Should this be a criteria for P4P rankings?

Well, with that definition it would automatically penalise natural heavyweights who obviously can't move up in weight.

In a sense, p4p doesn't really mean much other than if all fighters were the same size, then who would be the best and I think weight jumping is just one consideration. Remember, the weight jumping thing has become more prevalent over the last few decades with smaller gaps between the divisions and split titles so in terms of judging greatness, moving up or down isn't a guarantee of greatness when it is easy to avoid the best now by doing strategic weight jumping.

It also tends to colour the view of fighters from the past who didn't do it with the same frequency, like Pep and Hagler. Marvin Hagler was a great middleweight and would rank pretty high on most people's p4p lists despite not jumping to light heavyweight (no super middleweight for much of his reign, of course). But he owned his division in a way few fighters have and commanded everyone's respect.

So, no, I think p4p shouldn't exclude anyone. If they were great in one division, they were great regardless.

 

I have to agree with Jel. If a fighter is great in his respective division as a champion, dominates, gives all challengers a shot at him, emerges victorious, then he should be considered as a pound for pound great. Jumping divisions should not be a criteria, fighters know their own limitations, why satisfy a few blood thirsty fans to otherwise ruin a great career.? Those fans might pay for the gate but they are not in the ring feeling the blows from an otherwise heavier opponent. Why not prove greatness in your respective division. It appears fans are starting to be into fatter heavier fighters, no more in physical shape fighters even with their Modern Nutrition ( Steroids). I think that a fighter can prove greatness in his own division.

 

How many non-heavyweights moved down in weight?

 

Sun Kil Moon moved down from bantam after winning a world title to junior bantam and won another world title - he was at his best at 115, in fact.

Not many heavyweights move down but there were a few that moved down to cruiserweight who would have been natural cruiserweights before that division existed - Leon Spinks being a good example.

 

I respect your well thought out opinion, but my answer is definitely a no.

You can’t penalise the guys who can/could ONLY fight in one division.

Greatness is determined by a fighter’s skills and achievements. Who they fought, and at what point.

P4P means greatness, irrespective of weight classes.

Basically, it just means anyone who is great.

Nobody could ever question the greatness of guys like Ali and Hagler.


You can give fighters a higher or lower ranking though based on how you perceive things.

You may think that a fighter lacked ambition by not moving up.

You may think that a fighter moved up even though he didn’t need to.

Those things may affect your opinion/ranking of the guys.

 

For me, and this is just for me, when I use the term "p4p" it means if someone can grow a mustache that could fit any face, basically, a strong, thick, length, bushy stache. So, Aaron Pryor could take on even Muhammad Ali, "p4p." And would it have anything to do with black bottles or whatever? No. Not in a sense.

 

Too objective too say anything P4P is so personal.

 

I’ve given that some thought as well. To each their own imo.

me personally. I think if you’re the best at your particular weight you’re a p4p great. With HWs/cruisers it’s changed a bit but I don’t see an issue with saying 180-190 190-200 200-210 etc so long as you’re a top 3-5 guy in each ten pound range I don’t have a problem with it.

take Tyson Frazier and Marciano for instant. All consistently fought fighters bigger then them. That should count for something.

 

You can value soo many different things. If I like longevity more then a short but good career then it can create mixed results.

 

Well, we have a pretty good idea about Foster as he fought at heavyweight too and eventually met Joe Frazier for the title. But here's the thing - Foster never really committed to the heavyweight division, he sort of dipped his toes in it. The highest he ever weighed was 188 and that was for his title challenge against Frazier. Three months later he was back down at light heavy again. Had he done something like Michael Spinks or Evander Holyfield and really made the move up he might have had more success but he was always giving up significant poundage.

Even when he came back in the mid-late 70s above light heavy he was still only weighing low 180s and fighting guys who he was sometimes giving up 20-30 pounds or more against. Not gaining weight might have worked in the early 20th century when heavyweights often weighed under 200 pounds but by the late 70s a heavyweight weighed 210-215. Foster tried to do it the old school way and I think that's part of why he failed (it didn't also help that he wasn't facing powder puff titlists - Frazier for the world title and Ali for the NABF title is as tough as it gets).