Fights where if everything was equal fighter B would've beaten fighter A

you Are just wasting time with a comment like that. Shows you don’t know ... about boxing. Where'd you go? No response?

you Are just wasting time with a comment like that. Shows you don’t know ... about boxing. Floyd was 150 some pounds on fight night against De La Hoya. Maybe 155 TOPS. Oscar was what? 167? Oh my god.... 12 pounds?? On fight night, Mayweather reportedly weighed 150 pounds, and Álvarez came in at 165 pounds. Say it ain't so?

you Are just wasting time with a comment like that. Shows you don’t know ... about boxing. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/Henry_Armstrong.jpg/250px-Henry_Armstrong.jpg

Rigo hoe ass begged for the Loma fight. i accept no excuses. that clown retired from social media after that bullsht.

8 pounds... LOL... I wish more people understood boxing on this forum. It's really going down hill. you Are just wasting time with a comment like that. Shows you don’t know ... about boxing.

If Gamboa was bigger and kept speed he wuda beat TC...Now yall gat me wondering about Loma vs Rigo..Rigo made Loma miss alot of punchea that night

Maidana vs the gay one. With the gloves that were approved.

Hmm...ok, after read the thread I do think I should explain some things. Boxing was not invented to be a sport it was invented to be a martial art for war. Boxing as a war training does not see weight as an advantage of disadvantage but rather a point of fact. Big men fight like this, small men like that, both are equal and deadly as **** sort of thing. But them bigger doe is no excuse for a general in any culture let alone a Hellenistic based one. When boxing starts to become a sport there are loads of things to figure out but most important among them is how to keep boxers alive. The number one killer in boxing, and the reason why all the old champions are on the smaller side, was exhaustion. Smaller fighters would exhaust larger ones then KO them. The larger fighter often died later. Time limits were brought in to limit deaths due to exhaustion. This also stripped the smaller boxer of his natural gameplan derived from the wartime martial art boxing used to be. He could no longer stay away and tire his opponent. Now he had to get ahead early and stay ahead. This proved to be too big an obstacle for smaller men and they started to be killed off as well. Weight division minimals were needed. It seems to me, reading this thread, some of y'all believe men have gotten larger over time. This is a misunderstanding. If say Wlad or Tyson were actually bigger men than what used to be produced in 1790 then that friends is evolution proven rather than a theory. It would be big ass news. Since you've not seen anyone with any credibility pointing to sports as proof of evolution I have to wonder why you seem to believe big men exist now but did not when rules allowed them to fight smaller men. They did exist. it is crazy to me how little pride their is in being the average sized man. Average size is average because it is the best. No one looks at little people or the mentally handicapped and thinks man-o if those guys were around in 1820 those 1820s ****ers would have been ****ed but for some reason we look at giants and forget they needed average folk for them to survive up to this point as much as retards and midgets did. It's because we, average men, survived the natural world and invented man's world they are able to thrive. Boxing, outside of boxing, doesn't matter; It is true for all of human history. What would happen to Wlad in 1820? He'd likely get killed if he tried to be a boxer before he made much more than a local name for himself. Either that or Wlad's a magical giant who doesn't need the support of the industrialized world or he's proof of evolution. So, if you don't believe in magic and are still waiting on evolution to be more than a theory then the likely answer is Wlad gets killed unfortunately. That said, when there are no rules it you who dominates. You, the average sized man, are perfect in every way. There is no environment of earth too harsh for you to thrive. No situation too much for you to handle. The only way you are limited is if you agree to your own limitations. It isn't giants who built this world it is you. It's your generosity that allows them to be more than a burden on society. I don't know if that answers anything but I felt it needed to be said. Not enough pride in average size when in fact LW-CW are the real killers. The sport has rules to protect everyone else from lw through cw but just look at their skills and recognize at least the surface of their history. It really isn't hard to see; without rules those guys would dominate. P4P is today whatever you make of it. Different people and publications have different rules. Personally I like the original. It should be a title awarded by fans to whoever is not the HW champion but should be seen as an equal representative to the HW champion because they display such fine skills. You watch the HW for casual entertainment and P4P for high class skills. That said, lists are an affront and HWs being on those lists are even worse. When Wlad was the clear lineal HW champion Floyd was the p4p champion. Under Fury's reign I reckon it ought to be Loma but will wait on consensus by fans. P4P should not reflect what if weight wasn't an issue as in growing or shrinking characters. You can not shrink Wlad or grow Marciano and expect them to even want to fight like they did in their former sized body. P4P is meant to reflect a champion who could very well be they man if rules did not create weight advantages. Good post. In regards to P4P. I'm not sure why people get so confused by it. It's literally the simplest thing ever to contemplate. Guy A is 220 pounds and is heavyweight champion Guy B is 147 pounds and is welterweight champion MYTHICALLY all of a sudden they're the exact same weight... Who wins the fight? That's who's P4P better. Not sure why it gets so confusing.

