P4P: Does it really mean anything?

[oogiebe]

I've had some pretty heated debates on this topic. Many folks back one side or another for various reasons. I'd like to get this debate going again it its own thread.

Do you think P4P adds value? Does it really mean anything at all? Why?

I'm going to allow changes in votes until the end of the pole (7 days). Let's see what happens.

[gilgamesh]

It's essentially become a measure of star power. The guys that are on the Pound for Pound list are often the guys that are in demand to be seen by everybody.

[oogiebe]

It's essentially become a measure of star power. The guys that are on the Pound for Pound list are often the guys that are in demand to be seen by everybody.

I found it amazing how incredibly heated some folks are on this subject.

[Ilya Muromets]

It's essentially become a measure of star power. The guys that are on the Pound for Pound list are often the guys that are in demand to be seen by everybody.

Or so thinks whoever created the list. Like I said the stoopid thing is nothing more than some jerk's list of his favorite boxers, usually favoring the little fellers.

[oogiebe]

It's essentially become a measure of star power. The guys that are on the Pound for Pound list are often the guys that are in demand to be seen by everybody.

Or so thinks whoever created the list. Like I said the stoopid thing is nothing more than some jerk's list of his favorite boxers, usually favoring the little fellers.

X2X - all boxing trembles at the searing logic of your fiery intellect.

[tiny_acres]

It's essentially become a measure of star power. The guys that are on the Pound for Pound list are often the guys that are in demand to be seen by everybody.

Or so thinks whoever created the list. Like I said the stoopid thing is nothing more than some jerk's list of his favorite boxers, usually favoring the little fellers.

X2X - all boxing trembles at the searing logic of your fiery intellect.

You beat me to this.
When I see the word STUPID spelled wrong I lose a little bit of trust in the person's opinion.

[oogiebe]

Or so thinks whoever created the list. Like I said the stoopid thing is nothing more than some jerk's list of his favorite boxers, usually favoring the little fellers.

X2X - all boxing trembles at the searing logic of your fiery intellect.

You beat me to this.
When I see the word STUPID spelled wrong I lose a little bit of trust in the person's opinion.

Thanks! He's very funny, though.

[ValMar]

Something between......
Let us say - 50 % ...........
HWs have bad start position, definitely.........
If you try to compare Joshua and Lomachenko it is the same as you try to compare sprinter (Bolt) with a marathon runner.

[oogiebe]

Something between......
Let us say - 50 % ...........
HWs have bad start position, definitely.........
If you try to compare Joshua and Lomachenko it is the same as you try to compare sprinter (Bolt) with a marathon runner.

That was the best analogy on this subject that I've heard. I think you brought this poll to an end! JK.

[ValMar]

Something between......
Let us say - 50 % ...........
HWs have bad start position, definitely.........
If you try to compare Joshua and Lomachenko it is the same as you try to compare sprinter (Bolt) with a marathon runner.

That was the best analogy on this subject that I've heard. I think you brought this poll to an end! JK.

[Datsue]

I've had some pretty heated debates on this topic. Many folks back one side or another for various reasons. I'd like to get this debate going again it its own thread.

Do you think P4P adds value? Does it really mean anything at all? Why?

I'm going to allow changes in votes until the end of the pole (7 days). Let's see what happens.

It's weird that it gets heated, but it's entirely 100% subjective with no actual basis in reality as no two people can decide on the set of criteria by which they're judging. Normally, boxers are divided by weight category, there are clear-cut lines to "measure" one against the other. Remove the weight class constraint, & it's all fantasy.

Therefore, any comparison is meaningless & it's essentially Dungeons & Dragons for boxing fans.

[oogiebe]

I've had some pretty heated debates on this topic. Many folks back one side or another for various reasons. I'd like to get this debate going again it its own thread.

Do you think P4P adds value? Does it really mean anything at all? Why?

I'm going to allow changes in votes until the end of the pole (7 days). Let's see what happens.

It's weird that it gets heated, but it's entirely 100% subjective with no actual basis in reality as no two people can decide on the set of criteria by which they're judging. Normally, boxers are divided by weight category, there are clear-cut lines to "measure" one against the other. Remove the weight class, & it's all fantasy.

Therefore, any comparison is meaningless & it's essentially Dungeons & Dragons for boxing fans.

Maybe...just to give us hacks something to do!

[lazboy]

P4p is interesting when done with some logical explanation. For example, how does this fighters skill, athleticism, power etc translate to a higher or lower weight class. But basically it’s all guess work that can be argued well but guess work.

