Can people make up their mind about P4P criteria?

**Bombardier** · 06-29-2005, 11:14 AM

In theory it should be based on pure talent but it's impossible not to work in a fighter's legacy as well. The thing is that even if a fighter is good you never know what's going to happen when oyu put him in the ring, and guys that have come out on top against a variety of opponents have proven that they could use their skills more than guys who have maybe fought a few good fights but don't quite have that longterm success yet.

I mean, how many guys had comeback Trinidad on their lists after the one fight with Mayorga? Sure, he looked good, but obviously we weren't getting the whole story.

You can scout fighters as much as you want but you can't learn everything about them unless they fight. So guys that have had good longterm careers usually linger on the lists for a while, and those that have not fought in a while fall off because people don't know much about their current abilities.

**elveiel** · 06-29-2005, 11:57 AM

It should be a who beats who ranking, i dont agree with Hopkins being number 1 because he's fighting bums and blown up fighters. He's never beaten a decent fighter who was naturally the same size as him so why should he be ranked a P4P king.

The 20 defences shouldnt be taken into consideration, only the last few should be. Its like saying DLH is P4P number 1 was he has been a 6 weight world champion, or if Hearns returned he'd get the top spot because he was once a great fighter.

**Martin (Top Knowledge)** · 06-29-2005, 12:44 PM

I've always considered P4P as - WHO would WIN, right NOW if weight wasn't a factor...

Coz' for example... Hopkins may have defended his IBF belt 20 times (despite that being against the same few guys)... If you think a 40yr old Hopkins would be able to keep a 26yr old Pacquiao off him (at the same weight) that would be ludicrous.

I think it should be done on who's the best now, not what they have achieved in their career.

**Manny_P** · 06-29-2005, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by martinwbc

I've always considered P4P as - WHO would WIN, right NOW if weight wasn't a factor...

Coz' for example... Hopkins may have defended his IBF belt 20 times (despite that being against the same few guys)... If you think a 40yr old Hopkins would be able to keep a 26yr old Pacquiao off him (at the same weight) that would be ludicrous.

I think it should be done on who's the best now, not what they have achieved in their career.

yup. Hopkins been on #1 way too long. He fights lesser and smaller opponents and that's part of the reason of his succesfull 20 title defenses. If he would move up and fight betta fightas like Calzaghe or Tarver (and beat em) then his rep on P4P would be betta than winning gainst 10 smalla opponents who moved up.

side note: I mean yea, the P4P confuses sum people cuz it/s mostly opinion based, but it shoulnt be too difficult to decide who are the BEST right now.

**Orange Sneakers** · 06-29-2005, 01:03 PM

Who is the best fighter in the world pound-for-pound? Who was the greatest fighter ever pound-for-pound? That's like asking which tastes better - an apple or an orange, or which is prettier - a rose or an orchid? It is very subjective. It is difficult enough to pick a winner between two fighters in the same weight class fighting at the time period much less attempting to decide who was a better fighter in his weight class at different periods of history.

There are two ways in which people look at this question. One is whether a fighter in his weight division is performing better against his opposition than other fighters in their divisions are doing against their opposition (i.e. is the Lightweight Champion doing better against his lightweight foes than the Heavyweight Champion is doing against his heavyweight opponents). This is purely speculative and much depends upon the personal preferences of the individual doing the rating as to style of fighting, overall skills of the fighters, quality of the opposition, etc.

The other way of looking at this question is - if all men were the same size (i.e. weight) then who would be the best ? If a good lightweight boxer were as big as a heavyweight but fought like he fights as a lightweight, would he beat all the heavyweights around? Or, if a good heavyweight boxer were as small as a lightweight but fought like he fights as a heavyweight, would he beat all the lightweights around?

Generally, as a man gets larger he gets heavier. As he gets heavier, he gets slower. This is not always the case but usually it is true. Since the lighter men are quicker and throw more punches they most often get the nod in "pound for pound" comparisons. One imagines that if Roy Jones Jr. was as heavy as Rid**** Bowe and fought like he does at his own weight, he would demolish all the big men. On the other hand, if Rid**** Bowe were as light as Jones and retained his power, he would probably knock the heads off the shoulders of his opposition.

It seems that most of the time, fans can see the "inflated" lighter man fighting at a heavier weight and still be awesome. Few of us realize just how brutal a larger man would be if he retained his power and chin as he was "scaled down" to a lighter weight. This "scaling down" is rarely done by fans and is a drawback in the ratings for the men of the heavier weight classes.

Possibly the criteria for the best ever "pound for pound" boxer would be a man who actually fights successfully in several weight classes over his career and, perhaps, under different rules or circumstances - rather than a man we "suppose" or "hypothesize" would do well in various weight classes. Of course, this is another drawback for the heavyweights because many of them do not fight across several weight classes.

Another consideration for "pound for pound" greatness might be how well a fighter handles larger and heavier men. It should be noted that most of the acknowledged great fighters throughout history often fought men larger than themselves with success. With increased regulation of boxing by commissions over the years, the number of fighters who go up against much larger and heavier men has decreased.

Hopkins would need to move up and defeat the likes of Calzaghe/ Tarver/ Johnson to even be considered as my number one "pound for pound" best.

**Bombardier** · 06-29-2005, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by martinwbc

I've always considered P4P as - WHO would WIN, right NOW if weight wasn't a factor...

Coz' for example... Hopkins may have defended his IBF belt 20 times (despite that being against the same few guys)... If you think a 40yr old Hopkins would be able to keep a 26yr old Pacquiao off him (at the same weight) that would be ludicrous.

I think it should be done on who's the best now, not what they have achieved in their career.

Yes, but people were putting Pacquiao way too high before he lost to Morales...you don't know how good a fighter is until he has been tested, which is why people usually go for the veterans first then they're making these lists.

I'm not saying you have to agree that Hopkins is #1, but he has done more to proove that he can be consistently successful in the ring than Pacquiao has.

**Orange Sneakers** · 06-29-2005, 01:10 PM

Fighters in history who have moved up through the weights with success include Bob Fitzsimmons, Ray Robinson, Nonpareil Jack Dempsey, Sam Langford, Harry Greb, Charley Mitchell, Joe Walcott, Henry Armstrong, Ted Lewis, Roberto Duran. They were the true "pound for pound" best.

**Manny_P** · 06-29-2005, 01:14 PM

Movin up in weight class and being successful HAS A BIG deal wit being the P4P great. Hopkins doesn't do that shyt. He sucks!

Pac in my opinion is on many's P4P list cuz he moves up in weight and beats top fightas. You can't deny that. Mayweatha moves up in weight, but I hope he fights otha fightas besides "BUMS" at 140.

**JUYJUY** · 06-29-2005, 01:23 PM

Mad props for you PP!

Can people make up their mind about P4P criteria?