Pound for Pound rankings are dumb !!!!!

[Collins2000]

Head to head Rahman wins because of his size, NOT because he was the better fighter. His size has nothing to do with skills. In terms of skills Sanchez was a million miles apart and in a different class. So Sanchez was the better fighter. Besides not always the better fighter wins. For example, is Tarver an overall better fighter than Roy Jones Jr.? And the fact is that Tarver has defeated Jones twice. Being able to win a fight does not always means that the winner is the better fighter.

Size matters more than skill in how good of a fighter you are. That's why they have weight divisions and not "skill" divisions.

You have clearly never boxed before.

You seen his photo? That is not a photo of a fighting man that is for sure. Cripes, I'd hardly say it was a man at all. Then throw in the voice...

Anyway back to reality, whenever Boxing News published a full list of active boxers in the UK welterweight was always the division most represented. Heavyweight and Flyweight always had the least active boxers.

[Robinson]

Head to head Rahman wins because of his size, NOT because he was the better fighter. His size has nothing to do with skills. In terms of skills Sanchez was a million miles apart and in a different class. So Sanchez was the better fighter. Besides not always the better fighter wins. For example, is Tarver an overall better fighter than Roy Jones Jr.? And the fact is that Tarver has defeated Jones twice. Being able to win a fight does not always means that the winner is the better fighter.

Size matters more than skill in how good of a fighter you are. That's why they have weight divisions and not "skill" divisions.

You have clearly never boxed before.

Size DOES matter when there is skill and athleticism behind it. I find that
in boxing or any striking sport size matters more than say in grappling.
BUT...when you have a fit, big arthletic guy in front of you...its a very hard
thing.

A 160lb marvin hagler would most likely, in fact would no doubt be able to
beat a 230lb Jess Willard.

[Big Bad John]

If "skill" is so important, why is Ricardo Mayorga fighting top boxers? Sure, perhaps one of the two or three best middleweights of all time can beat a mediocre heavyweight in Jess Williard, but most of the time, a heavyweight beats a middleweight.

Look at Roy Jones. He went up to heavyweight and won a title. After that one single match, he was never the same fighter.

[Borinken25]

In a p4p rating we rate skills not SIZE. I know that p4p rating are very subjective and open to interpretation. However, there is no way that you could rank Rahman ahead of Sanchez in any p4p ranking because he is not better than Sanchez in the skills department. Head to head is a different story and they could be done when you are talking about same weight class. However, the p4p ratings are necessary when you are assessing the overall abilities of a fighter. In this case Rahman does not come close to Sanchez in ability therefore he is the better fighter.

[Big Bad John]

However, there is no way that you could rank Rahman ahead of Sanchez in any p4p ranking because he is not better than Sanchez in the skills department. Head to head is a different story and they could be done when you are talking about same weight class.

I never said that I would rank Rahman ahead of Sanchez, pound-for-pound. Please learn to read.

However, the p4p ratings are necessary when you are assessing the overall abilities of a fighter. In this case Rahman does not come close to Sanchez in ability therefore he is the better fighter.

"Pound-for-pound" rankings are just a marketing ploy to get people interested in smaller fighters despite the fact that literally thousands of men could beat them. It's a sham. If you want to know which fighter is better, you put them in the ring. The one left standing is better. That is the basis of boxing.

[Jaywheel]

I never said that I would rank Rahman ahead of Sanchez, pound-for-pound. Please learn to read.

That's really only a matter of opinion. Hasim Rahman would kick the shit out of Sanchez if they ever fought, so it's kind of silly to say that Sanchez was a better fighter.

Opposites attract...

[Big Bad John]

Sanchez was better pound-for-pound, but overall, Rahman is the better fighter.

[dempseyfire]

If "skill" is so important, why is Ricardo Mayorga fighting top boxers? Sure, perhaps one of the two or three best middleweights of all time can beat a mediocre heavyweight in Jess Williard, but most of the time, a heavyweight beats a middleweight.

Look at Roy Jones. He went up to heavyweight and won a title. After that one single match, he was never the same fighter.

And losing to them???

Mayorga can be a wild fighter but any eye can see he's been solidly schooled in boxing fundamentals.

So Jones Jr was forever damaged by the 5 body shots Ruiz landed that fight?

Robinson, of course size does matter. But take a tough 250 lb street brawler and put him in the ring with an Antonio Margarito, and the street brawler's gonna get his ass kicked. Of course all things equal size can be a defining factor, hence why you'll find some of the best all time HWs (Louis, Ali, Johnson, Holmes) in top 20 all time pound for pound lists.

[Big Bad John]

So Jones Jr was forever damaged by the 5 body shots Ruiz landed that fight?

No, more by the 70 or 80 headshots Ruiz landed. And by dropping the weight off, and he'd been on a slight decline before the Ruiz fight - but you simply can't ignore the difference between Jones before the Ruiz fight and afterwards. Similarly, look at the difference between Billy Conn before and after the Louis fight, or Georges Carpentier after the Dempsey fight, or Mickey Walker after the Sharkey fight. Moving from middleweight to heavyweight's a risky business.

[dempseyfire]

So Jones Jr was forever damaged by the 5 body shots Ruiz landed that fight?