[littlepug]

Its just a fun thing for boxing nuts like us to do, the heavies are always difficult to put in as the division is almost a separate sport on its own

[oogiebe]

Its just a fun thing for boxing nuts like us to do, the heavies are always difficult to put in as the division is almost a separate sport on its own

Good points! We all love stats and rankings in the sports we follow...Heavy's are the only division without a limit, thus the challenges we face on our debates. Could that mean that a Fast Eddie Chambers should rate better on such a list compared to super heavy's?

[littlepug]

Its just a fun thing for boxing nuts like us to do, the heavies are always difficult to put in as the division is almost a separate sport on its own

Good points! We all love stats and rankings in the sports we follow...Heavy's are the only division without a limit, thus the challenges we face on our debates. Could that mean that a Fast Eddie Chambers should rate better on such a list compared to super heavy's?

I know its hard to judge

[HyacinthusTurnipseed]

At best it's a framework for giving credit to the actually most talented / most accomplished fighters in the world, regardless of fame or popularity and shining a light on them.

At worst it is just something extra for boxing fans to discuss and speculate on. Having an opinion on who is going to win an upcoming fight is mostly speculation (unless it is obvious), or who has the better resume (unless it is obvious); who is P4P #1 is really just a bit more speculative that those things.

A little too much more speculative for some people I suppose, though those who are absolutely vehemently opposed to the very idea of P4P are likely often that way for more personal reasons than that I reckon.

[oogiebe]

At best it's a framework for giving credit to the actually most talented / most accomplished fighters in the world, regardless of fame or popularity and shining a light on them.

At worst it is just something extra for boxing fans to discuss and speculate on. Having an opinion on who is going to win an upcoming fight is mostly speculation (unless it is obvious), or who has the better resume (unless it is obvious); who is P4P #1 is really just a bit more speculative that those things.

A little too much more speculative for some people I suppose, though those who are absolutely vehemently opposed to the very idea of P4P are likely often that way for more personal reasons than that I reckon.

[oogiebe]

It's essentially become a measure of star power. The guys that are on the Pound for Pound list are often the guys that are in demand to be seen by everybody.

Or so thinks whoever created the list. Like I said the stoopid thing is nothing more than some jerk's list of his favorite boxers, usually favoring the little fellers.

You're such a dork. <<<4 y/o

[jamamb]

interesting, i see lots of ppl say p4p rankings simply cant be done and are pure fantasy etc,

yet pretty much no one has a problem saying one division is stronger then another , or that loma is better and has a better record then alex ustinov , or that andre ward is better then john molina jr, etc

[Datsue]

interesting, i see lots of ppl say p4p rankings simply cant be done and are pure fantasy etc,

yet pretty much no one has a problem saying one division is stronger then another , or that loma is better and has a better record then alex ustinov , or that andre ward is better then john molina jr, etc

You are confusing making a value judgement ("Andre Ward is a better boxer than John Molina") supported by a technical argument ("...because he has superior footwork & a better defence") with the boxing equivalent of those nerd discussions about who would win in a fight, Batman or Superman ("If Joshua was 8st 3lbs, how would he fare against Sor Rungvisai? Or if they were both the same height? Or if Sor Rungvisai was nine feet tall?").

The latter is meaningless fantasy—rather than an observation based on like, things you can see & make a judgement on—simply because boxing is divided into weight categories. It's an artificial constraint that makes it a sport. It's what boxing is, rather than just fighting (which is part of why I throw my rattle out my pram when someone weight-cheats or does PEDs).

There is no agreed upon set of criteria to make size go away & therefore have a direct comparison between boxers in a definitive who'd-beat-who sorta way (because boxing weight divisions dividing factor is mass, so you end up with kerray-zee things like pretending it doesn't matter that Fury's 6'9" when trying to compare him to, say, Lomachenko—& that's fuckin' stupid 'cos Fury's entire style as a heavyweight is based on being taller & lankier than his opponent)...

Whereas anyone who's been around boxing for a long enough time & watches with enough interest & attention can look at, say, George Groves fights & Chris Eubank Jr fights & go "Oh yeah, Groves is a better technical boxer".

This is because when you're talking about skills, size doesn't come into it (though there's a good argument to be made that Fury for instance uses his height skillfully, but obviously this fact is impossible to translate across weight divisions 'cos as I said what do you do, pretend Canelo if he was fighting Fury would be 6'0" or 6' 5" or 6'10" or...?).

