as this guy he would beat anyone" You end up just making up bull**** really.
Thats why I think it should just be an evaluation of accomplishments in their respective divisions compared to anyone else, not who can actually beat who.

 

Idc how slick you are, if you won 18 belts 18 divisions, how exciting you are, etc it doesn't mean a cheeto puff to me if you haven't fought the best.

 

So invent another term for measuring accomplishments, 'pound for pound' is clearly meant to compare fighters by size/weight, which is why fighters who collect titles in different divisions are perceived to be better or more skilled.

 

I don't see how that would make P4P worthless though, Donaire is a former champ at 112 lbs, 118 lbs and now 122 lbs also has unified titles in them. 4 weight world champs isn't that common anyway.

 

I love your definition and you are right. I just prefer to have some accomplishments to verify my list. It's a personal preference.

I will disagree with your last sentence. Mayweather is a great example of being extremely skilled but not as accomplished as his skill set should warrant.

 

Once you start comparing fighters h2h based of hypothetical size comparisons, to me, it loses its legitimacy.
While you may be right thats what it originally was intended to mean (although it probably means much more than one thing), I tend to perfer a method of evaluation based off what they accomplished with respect to eachother, and rank the best fighters in the world based off that, not made up attributes.

 

I don't like imagining fighters at different weights because their dimensions, power, resistance is all morphed and you're looking at a different fighter that you've arbitrarily constructed in your head.

I treat it as the fighter who has beaten the best opponents recently. Division by division, there's usually a #1, and the best #1's (meaning fighters that beat the best #2's and #3's) are the ones that end up on the list. And sometimes a #2 in one division is better than the #1 in a barren one.

In terms of fighters ranking in or around the same division, it should be treated as a championship belt, with the spot changing hands only when that fighter is defeated, or when a rival opponent outshines him in competition. Example, Bradley was the most accomplished at 140 a year ago and had beaten Peterson, but when Peterson beat Khan, it was better than anything Bradley had done recently up to that point, so I'd want Peterson to be ranked #1 in his division. He beat the toughest opponent out of any of his competitors in the division.

 

It's pretty meaningless and carries far too much weight these days. The day Ring started giving out a belt that could be won and lost it was clear that people had lost the plot.

Personally I think:

a) Snapshot of best fighter regardless of weight (true p4p)

b) Ranking of fighter's accomplishments regardless of weight

are both valid and interesting ways of comparing fighters across division. Where it gets completely ******ed is when people mix the two together and apply selective criteria to fit their particular agenda. Or indeed when a "rankings" system is applied with fighter A moving up based on beating fighter B, when there are hundreds of fighters across 16 other weight divisions that are potentially affected.

I would scrap the the p4p rankings altogether and just have an annual poll at the end of the year. There would be none of this "Broner hasn't earned a spot in the top 10" or "JMM can't be #1 because Mayweather beat him" - it would just be a collection of opinions at a given point in time on who you think are the best fighters in the world.

 

I always took p4p as who would win if they were the same size... If its confusing, then and only then do u look at records and accomplishments

 

That's exactly what it means. I thought that was common knowledge.