This is a good example of what I posted earlier in this thread about people having different interpretations on what "p4p" means. My intepretation on p4p is that it's how good a fighter is relative to their size. So if Hagler is the better fighter, i.e. better regardless of size, then he's the better p4p, imo. Your intepretation seems to be predicated on being better p4p requiring success at varying weights, or have I misunderstood?
Ah, sorry, I see. At MW, he clearly was. What about at LHW? Could Hagler have beaten the Hearns that beat Hill? How about at CW? Hearns could have filled out his 6ft 1ins, 78ins, CW-like frame, to 190lbs way before he actually did & whilst he was still prime. Could the 5ft 8.5ins Hagler, at whatever weight he decided to come in at, have won that fight? I'm not trying to be clever, I appreciate it's not reasonable to expect answers to those questions as we never saw Hagler above 160lbs. I'm trying to push my view that P4P should be considered as how good fighters are relative to their size (which can vary over the course of their careers). As counter-intuitive as this sounds, it's reasonable to argue that the smaller framed Hagler had a size advantage over Hearns at MW, because the degree to which he was naturally thicker set exceeded the degree to which Tommy's frame was bigger. However, trust me, at CW Hearns would have had a substantial size advantage, because the ultimate capacity of his frame when filled out, vastly exceeded that of Hagler's. So Hagler was better H2H at 160lbs? Yes, no question. Was Hagler better H2H if there was no weight limit & each fighter had time to prepare their bodies to fight to the highest level possible regardless of weight? I'm not so sure. Imo, the very essence of who is the better P4P is cut through this and ask who is the better, relative to their size.
For what it's worth, Hearns edged it out at #25 to Marvin's #26 by a mere 2 points in the Survey here from a few years back.
It seems that the GREAT Ray Robinson was the primary catalyst for the introduction of the P4P concept. He couldn't be rated "better" than say, Joe Louis, in H2H terms = literally being able to beat The Bomber. P4P allowed and compensated for the size difference in order to be able to rate Ray as the more skilled fighter with the greater attributes in relative terms. So, at least initially, it seems it had nothing to do with achievements over multiple divisions - though Ray also had that claim under his belt. It really just allowed for comparison of skill sets/relative attributes between fighters from different weight classes. Take Duran - another multi division conqueror. Let's say his "best" weight division was Lightweight, fighting at his most natural and optimal weight. Imo, this would be exactly where Duran would/should receive his absolute highest P4P rating. Without a moving an inch, ounce or pound, that's his BEST possible P4P rating. Ironically, gaining weight and moving up through the divisions, though impressive and periodic successes notwithstanding, could only serve to reduce Duran's P4P attributes. Given that perspective, Hagler's best weight and associated greatest p4p attributes were at 160 lbs = MW. Despite Tommy's praiseworthy traverse and degrees of success through multiple weight divisions, in any one of those given division, could Tommy be rated as a greater p4p fighter than Marvin was at 160 lbs = MW? I would say that the answer is probably no.
Extremely well put. Over praise for weight-jumping is something I think has largely (or at least somewhat) perverted the original intended meaning of P4P. Ergo, just because Hagler was always a middleweight, all things being equal makes no difference when rating his skills on a P4P basis. Same with rating career heavyweights in a P4P sense. Heavyweights generally tend to be inherently penalized on this front, with notable exceptions being Ali and Louis. But for me, the same mindset should apply. Spending a career in a single weight class shouldn't automatically penalize a boxer's standing, especially if one proved to be the dominant force in said division for a considerable stretch.
A really good discussion and interesting thread. Informative, well expressed and nice to see people interacting with what other posters actually said. Thanks to all for contributing.
Agreed. The whole P4P debate, if we bother to have it, should spend all energy on judging the effectiveness of a fighter's boxing skillset, not his ability to diet.
Nice work Freddie. You've had some good success early doors in your posting here in instigating lively and informed debate among us on threads that seem quite new without being too niche. Posters seem to have respected one another too, without the aggression that other less original threads often descend into. Like I say, good work. Welcome.