I fear however you're actually taking the piss & wanted to get into a conversation about the nature & limits of epistemology, in which case well done, I've taken the bait.

[Datsue]

At best it's a framework for giving credit to the actually most talented / most accomplished fighters in the world, regardless of fame or popularity and shining a light on them.

At worst it is just something extra for boxing fans to discuss and speculate on. Having an opinion on who is going to win an upcoming fight is mostly speculation (unless it is obvious), or who has the better resume (unless it is obvious); who is P4P #1 is really just a bit more speculative that those things.

A little too much more speculative for some people I suppose, though those who are absolutely vehemently opposed to the very idea of P4P are likely often that way for more personal reasons than that I reckon.

I'd be down with this mate if everyone in the entire world could get around a board table & thrash out via a series of heated debates the exact criteria by which they're ranking these dudes so as to make the comparison across weight divisions, 'cos then we'd know what we're talking about & e.g. wouldn't waste nine pages of forum arguing between two people 'cos one rates on accomplishments & the other on potential or whatever.

But by that stage I reckon you'd have more fun playing actual Dungeons & Dragons, like I said, & as I outlined to jamamb, any other useage of P4P is basically oxymoronic simply 'cos of the defining nature of one of the things that makes boxing a sport (i.e. the rule about weight).

But yeah, I actually have super secret Illuminati reasons for disparaging the idea of P4P, can I interest you in my pamphlet...?

[caldo2025]

I've always loved the P4P notion and make no mistake about it, it's extremely important to the boxers as well. I'd go as far as to say that it's more important than belts to a lot of boxers. If it's THAT important to them then it should definitely be something fans take into consideration.

My biggest problem with P4P discussions on this forum or with buddies over a beer, a lot of people do not know what they are supposed to be considering. Is it what a fighter has done? resume? ability? dominance? Is it all about KO's? knockout streaks?

My typical response and the easiest way to explain what is considered when determining P4P status is this. If everyone in Boxing weighed the same, to the ounce, who would be the best? Simple as that? That's all you need to consider. AJ vs. Loma in my mind, if they were the same weight, would be a beatdown by Loma. Not even close. It's easy, see?

[Ruthless-RKO]

My typical response and the easiest way to explain what is considered when determining P4P status is this. If everyone in Boxing weighed the same, to the ounce, who would be the best? Simple as that? That's all you need to consider. AJ vs. Loma in my mind, if they were the same weight, would be a beatdown by Loma. Not even close. It's easy, see?

As simple as that.

[jamamb]

interesting, i see lots of ppl say p4p rankings simply cant be done and are pure fantasy etc,

yet pretty much no one has a problem saying one division is stronger then another , or that loma is better and has a better record then alex ustinov , or that andre ward is better then john molina jr, etc

You are confusing making a value judgement ("Andre Ward is a better boxer than John Molina") supported by a technical argument ("...because he has superior footwork & a better defence") with the boxing equivalent of those nerd discussions about who would win in a fight, Batman or Superman ("If Joshua was 8st 3lbs, how would he fare against Sor Rungvisai? Or if they were both the same height? Or if Sor Rungvisai was nine feet tall?").

The latter is meaningless fantasy—rather than an observation based on like, things you can see & make a judgement on—simply because boxing is divided into weight categories. It's an artificial constraint that makes it a sport. It's what boxing is, rather than just fighting (which is part of why I throw my rattle out my pram when someone weight-cheats or does PEDs).

There is no agreed upon set of criteria to make size go away & therefore have a direct comparison between boxers in a definitive who'd-beat-who sorta way (because boxing weight divisions dividing factor is mass, so you end up with kerray-zee things like pretending it doesn't matter that Fury's 6'9" when trying to compare him to, say, Lomachenko—& that's fuckin' stupid 'cos Fury's entire style as a heavyweight is based on being taller & lankier than his opponent)...

Whereas anyone who's been around boxing for a long enough time & watches with enough interest & attention can look at, say, George Groves fights & Chris Eubank Jr fights & go "Oh yeah, Groves is a better technical boxer".

This is because when you're talking about skills, size doesn't come into it (though there's a good argument to be made that Fury for instance uses his height skillfully, but obviously this fact is impossible to translate across weight divisions 'cos as I said what do you do, pretend Canelo if he was fighting Fury would be 6'0" or 6' 5" or 6'10" or...?).

I fear however you're actually taking the piss & wanted to get into a conversation about the nature & limits of epistemology, in which case well done, I've taken the bait.

sir its my honour to have triggered such a response