P4P list is bull****

[Weltschmerz]

During the early days of boxing in England, while its hard to imagine now, there was still a tangible link to a time before the printing press and the subsequent mass production of materials. Monasteries which became universities, were centers of learning where books could be copied by hand, and read in the library...guarded by the monastery.

remnants of this culture suggest an oral culture where a fighter's expliots were dissected among the pugilist intelligencia, no doubt over beers in the pub.

Sometimes time seems fleeting and some times its amazing what we still have...there are precious few but one can still actually talk to a human being born just before the end of the 18 hundreds. And during the "Gotham" stage of New York in the forties there was a network of gyms where fighters learned their trade and men, some of whom were around for the first gloved fight, imbuede in discussion about who where the best fighters.

My point is...if we can imagine a smoke filled alcove in Gleason's gym, and two men with cigars and fedoras: "Max your a bum there aint no way no how Louis coulda licked Dempsey...." etc etc etc. That was how opinions were waged.

As interest faded and scribes from law school (Bert Sugar) took off their overcoats and loafers an abstraction was required, a way to memorialize, create a hollogram of that guy with a fedora, cigar and opinion in the gym. A way to condense the wisdom of pugialistic sages in refined form, and bring it to the less knowleagable masses...and these type of lists became very important.

For quite a time in combatives a man's reputation preceded him...Ja,es Fig hardly needed an intro at the fairs where he had a booth and even Dempsey, sitting at a table in his restaurant, was a commodity known primarily by reputation.

Do we lose something with these lists? I certainly think so.

Good story, you have an interesting posting style.

[soul_survivor]

I don't think that it is fair to compare fighters from flyweight to Heavyweight. Heavyweights are extremely favored on the p4p list when it takes less skill than the lighter weights to become champ, at least nowadays.

What are your thoughts?

That is not true at all, besides Wlad and possibly Vitali/Lewis at some point, which other heavyweights have featured on p4p lists? Whether the are fan made lists or publications, I bet you can not name a single heavy.

Post the golden age of the big man, only a handful of heavyweights have even been ranked p4p. These lists are mostly dominated by men from flyweight to middleweight or supermiddleweights, heck even light heavies find it difficult to get on there.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

I don't mean p4p list right now. I mean all time p4p list. For instance on most lists, it goes sugar ray robinson, ali, and Louis. That's two heavyweights, I'm not trying to attack the heavyweight division so I'm not going to focus anymore on that.

The number 1 spot is the only real reason that a p4p list exists. To me, it is more impressive to be the number 1 in multiple weights than just 1.

Its definitely much harder to rank 2 guys from completely different weight classes who will never fight versus just the same weight class where you can judge the opposition in each era.

When I said flyweights and heavyweights, I was just using an example of opposite ends of the spectrum. I didn't consider in anyway how easy it is to become a belt holder.

[NChristo]

I don't mean p4p list right now. I mean all time p4p list. For instance on most lists, it goes sugar ray robinson, ali, and Louis. That's two heavyweights, I'm not trying to attack the heavyweight division so I'm not going to focus anymore on that.

The number 1 spot is the only real reason that a p4p list exists. To me, it is more impressive to be the number 1 in multiple weights than just 1.

Its definitely much harder to rank 2 guys from completely different weight classes who will never fight versus just the same weight class where you can judge the opposition in each era.

When I said flyweights and heavyweights, I was just using an example of opposite ends of the spectrum. I didn't consider in anyway how easy it is to become a belt holder.

It's very rare you'll find a list that has Louis in the top 3, most lists go Robinson, Greb, Armstrong or something along them lines, Greb having an argument for being #1 in Middleweight and Light Heavyweight, Armstrong ranking in the top 5 or so at Featherweight and generally top 3 at Welterweight.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

It's very rare you'll find a list that has Louis in the top 3, most lists go Robinson, Greb, Armstrong or something along them lines, Greb having an argument for being #1 in Middleweight and Light Heavyweight, Armstrong ranking in the top 5 or so at Featherweight and generally top 3 at Welterweight.

boxrec has louis listed as #4 but only because archie moore is listed as #1 for some reason.

[NChristo]

boxrec has louis listed as #4 but only because archie moore is listed as #1 for some reason.

That's because Boxrec doesn't use a brain, they use this bull**** ''ELO'' system too rank, don't ask me what it is because it's some kind of mathematics formula I don't completely understand but it is flawed as ****.

Although, I'm sure someone could put forward an argument for Archie, it's not entirely out of this world.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

My point is that it's only use is in saying that a certain fighter is the greatest of all time. Other than that it holds zero weight.

[billeau2]

My point is that it's only use is in saying that a certain fighter is the greatest of all time. Other than that it holds zero weight.

Historically it gives perspective. Why were some fighters venerated by such extremes over others? Obviously because they were great fighters but what about, for example, Black fighters who were denied at certain times historically?

These lists anchor boxing into history...immigrant groups come and go, ***ish fighters in the 1800's along with the irish, then a few more Italians...etc.

[IronDanHamza]

That is not true at all, besides Wlad and possibly Vitali/Lewis at some point, which other heavyweights have featured on p4p lists? Whether the are fan made lists or publications, I bet you can not name a single heavy.

Post the golden age of the big man, only a handful of heavyweights have even been ranked p4p. These lists are mostly dominated by men from flyweight to middleweight or supermiddleweights, heck even light heavies find it difficult to get on there.

Hmm, let me just think for a second, does the name "Mike Tyson" ring any bells to you?

He was only P4P #1..

You're on fire today aren't you buddy

[soul_survivor]

Hmm, let me just think for a second, does the name "Mike Tyson" ring any bells to you?

He was only P4P #1..

You're on fire today aren't you buddy

Hi there Mr Genius, you clearly didn't read the comment I was replying to, in which the poster said "heavyweights are favoured...especially nowadays". Do you know what that means? It means in recent times and in that time frame only Wlad, possibly Vitali and going back 15 years Lewis have featured.

If you had a brain as big as you think you do, you would have been able to understand my second paragraph, where I clearly state that post the "golden age of heavyweight boxing" regarded as the age of Ali/Frazier/Foreman, I quite clearly point out that only a few heavies have made it on to the list, because that list would grow and include Holy, Tyson, Holmes etc.

Oh man, you do like getting owned by me, you seem like a sadomasochist.