Which List Means Most To You, ATG or all-time P4P?

Every all-time rating must automatically be an all-time pound-for-pound rating. And every great fighter's career is automatically of historical significance.

An all-time rating is not based on longevity, it is based on dominance. Longevity means nothing, unless it is combined with dominance. Winning titles at multiple weight classes means nothing, unless the fighter is dominant in multiple weight classes.

A fighter can prove himself "great" in a number of ways.

He can have a great record. It proves consistency over the course of a career.
He can win great fights. It proves the ability to overcome adversity.
He can defeat other great fighters. It proves the ability to compete at the top level of the sport.

The all-time great must combine all three of those with dominance. The most dominant fighter is the undisputed champion who defends against his true (not alphabet) number one contender once a year.

17 X 4 = 68. By boxing tradition, that's 8 Champions and 60 "titleholders". And for those who consider every weight to be legit, that's 17 champions and 51 who happen to hold a belt.

In this era of four alphabet titles per weight class, many fighters are making five, ten and more title defenses per reign. A glance at boxing history shows how rare this was during undisputed eras.

In this era of 17 weight divisions, many fighters are grabbing two weight classes without ever fighting the top guy in either division.

 

I prefer ATG at a weight class. p4p is too vague.

 

I'd guess p4p in your understanding is head-to-head comparison, not p4p as it is understood by most. P4P basically is a sum of two separate ratings - head-to-head and achievements.

 

You are mixing up all-time and current p4p ratings. Current P4P, such as the Ring's, is indeed rating at this particular moment, but all-time is not about particular moment, it's a sum of abilities and results during the fighter's career. P4P best = greatest regardless of weight.

 

If a very young kid has only seen 5 movies in his life, and says movie A is the best he has ever seen, does that mean he's saying it's the greatest movie of all-time? I think not, that's not what he's saying. Same with Futch/Burley. He only saw past-prime come-backing Benny Leonard, for example, so obviously a prime Burley would look better to him than past-prime Leonard. Doesn't mean prime Leonard wasn't better than prime Burley, Futch simply didn't see prime Leonard, or doesn't remember seeing, possibly.

 

All-time greatest can apply to particular weights as well, like all-time greatest welterweight being Ray Robinson, so it's not quite equivalent, but in some contexts - yes, it is the same.