8lbs weight difference - 3in in height, 10 years in age. It's almost equivalent to Lomachenko moving up to fight Crawford. Loma is 5 7 and 135lbs...Crawford is 5'8 and 147 lbs from a weight perspective...not considering age. Even Loma said Rigo was too small 8 pounds... LOL... I wish more people understood boxing on this forum. It's really going down hill.

Yeah, I totally agree. I watched the fight live and thought it was great. Glovkin almost knocked out Brook in the first round, but Brook did really well to rally later in the round, but Golovkin won it. I can't remember how I scored the other rounds, but I had Golovkin ahead on points at time of stoppage. I know, insane. GGG literally didn't even drop him and they threw in the towel. Guys are mental.

Wat. I would definitely like an explanation for this one. 8lbs weight difference - 3in in height, 10 years in age. It's almost equivalent to Lomachenko moving up to fight Crawford. Loma is 5 7 and 135lbs...Crawford is 5'8 and 147 lbs from a weight perspective...not considering age. Even Loma said Rigo was too small

Maybe Lomachenko vs Rigondeaux Wat. I would definitely like an explanation for this one.

Maybe Lomachenko vs Rigondeaux I was torn on this one. Skill wise, they are both pretty even. Loma is the busier fighter though.

Maybe Lomachenko vs Rigondeaux

Klitschko vs Povetkin and David Haye

The narrative that Golovkin was out boxed in the first 4 rounds by Brook is simply not true. Its been repeated so many times that people are taking it as fact. In the first round for example Golovkin landed 30 punches vs 19 for Brook. He out landed him in every round and at a higher percentage. I don't know how this nonsense got started but it's ridiculous. I agree. Brook won a round, possibly two. He landed some flush shots, so people automatically say GGG was outboxed. I bet half the people who say that didn't even watch the whole fight.

Baldimore beat Judah would be your prime example or Leon Spinks beating Ali. Buster Douglas beat Mike Tyson

Then why does P4P exist then? Cos boxing fans love to argue over shit I think. That's my best theory anyway.:lol1: Nah. The dude to ask about how the term arose is probably my man Marchegiano, but for me it's essentially in recognition of the fact that pretty much every thinking person recognises that size matters... and that no matter what folk would have you believe bigger ain't always better. Problem is - how the f do you even start to compare guys who can never fight? And it's just as bad when folk start trying to make fantasy match ups between current fighters and great fighters from the past. Meh. But that's just me trying to suck the fun outta everything. Boxing forums wouldn't exist if boxing fans weren't allowed to do that weird fantasy shit I think.. :lol1:

Crawford's best attribute has been his ability to adjust mid fight. gamboa loses at any weight to bud. crawford is s a more complete fighter brook loses to ggg at any weight. not because of size or talent but because he isnt willing to go through hell to win a fight. the spence fight proves this. brook was winning the fight and once it got tough. brook fell apart. ggg is very beatable, but you have to be willing to go through some fire to beat him. brook aint that guy i wont argue with you on duran vs hagler yes, he is more complete but if he was the same size and still had that power and speed, he would've iced him.

You do get that if you make a smaller guy bigger it slows him down and reduces his stamina, doncha? That the advantages which allowed them success would be reduced or neutralised? It's one of the (many) reasons why P4P is such a ridiculous concept, too. Different attributes are required in different proportions for success at different sizes. Then why does P4P exist then?