what does 'pound for pound' mean for you?

what it should be mean is simple- 'regardless of weight', that's all it means. People seem to wrongfully discredit heavyweights when it comes to this. All it means is who is the better fighter if all things are equal in terms of size, i.e there is no weight advantage. Obviously Joe Frazier beats Jung Koo Chang to death in an actual fight, but to compare them pound for pound is to compare them regardless of weight, who is the better fighter? Some people seem to automatically go against the heavyweight in such a discussion, but the likes of Ali etc are some of the best fighters to ever do it pound for pound.

Then there is pound for pound all time rankings, which is simply a list of the greatest (usually incorporates resume) fighters of all time regardless of division. With such compilations there is generally a consideration of fighters who were able to defeat larger opponents, and rightfully so, although this maybe shouldn't be the overriding factor consistently. It's subjective when doing lists, especially pound for pound lists, and all things should be considered.

Anyway, my breakdown is good, no?

 

*I disagree... it's not pitting fighter against fighter,ia fantacy same weight fight... i hear that all the time and it's rediculous.
*It's how dominant a fighter is over is opponent and div.. how versatile a fighter can be in fighting different opponents... and the strength of the fighters he's beaten... for instance, Arthur Abraham is pretty much one dimensional and had a virtually weak opponent record...vs ,lets say Pacquiao, who's fought bigger boxers, sluggers and cleaned out different div's...
*To say..everything being equal... Pac vs Vitali... then u would have a 250 pound super fast powerful Pacquiao who can take everyone's punches...

 

Best of the Best
Creme de la Creme

Pound for Pound sounds like some meat you get at a Deli Counter.

Generally speaking a bad term.
Can you compare Jim Brown (Running Back) to Jerry Rice (Wide Receiver)
No, different positions, just like different divisions in weight.

I believe they should just be rated on their overall talent, not by weight.

 

Having nothing to do with weight jumping vs dominating a division, I have Pacquiao and Canzoneri both comfortably over Hagler, who is comfortably over Marciano. On my list, anyway.

 

Oh ok, dominance vs weight jumping-

You can't just pick like that, if i've dominated poor opposition and you've moved up in weight beating fine opposition then you're likely to have a better resume. By the same token if i've dominated a great division and you've shown you can beat bigger average fighters then i am likely to have a better resume. This isn't necessarily reflective of who is the better fighter though. Someone like Aaron Pryor doesn't have an outstanding resume but it's clear as day how good a fighter he is.

 

Yes they do, its the most sort after prize, with by far the widest weight span, Great HWs are underrated P4P, as are small HWs competing at the weight, ie Patterson is a better P4P boxer than Archie Moore for my money

 

The fighter that stands out as the best in boxing. Has nothing to do with weight.

 

Weight climbing is very overrated in some cases, men naturally get bigger, some more so than others, winning titles in divisions as you naturally mature while never being at a physical disadvantage is not more impressive the reigning in 1 weight class for the same period if the competition as a whole is equal. The only time Pacquaio has had a real size disadvantages has been at 147 and maybe 140.

It boils down to resume and dominance, and physical disadvantages against the opposition

 

This content is protected

:yep

 

Pacquaio is Mayweather's superior. Get over it you black.