What does "A is better pound-for-pound than B" mean to YOU?

to me it means that A is better at the sport of boxing than B

 

say A is technically better than B,but B wins more often against bigger opponents,does this not make him better p4p?its like saying if floyd may be better technically than hatton but if hatton bullies him for 12 rounds will he not deserve to higher p4p?

 

I use a combination of skills (H2H ability overall) and resume. I don't like either approach that uses only one of the two factors.

 

I always take into account quality wins and quality losses. It can get tricky because the #2 ranked SMW in the world may not be as highly regarded as the #2 WW in the world. However, over time, that usually evens itself out.

All of this is incredibly subjective. I don't usually critique others P4P lists unless the point of the thread IS to critique, or it's quite different than the norm, such as someone having Juan Diaz #1 or something.

 

HI DECEBAL,HOWS IT GOING?
I AGREE;MANY FIGHTERS WEAKNESSES AND ATTRIBUTES WOULD BE HEIGHTENED OR DIMINSHED BY A CHANGE IN WEIGHT.IT IS A MUTE POINT.

ITS LIKE WHEN PEOPLE ARE IMPRESSED THAT INSECTS CAN CARRY LOADS OF WEIGHT,OR FLEAS CAN JUMP REALLY FAR,FOR THEIR SIZE.IMPRESSIVE,BUT THEY COULDN'T DO IT AT OUR SIZE;SOME WOULD STRUGGLE TO EVEN MOVE.
SIZE MATTERS, SO TO SPEAK.
SORRY TO TURN ENTOMOLOGIST THERE.

 

No, he is not the same fighter now. I usually take into account there last 3-4 fights.

 

I take into account the last 3-4 fights, usually a 1.5 to 2 yr sample. Age factors in as well, but sometimes a fighter becomes shot overnight. If in the 3-4 fight span they start to show signs of fading, I take that into account. But a fading fighter may still be better than even the elite in his division.

Example....Calzaghe is fading. He is not the same fighter who beat Lacy. But he still beat Kessler. I am also not very easily swayed....I don't rank Hopkins P4P usually, despite his recent wins, which I took with a grain of salt. I never thought Mosley was "back" and therefore gave Cotto credit, but not great credit for beating him (I said this before the fight, so it's not a revision).

 

To me thats exactly what it it. You have to make it relative to the weight. A fast puncher at say flyweight is not going to punch as fast at heavy but relatively he is going to be a fast puncher in the HW division, if you compare PFP.

Anything other than that is just flim flam to me. IMO anyway.

Isn't all this PFP stuff just speculation and interpretation anyway. It simply shifts attention from who the best fighter is. Thats the man who could beat anyone in the ring. Thats always going to be a man in the HW division. That man is the greatest "boxer" in the world. Not the man who if he was bigger he might beat him.

Just an opinion, it just seems like boxing has gone PFP mad these days. Maybe its because the HW division has been rather poor and uniteresting for a while.