What is the one most important factor when rating a boxer pound-for-pound?

Neither are the most important IMO. Technical & tactical ability & heart as well as your speed, power & chin for you wieght class determine how good you are at the sport as u can make great achievements while ducking the best and have good names on ur resume through luck (lucky punch, injury etc) or resumes can be misleading (past prime etc)

 

both are important

 

There is no way to determine who is the best in a P4P sense... the system is flawed and therefore misleading. P4P ranking shouldn't exist.

 

At the very least people should not go on and on about it as if it is not only some kind of tangible prize, but in fact the greatest thing someone can aspire to.

 

Most people do understand it. Resume and accomplishments are important in that they are used to determine a fighter's ability. This is understood but just implied.

Saying neither resume or accomplishments are important when rating a fighter pound for pound, only ability is important, simply leads to the question "Which is the more important factor when rating a boxer's ability, resume or accomplishments?"

 

I think its a mix of wins over highly ranked fighters, belts collected, a high rounds won to rounds lost ratio, and being an active fighter.

 

both

 

both

 

Skill

 

I think its a combination of a number of things, ONE of which includes achievement/resume.

I also still think the words "pound for pound" imply the following: If every fighter was the same weight and size (although, a tall fighter for their division is still a tall fighter - and a small fighter, still a small fighter) - who would win (or be the best)?

 

I voted achievements, before looking at the guidelines laid out... to me though they are in the same boat. I also look at the skill of the fighter... and try to imagine what would happen if other PFP fighters were the same weight, bigger or smaller.