The Real Meaning of "Pound for Pound"

[mick1303]

I think criteria #3 - requirement to move up (or down) is made up. There is clear anti-GGG agenda here. How did imaginary "being the same size" transformed to this? Why is GGG required to move outside his best and most effective weight? So what if other fighters lately hopping weights but rarely try to dominate one specific weight? IMO it has everything to do with money.

[FrankieClutch]

Remember, due to physical differences, smaller guys don't usually fight or win fights the same way big guys do. You won't see any HWs moving like Manny Pac and you won't see many FWs sending guys into seizures after a few punches like Wilder. Certain traits don't move up and down. The idea of P4P is rating who the best are, without just picking the biggest.

Also, and this is something that has swirled the interwebs so I have no idea if it's true, but wasn't P4P created specifically for guys who weren't in the HW division?

[BoxingIsGreat]

I think criteria #3 - requirement to move up (or down) is made up. There is clear anti-GGG agenda here. How did imaginary "being the same size" transformed to this? Why is GGG required to move outside his best and most effective weight? So what if other fighters lately hopping weights but rarely try to dominate one specific weight? IMO it has everything to do with money.

This was not all about GGG. The original poster even says GGG is his favorite fighter. He just came into the discussions. Are we not allowed to talk about him?

[Just looking]

I don't see how resume would or should affect a p4p list. We can't blame people for being in weak divisions. I generally judge by how a fighter deal with different styles, how their physical ability work in their division and how sistematic they are with their skills

[Boxing Goat]

It is quite annoying when you see boxers like Joshua, Wilder, Canelo, Thurman, Sor Rungvisai & even Golovkin (who is my favorite boxer) on top Pound for Pound lists.

My understanding of the P4P meaning is who is the skilled/best boxer if you take out the factor of weight differences.

I would consider the following:

1. Resume - Have they fought a beat a solid list of fighters including current/ex-champions, top contenders & gatekeepers?

2. Eye-Test - Just by observing them fight, is it apparent that they are highly skilled and possess many great qualities including power, speed, ring IQ, technique, movement/footwork, etc.

3.If skills they possess and which make them effective in their ordinary weight class can both be applied to & just as effective in a higher or lower weight class, then this should give them P4P consideration.

When I think P4P, I think of fighters like Lomachenko, Crawford, Mikey Garcia, Errol Spence Jr. These are the types of guys who can apply there skills and still be effective and dominant in other weight classes. These guys rely on other skills other than just power or size to win fights.

GGG for example has many skills. But his main tool is a jab, constant effective pressure and KO power in both hands. The style he fights won't be effective a SMW or LHW.

P4P means and has always meant who would win if all boxers were the exact same size.

End of thread.

[W1LL]

There are two meanings of P4P/pound-for-pound. The original meaning, of the Sugar Ray Robinson era, and the current day meaning. The original usage was for multi-weight, lineal champions.

[Lomasexual]

Exactly. OP used the original meaning of the term P4P which I avoid because I don't feel it's fair to the big guys. Smaller guys are always gonna LOOK more skilled because less mass typically leads to more agility which leads to more finesse.

The ole "If everyone was the same weight class" always tends to favor the smaller fighter for this reason. It's as if people don't realize that at equal size, no fighter will move the same. I like to keep things fair and simple. The fighter with the best resume is the best fighter in the sport.

Totally agreed. That kind of direct comparison makes no sense, and totally ignores the laws of physics.

The best we can do are indirect comparisons, seeing how each fighter is doing against their own relevant competition.

[boliodogs]

I don't agree with much of your definition of pound for pound. It's not resume or it would be called resume. Resume is what a boxer has already done. Pound for pound should be how good you think a boxer is right now based on how good he looks in very recent fights. It's about his potential and what you think he can do. It's just personal opinion and not provable fact unless two boxers are the same weight and fight each other. It's impossible to prove a lightweight is better pfp than a heavyweight. The eye test is by far the most important. What you actually see now in the ring should be the most important thing.Just because a boxer was great 2 or 3 years ago doesn't always mean he is still great today. If you think boxer A is better for his weight than boxer B you should place him higher even if b oxer B has a better resume. It doesn't matter how a boxer is good for his weight as long as he is good. Great puncher or great boxer, it doesn't matter as long as they beat everybody their weight. GGG's great jab, his pressure and his great two handed punching power to head and body would be just as effective if he was a natural lightweight or a natural heavyweight.

[Real King Kong]

Just stick to who they beat all that eye test crap is nonsense. So many fighters look fantastic when fighting low level opposition and then don't look so good when they step up.

Yet the eye test goes a long way in determining level of opposition in general. Who did a fighter beat and how did he look doing it and who had that guy beaten and how did he look etc. With so many ranking systems and belts, and with there rarely being situations with every fighter facing each other, it's down to the eye test to form our opinion of who the best fighters actually are. Or do you prefer some hollow ranking system where a guy ends up with a belt or #1 ranking for doing next to nothing? We all use the eye test to assign value to wins/losses.

[boliodogs]

I think criteria #3 - requirement to move up (or down) is made up. There is clear anti-GGG agenda here. How did imaginary "being the same size" transformed to this? Why is GGG required to move outside his best and most effective weight? So what if other fighters lately hopping weights but rarely try to dominate one specific weight? IMO it has everything to do with money.

I couldn't agree more. Fighting above you best weight is stupid and it doesn't make a boxer better. If a boxer moves up from lightweight to welterweight
he must now be judged pfp as a welterweight. The fact that he used to be a lightweight doesn't make him PFP a better welterweight. Crawford is now a welterweight and has to prove himself at welterweight. He will be competing against guys like Spence and Thurman for pfp rankings now and the fact the was once a lightweight doesn't give him any extra points. If you think Spence can beat him you should rank Spence above him PFP. Pfp is about being great in the weight class you are fighting in. It's not about winning titles in different weight classes by beating the weaker champions. Every time a boxer moves up in weight he is judged pfp by how good he is in his new weight class.