-
-
P4P aint just about skills IMO.
Skills need to be tested with the right fighters. If Chad Dawson got Margarito to move up 3 weight divisons and displayed his skills for 12 rounds, does that mean he is P4P number 1? I try to see things in context, and what I would think is okay, he faced a smaller guy who couldn't hurt him. He faced a style that was made for him. Marg is too slow and too small for him. Just because Dawson had the chance to display his skills against a fighter out of his depths, does that mean he should be ranked higher because of his skills?
To me P4P has to factor everything. You recent fights and who you fought. Did you move up in weight? How did you look? What have you achieved? What belts have you got or had? AND also your skills like ring generalship, defence, offense etc... I also count power because power can be lost at higher weights.
You can't judge P4P by talent and skills alone, or perhaps maybe Chambers would be in the top 10 because he's pretty skilled for a heavyweight.Comment
-
How do we know how good Floyd Mayweather's skills are when he never tests them? P4P is based on a combination of skills and who a fighter has tested those skills against.Comment
-
Ok. Well. Ummmm...
Actually, the mythical P4P rankings is only about resume. As you yourself said, Mayweather beat Marquez easily whereas Pac struggled mightily, if not lost twice. Even if someone is not classically skilled in some Mayweather, Leonard kind of way but they beat many, many great fighters and have a stunning resume, they will be ranked higher because they beat better fighters.
Mayweather is more skillful than Pac, but Pac has achieved more and beaten better fighters across his whole career, therefore he is higher P4P than Mayweather. Nonetheless, this whole P4P thing that has everyone so idiotically obsessed these days is just pure speculation and opinion. The fact remains though that being great is all about resume. Who you beat. Mayweather is very skillful but you can't base his supposed greatness on how skillful he may be, because unless he beats great opponents you have no idea how they will stack up to true greatness. As we saw in recent years, one of the most physically gifted and skillful fighters, Zab Judah, folded when in with real greatness. His skills folded under pressure but he showed amazing ATG-like skills against the top contenders and lesser champions.
However, Pac destroyed Hatton is two rounds and stopped Oscar, something only B-Hop had ever gotten done previously and no one else. Now, no doubt you'll say they were shells of themselves and Oscar had to move down to 147 etc etc. Well, Marquez had to move up two divisions and he was as old as Oscar and has had many more fights and a hell of a lot of really hard wars.
But, the point of this is that you are flat out wrong. P4P is about resume. Some of the most skillful fighters ever have left this sport undefeated and they dominated their divisions, won more title in more than one weight class etc etc, and yet they don't rank above any of the top ten fighters. Why is that? That is because they didn't have the resume of a Robinson, Duran, Armstrong, Ali or Leonard.
Skills don't mean jack-**** unless you test them consistently against the greatest challenges and unless you have shown that you can beat every style and every type of fighter. Unless you have an incredible resume, nothing can be proven and no matter how skillful something might look, unless they have beaten truly great opposition they'll never be highly regarded and nothing can be proven, including their supposed skills.Last edited by BennyST; 09-23-2009, 06:28 AM.Comment
-
In all truthfulness, he's actually making you look like a bit of an idiot.
Just answer those questions. That's what this thread is all about. You contend that it's all about 'skills', whatever that means, whereas he is obviously saying, "No, it's who you beat, because supposedly lesser skilled fighters can beat the supposedly better, more skilled fighters"
Seriously man, just answer them. The avoiding thing isn't making you look good nor is the way you're coming back at him with the 'scared' crap.Comment
-
No its about opposition and risks you take, anyones skills can look great if you cherry-pick your opponents.Comment
-
So what? He also moved up to WW for the first time and outweighed the welterweight he was fighting. In fact, he was bigger in every respect then the supposed bigger man. So, what point are you trying to make?
While he may have been outweighed, he wasn't the smaller man per se. He had a massive reach advantage, which as a boxer is more important than having more weight and he was also very slightly taller.Last edited by BennyST; 09-23-2009, 06:42 AM.Comment
-
Pound for Pound is About SKILLS not OPPOSITION
This is my biggest gripe with Dumb ass Boxing fans, how can you be a better fighter when the other guy has beaten better fighters ? its obvious you get away with stuff against lesser fighters that you cant get away with top calibre opposition and you have just said yourself that that "Pound for Pound is About SKILLS not OPPOSITION" so basically you are admitting that Mayweather's resume is inferior, which it clearly is.
There is no commonsense at all to your argument. How can someone like Dirrell be better than Froch because he has more skill, when Froch has proven himself against Taylor, Pascal and Dirrell has prove himself against Paschall, Findley, Hanshaw?
Its a dumbass thing to say that only a moron would say. We are supposed to rate him higher because in your fantasy match up his skills would help beat this fighter that fighter.
You have to prove it in the ring, thats what your measured on, thick ****.
Comment
Tweet
Comment