Post your CURRENT top 10 P4P

[ikorolev]

p4p doesn't mean height for height.

If Wlad was a 6'4" welterweight with the exact same style, he'd still be effective. If you are lowering his size, then you would have to adjust his speed accordingly. He wouldn't be Floyd-fast, but Wlad had quicker feet than most of his competition, so he'd have to be among the fastest welterweights. He'd still have great power coupled perfectly with a style that is punishing to shorter opponents.

I think p4p tends to favor smaller fighters. They have more skills, so for example, we think of a 230 pound Floyd ... not so. If you just think of a 147 pound Wlad, it seems like a shitty fighter. But if you are willing to shrink someone, you'd have to factor in the relative change in other areas that would make them more competitive. Just like if increase someone's size, their speed and other factors would decrease.

I don't think Wlad fares well against Heavyweights without the size advantage. Just not a particularly skilled fighter, tremendous power and size. That's it.

That's because there is a reverse correlation between size and most of the skills. Valuev is an even better illustration of that.

[kidbazooka1]

Gonzalez
Ward
Rigo
Kovalev
Pac
Crawford
Canelo
Garcia
GGG
Fury

[BAD INTENTIONS]

p4p doesn't mean height for height.

If Wlad was a 6'4" welterweight with the exact same style, he'd still be effective. If you are lowering his size, then you would have to adjust his speed accordingly. He wouldn't be Floyd-fast, but Wlad had quicker feet than most of his competition, so he'd have to be among the fastest welterweights. He'd still have great power coupled perfectly with a style that is punishing to shorter opponents.

I think p4p tends to favor smaller fighters. They have more skills, so for example, we think of a 230 pound Floyd ... not so. If you just think of a 147 pound Wlad, it seems like a shitty fighter. But if you are willing to shrink someone, you'd have to factor in the relative change in other areas that would make them more competitive. Just like if increase someone's size, their speed and other factors would decrease.

I don't think Wlad fares well against Heavyweights without the size advantage. Just not a particularly skilled fighter, tremendous power and size. That's it.

We're look at p4p in two different ways. You are equalizing all things, in that sense, you are right.
Wlad, as is, as a 6' 2" fighter isn't as effective. But you have to admit he has very good power.

I am trying to be proportionate, so me and Horse are right in that sense.
Prime Wlad, proportionate height, strength and speed would be difficult in any division.

So, the argument isn't Wlad, it's our personal p4p preference.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I said he had tremendous power in the post you quoted. I think haye is better p4p than wlad. If they were the same size. Wlad loses. I just never saw a great fighter there. Very professional and his girl is smoking, not great for even a 3 or 4 fight stretch. P4p is bs anyway.

[Horse]

P4p is bs anyway.

P4P is not BS.

It's simply a list of who's the best in boxing.

What's wrong with that?

[ikorolev]

P4p is bs anyway.

P4P is not BS.

It's simply a list of who's the best in boxing.

What's wrong with that?

Yes, it is a BS. There is no accepted criteria on what exactly is taken in consideration. Lists purely based on resumes are ridiculous, as they are based on past achievements, not current strength. Saad's criteria is based on assumptions. Both that approach and approach based on fighters' domination in their weight classes are quite voluntaristic.

[Horse]

Yes, it is a BS. There is no accepted criteria on what exactly is taken in consideration. Lists purely based on resumes are ridiculous, as they are based on past achievements, not current strength. Saad's criteria is based on assumptions. Both that approach and approach based on fighters' domination in their weight classes are quite voluntaristic.

I suppose all divisional lists are BS as well then?

[Ilya Muromets]

Yes, it is a BS. There is no accepted criteria on what exactly is taken in consideration. Lists purely based on resumes are ridiculous, as they are based on past achievements, not current strength. Saad's criteria is based on assumptions. Both that approach and approach based on fighters' domination in their weight classes are quite voluntaristic.

This is what i have been saying for a long time now. The pound for pound thing is pure bs and it is really nothing but a list of someone's favorite boxers, generally favoring the little shrimps. It started off as a space filler in the useless rag Ring magazine.

[Horse]

The pound for pound thing is pure bs and it is really nothing but a list of someone's favorite boxers,

Only liars do that.

generally favoring the little shrimps.

Got a problem with the lower divisions?

[Ilya Muromets]

The pound for pound thing is pure bs and it is really nothing but a list of someone's favorite boxers,

Only liars do that.

generally favoring the little shrimps.

Got a problem with the lower divisions?

Yes i do. There are far too many of them - junior babyweight, super babyweight, super junior babyweight...seperated by like 3 pounds. Meanwhile a guy who's say 201 is supposed to be in the same division as giants outweighing him by 50 or 100 pounds.

There is no objective criterium for ranking so called pound for pounds.

[Horse]

There is no objective criterium for ranking so called pound for pounds.

Yet, most people can do it and most people's lists aren't too far off each other's.

[ikorolev]

There is no objective criterium for ranking so called pound for pounds.

Yet, most people can do it and most people's lists aren't too far off each other's.

ANYBODY can do it, and different lists are far enough to prove that there is no objective criteria and there is too much voluntarism.

[Horse]

ANYBODY can do it, and different lists are far enough to prove that there is no objective criteria and there is too much voluntarism.

Voluntarism?

[ikorolev]

ANYBODY can do it, and different lists are far enough to prove that there is no objective criteria and there is too much voluntarism.

Voluntarism?

Probably not a right word. What I meant is that p4p lists depend heavily on authors' opinions (versus some agreed criteria/algorithm).

[Evander]

1 is vacant let them earn it and box it out.

[Horse]

Probably not a right word. What I meant is that p4p lists depend heavily on authors' opinions (versus some agreed criteria/algorithm).

But most lists aren't that far off from each other, so P4P rankings are at least somewhat objective.

It's not total chaos and biases can seem pretty obvious when someone puts a fighter in a far different position than most other people do.

[crusader]

No one seems to have a problem saying one division is stronger than another in terms of ability/skill, or that a fighter in a certain division has accomplished more than particular fighters from quite different divisions, so I dont get all the opposition to P4P lists.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

P4p is bs anyway.

P4P is not BS.

It's simply a list of who's the best in boxing.

What's wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with it.

[ikorolev]

No one seems to have a problem saying one division is stronger than another in terms of ability/skill, or that a fighter in a certain division has accomplished more than particular fighters from quite different divisions, so I dont get all the opposition to P4P lists.

"A fighter in a certain division has accomplished more than particular fighters from quite different divisions" has easy criteria (fighter's resume) and is a base of record based p4p lists like boxrec one. We see that this is not a good way if we want to compare current abilities.

One division being stronger can be taken into consideration if you base a list on how fighters dominate their divisions. However, it is based on one's opinion, thus producing significantly different lists. Some may put Rigo or Canelo on top of their lists, while others won't include them in the top 5 or even 10.