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

I just think it's these "imagined comparisons" are conceptually flawed and imposible. You are not comparing JC to PBF when you are saying one is better than the other by comparing hos they would do in a fight if one was smaller and the other bigger but you are comparing Joe with the ideal standard at his weight or around his weight (given by actual examples he has fought against or that he can readily be imagined against) against the ideal standard at PBF's wieght or around PBF's weight (given by actual examples he has fought against or that he can readily be imagined against)...thus...to me at least, say, PBF is better p4p than Joe because he is a better welterweight than Joe is a SMW...nothing else seems to make sense conceptually...:good

 

I alos started a thread about rankings...the ABCDE Ranking Puzzle which was aimed at getting people to think about the solution to this problem

Thing is - there is no official, correct answer to what p4p means...I am trying to push for a certain understanding of p4p that would be most useful for comparing how good different boxers in different weightclasses are compared to one another...

In America, as examplified by The Ring, for example, if you have beaten resonant names/ATG/legends of the sport in your past - however long ago that was, however lose to their peak or faded those fighters were, if you are still active, that in and of itself will help you climb the rankings...it's almost like you get a badge for bagging a big beast...even if it was on it's last legs, it doesn't matter - it matters that it was once great! That is why you hear me often talk disparagingly of "have-been NAMES" of "resume wins" of "trophee wins"...etc...especially in comparison to wins against what I call "live, prime, hungry, undefeated contenders"...who are not famous, whose accomplishments are not as great and whose resumes do not list so many famous names as victims...but a win against whom I value more highly because I consider them better head to head compared to many of the past-it former legends...it's like in tennis, for example, where any current Top 50 ATP player could beat the great Sampras - NOW...but in America, a win over Sampras would count much more - it's all to do with fights beign sold to fans - it's "a business" - and fans recognise resonant names and take an interest - unless they are hardcore, they wouldn't know about the young hungry, up and coming contenders...

anyway...back on topic...

...to me p4p No.1 is the best fighter in the world. No 2 is the seconds best and so on...

Now, as I have shown in the ABCDE Rankings puzzle, sometimes fighter A is better than fighter B even though B beats A (say, they are in the same weightclass)...This is because A beats C and D - the third and fourth best fighter in the world, but B doesn't - he loses for some reason (e.g.styles to C but wins against D and E) - please see my actual example in that thread for correct details - I'm making this up as I go along now...but you get the idea...

I think p4p rankings should not take into account the names on your resume, but instead the form those names were when you beat them (prime Tszyu not the same as faded post retirement Tszyu that Hatton beat, for example) - so it's not enough to say: Hatton beat Tszyu. What kind of Tszyu did he beat?

Also, to me p4p rankings should be made only with reference to your form in recent fights, as kg0208 explained...and any fading should be taken into consideration...The fact that Bhops beat Tarver a long time ago says very little about the form of Bhops in 2008...for example...but according to some p4p rankings, the only thing that matters is that he beat him...etc. etc...

Have a look at that ABCDE rankings thread for details...let me have a look at your thread in the meantime...

:good

 

I meant if you have faded since your last couple of performances, that should be taken into consideration, because you're not going to ever fight as well as that...it's only going downhill from now on...

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18580&page=4

:good

 

Run of form - sure - because it gives an indication of recent future likely performance - but 10 fights ago? Unless you are at your peak for 10 fights in a row (not getting better/developing and not getting worse) what is the point of looking that far back? Aren't you comparing past accomplishments/resumes, not current ability?

 

Sorry, I typed that in a hurry because it was before the weigh-in...didn't express myself clearly...:good