Question about P4P rankings in relation to rankings in singular weight classes

These questions are for a particular poster in general, as they should be obvious enough to anyone with any semblance of rationality. If you need to get to the root of them, just visit the Holyfield thread and witness the embarassment.

Pacquiao is one of the best P4P fighters in the world right now, arguably the best. If he somehow manages to beat De La Hoya at WW, does that make him the best WW as well based on the fact that he's #1 P4P? Or better yet, is he already the best WW (or one of the best) now that he fights there, based solely on the fact that he's one of the best P4P and one of the best at lower weights?

 

:huh From what I gathered of your opinion in the Holyfield thread, it would be illogical to not rank him in the same viscinity at WW as you rank him P4P or at lower weights, regardless of accomplishment.

Why does it apply for Charles but not for Pacquiao? Does it apply for Jose Napoles, who fought once at MW and got battered by Monzon, but was one of the best P4P fighters and WW's on the planet? How about Bob Foster, who was a mediocre HW at best, but one of the best LHW's of all time. Does he merit high ranking as a HW based on his P4P status, or status at lower weights?

According to your logic, it would only be rational to rate these fighters at higher weights in a similar light to how they're rated P4P or at lower weights, regardless of accomplishments.

 

Untrue. The bulk of Charles's P4P ranking is based on his success at lower weights, not his work at HW. The fact that a fighter who started off as a MW was able to have the kind of success he did at HW improves his P4P ranking even more, but it has no bearing on his overall rating as a HW.

Charles doesn't rate in my top 10 or probably top 15 HW's because he was past his prime for the majority of his HW career, racked up most of his losses there, was nowhere near as effective as at LHW or even MW, and didn't stand out from the top guys of his era at the weight.

He ranks significantly higher P4P based on the fact that he was one of the most skilled fighters of all time at LHW and even as a green MW, accomplished an amazing amount through 3 weights, (being the more accomplished and much better fighter overall in the lower weights, particularly LHW, where he should rate #1 all time) with one of the 5 best resumes of all time. Most of his best work was done at LHW, where his resume is phenomenal, and enough by itself to rate him above Marciano P4P when taking into account their comparative successes in their respective prime weights. The fact that he started at MW, had some top notch wins there, and managed to become the HW champion of the world and one of the best in that class when past his prime further adds to his P4P ranking. Again though, it doesn't mean he ranks among the very best HW's of all time (he didn't have quite the ability or accomplishments to achieve that status in his run there, despite being one of the best of that era), it means he rates among the very best P4P fighters.

Comprende?

 

The fact that he beat Charles twice (once by KO), was far more consistent and dominant at the weight, had a better overall resume and career at the weight, and holds the distinction of being the best HW of the era (whereas Charles was one of a group and doesn't stand out as Marciano does in an all time sense because of it) gives him a distinct edge on any HW list.

Either way, that doesn't play into their relative P4P rankings, considering Marciano was a one-weight fighter while Charles was a 3 weight fighter who had a substantially better resume overall, was considered by most to have been clearly the better fighter in their prime weight classes, and proved himself through the weights, unlike Marciano.

 

Does Charles fit into that equation of being one of the old men/bums Marciano beat? Because that did occur in case you forgot. Charles did have some very good wins, but aside from his win over a fresher Louis, no better than Rocky's. Rocky also didn't have the losses and inconsistency at the weight that Charles had.

As for Marciano's opposition, Charles was past his prime as a HW in general, so you can't fault Marciano for beating a past prime Charles while still considering Charles one of the best ever HW's. Walcott was a case of a fighter who became more and more effective as he aged and gained that invaluable experience, and was fresh off two wins (one of them a brutal KO) over none other than Ezzard Charles coming into the fights with Marciano. The same is true of Moore as was true of Walcott in that both men were damn near ageless warriors. And if you'll check Moore's record from pre and post Marciano, you'll see just how effective he was even at that stage of his career. Past his prime yes, but still a great fighter. Even the win over an obviously faded Joe Louis gets underrated, as Louis wasn't half as shot as people tend to claim and was still obviously a very effective fighter. Since his comeback he'd beaten the likes of Jimmy Bivins, Lee Savold, and Freddie Beshore. All top contenders of the era, Bivins being an un-sung great (though he himself was also admittedly past his best days). Throw in Rock's wins over top guys of the era like Nino Valdes, Roland LaStarza, Rex Layne, Kid Matthews, and the aforementioned Savold and Beshore, and you've got a very sturdy resume, one that gets underrated constantly on the basis of nothing other than ignorance.

Marciano had the misfortune of coming along in an era where most greats were either on their way out during his reign, or on their way in toward the end of it, which is why he has a tendancy to get hated on. When looked at objectively however, he was a great fighter who faced and beat quality opposition throughout his career, never faltering even once, which absolutely has to count for something given his circumstances.

 

That wasn't the main debate here at all, you know that.

But as for that statement, there has to be some clear seperation between the two, even if you wish to include Charles in your top 15. An argument can't be made for Charles to rank over Marciano for the obvious reasons I've stated in previous posts. That would be truly illogical.

All nonsense aside, can you understand or admit that you were in the wrong? Or do you just not do business that way?