p4p rankings(plz read)

[JAB5239]

okay you english is a bit off, and i dont quite uderstand what u mean...... and i called them idiots because they started with the insults.....

Actually, if you go through the post history you started with the insults. P4P is based on opinion not fact. I may not agree with your methodology, but that doesn't make it wrong. It doesn't make anybody else wrong ?(or an idiot) either. Like I said, its opinion. But most experts, historians and fans in general rate p4p different then you. If they didn't we would have to be rating guys who fought in times of only 8 weight classes, 1 title, and never won a belt much higher. No? Is there a difference between being a 3 time titlist in 3 divisions 5lbs apart and being a world champion in 1 division yet a top 5 fighter in divisions 10 and more lbs apart? I doubt it. Take into consideration glove size, same day weigh ins, fighting more often, and the argument can be made that its not even close. Its my opinion that if you fight the best available comp, mandatories, top 10, everybody, and you not only win but are dominant, p4p status should be taken into consideration. Beating a single guy with a title in 3 different weight classes isn't the same as contolling an entire division thru sheer domination. Styles make fights. Thinking one style trumps another doesn't make it so. P4P, in my opinion, can only be established through longevity and beating the best over and over.

[andrewcuff]

[/B]

Actually, if you go through the post history you started with the insults. P4P is based on opinion not fact. I may not agree with your methodology, but that doesn't make it wrong. It doesn't make anybody else wrong ?(or an idiot) either. Like I said, its opinion. But most experts, historians and fans in general rate p4p different then you. If they didn't we would have to be rating guys who fought in times of only 8 weight classes, 1 title, and never won a belt much higher. No? Is there a difference between being a 3 time titlist in 3 divisions 5lbs apart and being a world champion in 1 division yet a top 5 fighter in divisions 10 and more lbs apart? I doubt it. Take into consideration glove size, same day weigh ins, fighting more often, and the argument can be made that its not even close. Its my opinion that if you fight the best available comp, mandatories, top 10, everybody, and you not only win but are dominant, p4p status should be taken into consideration. Beating a single guy with a title in 3 different weight classes isn't the same as contolling an entire division thru sheer domination. Styles make fights. Thinking one style trumps another doesn't make it so. P4P, in my opinion, can only be established through longevity and beating the best over and over.

Fantastic post. Green K!

[Shadow boxer 3]

p4p doesn't mean you move up or down.

It means that if weight didn't exist and you all fought the same height and weight, your skills would be superior. You could fight your WHOLE career at the EXACT same weight and still be considered a p4p fighter.

Robinson, the reason the p4p list was started, fought up in weight, to get fights, not to test his skills, though both things eventually happened. But, when he fought at 175, he wasn't really 175. His skills just happened to be ruling the night, before fatigue set in.

Nonetheless, it's about your skills, if height and mostly weight were on an even playing field.

exactly. glad to see that someone knows boxing

[kocface]

p4p doesn't mean you move up or down.

It means that if weight didn't exist and you all fought the same height and weight, your skills would be superior. You could fight your WHOLE career at the EXACT same weight and still be considered a p4p fighter.

Robinson, the reason the p4p list was started, fought up in weight, to get fights, not to test his skills, though both things eventually happened. But, when he fought at 175, he wasn't really 175. His skills just happened to be ruling the night, before fatigue set in.

Nonetheless, it's about your skills, if height and mostly weight were on an even playing field.

ummm, robinson was good, but.....p4p started in 2000 lol
mosley was the first one when he was 34 and 0. even george foreman was like "whats pound for pound? i dont believe in pound for pound"
watch the mosley forrest fight

[andrewcuff]

ummm, robinson was good, but.....p4p started in 2000 lol
mosley was the first one when he was 34 and 0. even george foreman was like "whats pound for pound? i dont believe in pound for pound"
watch the mosley forrest fight

Haha

Pound-for-Pound was originally used to describe Ray Robinson. Not sure of the exact year, but watch an interview of Ali in the 60s when he's telling the world he's the greatest. The interview asks him does he mean the best boxer of all time to which Ali replies something along the lines of: "Am I the best heavyweight of all time, yes. Am I the best boxer of all time, pound for pound no, that honour gos to Sugar Ray Robinson.

And P4P ratings have been around for years. I think the Ring started publishing them late 80s/early 90s.

Don't listen tp George Foreman, he doesn't know ****!

[JAB5239]

ummm, robinson was good, but.....p4p started in 2000 lol
mosley was the first one when he was 34 and 0. even george foreman was like "whats pound for pound? i dont believe in pound for pound"
watch the mosley forrest fight

Somebody didn't do their homework and just got an F.

[Roger Mellie]

p4p doesn't mean you move up or down.

It means that if weight didn't exist and you all fought the same height and weight, your skills would be superior. You could fight your WHOLE career at the EXACT same weight and still be considered a p4p fighter.

Robinson, the reason the p4p list was started, fought up in weight, to get fights, not to test his skills, though both things eventually happened. But, when he fought at 175, he wasn't really 175. His skills just happened to be ruling the night, before fatigue set in.

Nonetheless, it's about your skills, if height and mostly weight were on an even playing field.

Co sign.This has,and always will be the definition of pound for pound.

[JAB5239]

Haha

Pound-for-Pound was originally used to describe Ray Robinson. Not sure of the exact year, but watch an interview of Ali in the 60s when he's telling the world he's the greatest. The interview asks him does he mean the best boxer of all time to which Ali replies something along the lines of: "Am I the best heavyweight of all time, yes. Am I the best boxer of all time, pound for pound no, that honour gos to Sugar Ray Robinson.

And P4P ratings have been around for years. I think the Ring started publishing them late 80s/early 90s.

Don't listen tp George Foreman, he doesn't know ****!

The term "pound for pound" was coined for Ray Robinson, yes. But if Im not mistaken the idea of the best overall fighter, regardless of weight, has been around for some time. I would look toward a more historicly versed mind though for a definitive answer. BattlingNelson, TheManchine, Silencers, KidMcCoy etc?

[a-raines21]

[/B]

Actually, if you go through the post history you started with the insults. P4P is based on opinion not fact. I may not agree with your methodology, but that doesn't make it wrong. It doesn't make anybody else wrong ?(or an idiot) either. Like I said, its opinion. But most experts, historians and fans in general rate p4p different then you. If they didn't we would have to be rating guys who fought in times of only 8 weight classes, 1 title, and never won a belt much higher. No? Is there a difference between being a 3 time titlist in 3 divisions 5lbs apart and being a world champion in 1 division yet a top 5 fighter in divisions 10 and more lbs apart? I doubt it. Take into consideration glove size, same day weigh ins, fighting more often, and the argument can be made that its not even close. Its my opinion that if you fight the best available comp, mandatories, top 10, everybody, and you not only win but are dominant, p4p status should be taken into consideration. Beating a single guy with a title in 3 different weight classes isn't the same as contolling an entire division thru sheer domination. Styles make fights. Thinking one style trumps another doesn't make it so. P4P, in my opinion, can only be established through longevity and beating the best over and over.

great post.... this is the kind of response i was hoping for when i started this thread

so u think performance is ultimate factor in determining p4p?

[a-raines21]

ummm, robinson was good, but.....p4p started in 2000 lol
mosley was the first one when he was 34 and 0. even george foreman was like "whats pound for pound? i dont believe in pound for pound"
watch the mosley forrest fight

wow....... u were mislead...
roy jones said" the bests p4p is mine...."in the song yall must have forgot, which came out in 99