You can NOT be P4P if you have only fought in 1 weight class

Are you talking about Broner
JK for the record:good
Well maybe not now that I think about it more....ummmm
:smoke

 

Yes

 

Wlad yes. GGG and Kovalev not yet

 

Marvin Hagler. you what.

Wladimir klinchko. who?

Rigondeaux? do you want some

 

P4P means who's the best regardless of weight class.

It takes the top fighters and shrinks them so they're all the same size, leaving just their skills.

In other words, it determines who's the most skilled fighter overall.

For example, how would Floyd Mayweather do if he were the size of Wladimir Klitschko, or vice versa?

 

:nod This seems to be a recent development. Before 6-7 years ago nobody really had a problem grasping what pound for pound meant or conflating it with some kind of weight-jumping merit badge.

 

Now, P4P seems to mean, "Who's the most popular fighter?".

 

:yep

The definition has become very fluid to suit people's agendas.

"Oh, my favorite boxer happens to jump through lots of weigh divisions - so let's just say "p4p best" means "the most successful in multiple weight divisions! "

atsch

 

The problem with P4P is that it's subjective by its very nature.

 

It is, but the version people go by nowadays is both subjective and nothing remotely to do with the spirit in which the coin was termed.

 

I've never termed a coin before!

 

People say Wlad could/should be #1 P4P, but having a HW, even one as dominant as Wlad, defeats the whole purpose of P4P.

To show you how much the term has changed, the Ring lists Wlad as #2 P4P. I'm looking at the Ring Ratings for 1999-2002 on BoxRec, and even when he was cleaning out the HW division, Lewis was never placed any higher than eighth in the P4P rankings.

 

Actually, P4P existed long before Robinson.

 

OK, brb, getting more coffee..