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

Well the "coin was termed" ! for him, but yeah, the concept was hardly new to boxing writers/observers.

 

P4P is a term that has lost all meaning, along with "slick" and "athletic".

 

thats due to Lewis rating plummeting after the Rahman fight and such

Wlad is 2nd due to his sustained almost 10 year dominence, he got on to the p4p list and over time guys ahead of him fell off while he maintained, thus he slowly rose up the rankings

 

There goes my dream of being a slick, athletic, p4p boxer. :sad2







...actually, make that a slick, athletic, EXPLOSIVE p4p boxer. :hey

 

If you have even a little speed, you're considered "athletic".

 

What you're saying is, the dude's not even wrong.

 

If size was the determining factor of all heavyweight match-ups, then Canera and Valuev would have been considered the best heavyweights in history. Even if the case of K2 and Lewis, it's their skill-set as much as their size that has contributed to their success.

 

I think you get some P4P points for proving yourself in multiple weight divisions but you can still be highly ranked P4P even if you only ever fight in one division.

 

What about tyson?

 

Hagler was never p4p worthy.

 

Name 10 fighters from 1980-86 who were better or dominant against their opposition than he was.

 

atsch