March 1996 issue had confused me as to who should have been the pound for pound best boxer and why. Reader Tony Hung wrote that , based on Pernell Whitaker`s past performances, he was head and shoulders above Roy Jones. Does the mythical pound for pound title belong to the best fighter over the last two, three, five, or ten years, or should it be awarded to the best fighter today?
The accomplishments within too short of a time frame can skew reality too much by either focusing too much on a singular win or by possibly ignoring a legendary string of victories. I suppose one shouldn't live off the same single victory for a decade but neither should someone leapfrog so many others with a fresh performance but no depth of proving that quality beyond. With a P4P list, one gives credit to those who face the best fighters (and win). Sometimes the debate and quality of the list is greater than others.
Ultimately "P4P" is up to the beholder. Definitely opinion based and no factually wrong answers, technically.
I know what you mean and agree with the gist of it. However, technically speaking it would be factually wrong to have a guy like this as p4p #1 haha: http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/394783
You can do it how you want I guess. I usually take form over a four year period .It's a good measuring stick of consistent form (8-12 fights usually, depending on activity) and it accounts for fighters slipping, so where they may have built up an incredible resume we still need the what have you done for us lately factor. Similarly with fighters who start getting inactive or fighting at a lower level. It also gives enough gauge where a loss doesn't essentially mean doom for a fighter, depending on the opposition and way of defeat. Other factors such as resume, eye test, longevity etc can still be used but I think four years is about as good a time period for judging P4P.
That is my favourite era, and I agree with sweet pea as the nb 1. I think longativity does count even though he was slipping and Jones Jr was sensational. I see kind of the same as now where I would have golovkin ahead of loma and Whitaker cherished the p4p title and IMO someone had to really give a reason to take it of him. He was p4p king.
