There is no such thing as "the" pound-for-pound list

Let's do it. Is Rae going to organize it again? Either him or OG. Registration starts sometime this month or at the start of October I think.

Kayjay I want your new P4P list. :D Wlad Wlad Wlad Chagaev Peter Vitali Wlad Peter Chagaev Vitali

Kay are you gonna comeback this year for fantasy basketball? Let's do it. Is Rae going to organize it again?

Bumped in response to several of this morning's threads Kay are you gonna comeback this year for fantasy basketball?

Kayjay I want your new P4P list. :D

Bumped in response to several of this morning's threads

the more i think of it the dumber it is.it means jack shit, cause in reality the heavyweight champion beats the shit out of all of them:lol1:

P4P is stupid and IMO it legitimises fighters to duck each other Floyd was top of the P4P list he did not have to fight anyone we could just assume he beats everyone and when people challenge that we can trott out his P4P status :lol1:

Some of you dense fuckers need constant reminders. In the first place, there are no definite criteria for "pound for pound." No one knows exactly what it means. Second, it's almost entirely subjective. Third, the commonly-cited lists each have an obvious and distinct bias. It's a marketing tool, not an actual sporting title. Like all marketing tools, it aims at the dumbest members of society. Smart people who know boxing never refer to a "p4p list." It's only you idiots arguing about "resumes" all day who cite "the p4p list" as if it had anything to do with boxing. It doesn't. No, there isn't a criteria for pound for pound, but a fighter is still going to want to be on that list in The Ring Magazine, so it doesn't really matter what the fuck you think about pound for pound lists.

I don't really worry about the p4p list too much. People can argue all day about who's the best in the world and all that but what really matters to me are great fights and stylistic match ups.

You should have just said, "you're right mojack" and made things a lot easier on yourself. :bottle:

No.... Origin of the term It is often said to have been created to describe world Welterweight and Middleweight champion Sugar Ray Robinson. Robinson is one of the most accomplished fighter of the modern era, but his supporters realised that, while he could beat anyone in his own class, as a Middleweight he would not be able to beat a top Heavyweight. Hence, Robinson was called the pound-for-pound best without being expected to beat much larger fighters, under the belief that he as a Middleweight was still a better quality fighter than any fighter fighting at heavier or lighter weights than him. It's nothing to do with "if kelly was a heavyweight he's beat Wlad like a dog" If that were true what's that relative too? how an earth can you make that assumption? if Pav was a heavyweight he'd beat Wlad like a dog? That's like saying if my remote control car was the size of a real car it would be a lot faster. You're totally misunderstanding what P4P means. P4P lists should be separate lists for each division. you can't mix them, that makes no sense. You are dense. I'll leave it at that.

Pound for pound was originally created with the intention to rate people across weightclasses. Nr.1 would be the one who was most likely to beat every other fighter in every weightclass if they were the same weight naturally. You just demonstrated Kayjay's points. No.... Origin of the term It is often said to have been created to describe world Welterweight and Middleweight champion Sugar Ray Robinson. Robinson is one of the most accomplished fighter of the modern era, but his supporters realised that, while he could beat anyone in his own class, as a Middleweight he would not be able to beat a top Heavyweight. Hence, Robinson was called the pound-for-pound best without being expected to beat much larger fighters, under the belief that he as a Middleweight was still a better quality fighter than any fighter fighting at heavier or lighter weights than him. It's nothing to do with "if kelly was a heavyweight he's beat Wlad like a dog" If that were true what's that relative too? how an earth can you make that assumption? if Pav was a heavyweight he'd beat Wlad like a dog? That's like saying if my remote control car was the size of a real car it would be a lot faster. You're totally misunderstanding what P4P means. P4P lists should be separate lists for each division. you can't mix them, that makes no sense.

No.... Origin of the term It is often said to have been created to describe world Welterweight and Middleweight champion Sugar Ray Robinson. Robinson is one of the most accomplished fighter of the modern era, but his supporters realised that, while he could beat anyone in his own class, as a Middleweight he would not be able to beat a top Heavyweight. Hence, Robinson was called the pound-for-pound best without being expected to beat much larger fighters, under the belief that he as a Middleweight was still a better quality fighter than any fighter fighting at heavier or lighter weights than him. It's nothing to do with "if kelly was a heavyweight he's beat Wlad like a dog" If that were true what's that relative too? how an earth can you make that assumption? if Pav was a heavyweight he'd beat Wlad like a dog? That's like saying if my remote control car was the size of a real car it would be a lot faster. You're totally misunderstanding what P4P means The point is that there isn't a point, There is no definition for the term P4P.

Pound for pound was originally created with the intention to rate people across weightclasses. Nr.1 would be the one who was most likely to beat every other fighter in every weightclass if they were the same weight naturally. You just demonstrated Kayjay's points. No.... Origin of the term It is often said to have been created to describe world Welterweight and Middleweight champion Sugar Ray Robinson. Robinson is one of the most accomplished fighter of the modern era, but his supporters realised that, while he could beat anyone in his own class, as a Middleweight he would not be able to beat a top Heavyweight. Hence, Robinson was called the pound-for-pound best without being expected to beat much larger fighters, under the belief that he as a Middleweight was still a better quality fighter than any fighter fighting at heavier or lighter weights than him. It's nothing to do with "if kelly was a heavyweight he's beat Wlad like a dog" If that were true what's that relative too? how an earth can you make that assumption? if Pav was a heavyweight he'd beat Wlad like a dog? That's like saying if my remote control car was the size of a real car it would be a lot faster. You're totally misunderstanding what P4P means

your mum's car and a golf ball are the only items on your list that could score a knockout.... of course they couldn't do it alone, they need the help of a dirty, rotten chav. I'd have you.

Who cares, it makes perfect sense. In the un - arguement sense yes.

Pound for pound was originally created with the intention to rate people across weightclasses. Nr.1 would be the one who was most likely to beat every other fighter in every weightclass if they were the same weight naturally. You just demonstrated Kayjay's points. Exactly. There are different ways of understanding it, none of them definitive. Even if there were agreement on criteria, compiling the list would still be hypothetical. How do you compare dominance at HW to domainance at WW? People will say WW is a stronger division, but how do you determine that? There is no way to do so.

What the are u boys on about!?? Who cares, it makes perfect sense.

I know that. For the sake of non-argument. What the are u boys on about!??