View Full Version : is p4p ratings really necessary?


Dempsey 1919
11-28-2005, 07:51 PM
i mean 130 years ago there were no weight classes, and if you were too small to beat a hw, then too bad. everyone talking 'bout how sugar ray robinson is "p4p" the greatest boxer, but sometimes to me that doesn't make any sense, cause if you think about it, someone like jack dempsey could be p4p better than foreman, but no one would say that because they are in the same weight class. but prime dempsey is like 190 and prime foreman is 225, and that's a 35lb. difference, so that might not sound so foolish to say, 'cause they might as well be in different weight classes, but no one will say that. so p4p rankings to me is just people hating on the heavyweights, cause they are bigger than the others and could whup up on the others. what do you think? :confused:

Easy-E
11-28-2005, 08:11 PM
i think you mean
are p4p ratings really necessary, but i see your point, but i still think that we should have the p4p ratings

XionComrade
11-28-2005, 08:48 PM
Yeah I think their is just to much imphasis put on weight. A 180lb man or even a 150lb one can certainly hit as hard as any 200lber, its all just genetics.
I say taht Jef Lacy can hit alot harder than Kevin McBride or several other heavyweights, and would probably annihilate them. I never really understood how everyone gets that a big 200lb man can always take a powerpunching smaller guys shots, even if the big man has a glass jaw, all crap to me.

I really don't know why their is a division for every pound, If your chin is bad adding 500lbs of muscle or fat to you wont make you take a punch better, it would probably make it worse. It wont make you hit harder either, like you all said, you either got it or you don't.

I think the whole P4P thing is just for the smaller class champions that don't have what it takes to take out a bigger guy. Pure BS, Ive seen Welterweights that hit harder than Heavyweights, and Ive seen lightweights that were stronger than Heavyweights (Joe Frazier to Shane Mosely). All a matter of God given talents IMO. Some got it, the rest don't.(I have also seen Smaller weights come in the night of the fight weighing as much as heavyweights :p )

blockhead
11-28-2005, 08:51 PM
i mean 130 years ago there were no weight classes, and if you were too small to beat a hw, then too bad. everyone talking 'bout how sugar ray robinson is "p4p" the greatest boxer, but sometimes to me that doesn't make any sense, cause if you think about it, someone like jack dempsey could be p4p better than foreman, but no one would say that because they are in the same weight class. but prime dempsey is like 190 and prime foreman is 225, and that's a 35lb. difference, so that might not sound so foolish to say, 'cause they might as well be in different weight classes, but no one will say that. so p4p rankings to me is just people hating on the heavyweights, cause they are bigger than the others and could whup up on the others. what do you think? :confused:
i think your a moron who doesnt know a lick about boxing history or the modern sport.

Dempsey 1919
11-28-2005, 11:28 PM
i think your a moron who doesnt know a lick about boxing history or the modern sport.

and i think blockhead is what you are. you are not contributing any knowledge to this thread, so why bother? all i asked for was an opinion on the subject, not some stupid remark from a stupid poster like yourself! :mad:

M26
11-29-2005, 09:28 AM
I think that its only by p4p ratings, that one can truly consider which fighter was the greatest of all time.

For instance, I am sure Danny Williams would manhandle Roberto Duran in a fight toe to toe. But p4p, there is little doubt in that Duran is the better fighter.

jabsRstiff
11-29-2005, 09:50 AM
Necessary ? No.....but it's very interesting, & very fun, to create lists & debate about them.

Dempsey 1919
11-29-2005, 02:07 PM
Necessary ? No.....but it's very interesting, & very fun, to create lists & debate about them.

nice post.

TuPrincipe
11-29-2005, 03:30 PM
I think when it comes down to it, they aren't really necessary as the true champions win in all weight classes.

XionComrade
11-29-2005, 03:56 PM
Yeah but not everyone can gain 50lbs...

AntonTheMeh
11-20-2007, 10:37 PM
sorry to bump an old thread but i'd like to see more opinions on this.

Jim Jeffries
11-21-2007, 03:11 AM
I think the whole P4P thing is just for the smaller class champions that don't have what it takes to take out a bigger guy. Pure BS, Ive seen Welterweights that hit harder than Heavyweights, and Ive seen lightweights that were stronger than Heavyweights (Joe Frazier to Shane Mosely). All a matter of God given talents IMO. Some got it, the rest don't.(I have also seen Smaller weights come in the night of the fight weighing as much as heavyweights :p )

Are you saying Mosley at lightweight was stonger than Joe Frazier?:ugh:

Hawk O'Connor
11-21-2007, 11:48 AM
I don't think they are a necessity, however they do afford you a way to gauge the talents of fighters of different weight classes against one another. I had always heard, and read, they were created in an effort to compare Sugar Ray Robinson against the other great fighters of his time.

I don't know if thats the true origin or not, but it does seem plausible.

Jim Jeffries
11-21-2007, 09:53 PM
I'm often confused by p4p rankings. I mean do you rank a guy at the weight he started fighting at or at the weight he most recently fought at? Because obviously Mayweather is better p4p at 130 than he is at 154. And how do you qualify Toney as a p4p just because he started at MW, when the guy weighs like 230 now?