No, more by the 70 or 80 headshots Ruiz landed. And by dropping the weight off, and he'd been on a slight decline before the Ruiz fight - but you simply can't ignore the difference between Jones before the Ruiz fight and afterwards. Similarly, look at the difference between Billy Conn before and after the Louis fight, or Georges Carpentier after the Dempsey fight, or Mickey Walker after the Sharkey fight. Moving from middleweight to heavyweight's a risky business.

The weight drop clearly affected Jones for Tarver I, plus the fact that Jones was fighting the best light HW of his career that night. TO say Ruiz somehow put career altering beating on Roy is absurd.

Conn after Louis? Well besides beating all time great Tony Zale, I suppose the subsequent 4 years off due to World War II had no effect on Conn post 1942

After drawing with Sharkey, Walker would go on to beat King Levinsky, Paulino Uzucudn, and Maxie Rosenbloom . .some damaged fighter. You bringing up Walker actually hurts you argument, as at 5'7 170 lb he was able to defeat top HWs Risko, Levinsky, Bearcat Wright, Uzucudn, and draw with Sharkey.

[Borinken25]

Head to head Rahman wins because of his size, NOT because he was the better fighter. His size has nothing to do with skills. In terms of skills Sanchez was a million miles apart and in a different class. So Sanchez was the better fighter. Besides not always the better fighter wins. For example, is Tarver an overall better fighter than Roy Jones Jr.? And the fact is that Tarver has defeated Jones twice. Being able to win a fight does not always means that the winner is the better fighter.

Size matters more than skill in how good of a fighter you are. That's why they have weight divisions and not "skill" divisions.

What is your definition of better fighter? Whoever wins? Then by that logic Hector Camacho is a better fighter than Sugar Ray Leonard and Roberto Duran. The fact is that he holds wins over both of them. How about, Tarver? Is he better than Roy Jones Jr.? Is DLH better than Julio C. Chavez? Your logic has many flaws. Not always the winner is the better fighter. For me the better fighter is the one with the overall better skills not who has the size advantage. For example, how dominant was the fighter on his own weight division. Sanchez was a major force on his weight division; can you say the same of Rahman? Don’t think so, Sanchez is by far the better fighter.

[Big Bad John]

After drawing with Sharkey, Walker would go on to beat King Levinsky, Paulino Uzucudn, and Maxie Rosenbloom . .some damaged fighter.

Glad to see you read Boxrec instead of fight reports. Rosenbloom won both of those post-Sharkey fights with Walker. That second fight was a robbery. In both fights, Rosenbloom easily handled Walker, but in the rematch, the referee kept taking points away.

What is your definition of better fighter? Whoever wins? Then by that logic Hector Camacho is a better fighter than Sugar Ray Leonard and Roberto Duran. The fact is that he holds wins over both of them. How about, Tarver? Is he better than Roy Jones Jr.? Is DLH better than Julio C. Chavez? Your logic has many flaws. Not always the winner is the better fighter. For me the better fighter is the one with the overall better skills not who has the size advantage. For example, how dominant was the fighter on his own weight division. Sanchez was a major force on his weight division; can you say the same of Rahman? Don’t think so, Sanchez is by far the better fighter.

That's a false analogy because Duran lost to Camacho because he was so old. Same with Tarver over Jones and De la Hoya over Chavez. Prime-vs.-prime, Rahman DESTROYS Sanchez, and there's no way to argue he doesn't.

[Borinken25]

After drawing with Sharkey, Walker would go on to beat King Levinsky, Paulino Uzucudn, and Maxie Rosenbloom . .some damaged fighter.

Glad to see you read Boxrec instead of fight reports. Rosenbloom won both of those post-Sharkey fights with Walker. That second fight was a robbery. In both fights, Rosenbloom easily handled Walker, but in the rematch, the referee kept taking points away.

What is your definition of better fighter? Whoever wins? Then by that logic Hector Camacho is a better fighter than Sugar Ray Leonard and Roberto Duran. The fact is that he holds wins over both of them. How about, Tarver? Is he better than Roy Jones Jr.? Is DLH better than Julio C. Chavez? Your logic has many flaws. Not always the winner is the better fighter. For me the better fighter is the one with the overall better skills not who has the size advantage. For example, how dominant was the fighter on his own weight division. Sanchez was a major force on his weight division; can you say the same of Rahman? Don’t think so, Sanchez is by far the better fighter.

That's a false analogy because Duran lost to Camacho because he was so old. Same with Tarver over Jones and De la Hoya over Chavez. Prime-vs.-prime, Rahman DESTROYS Sanchez, and there's no way to argue he doesn't.

Sorry but your statements was:

If you want to know which fighter is better, you put them in the ring. The one left standing is better. That is the basis of boxing.

I don’t see anything about prime vs prime in your post. Size vs skills does make a difference just like prime vs past prime, but does not determine who the better fighter is. Agree?
Skills vs Skills Sanchez DESTROYS Rahman.

[Big Bad John]

Sanchez is dead, and Rahman is alive. Therefore Rahman is the better fighter. How far do you want to take this stupid argument? Sure, Camacho was better than Duran one night. I'm not saying that he wasn't. But at no time could Sanchez ever beat Hasim Rahman.

[Collins2000]

Sanchez is dead, and Rahman is alive. Therefore Rahman is the better fighter.

Classic Decagon. Reducing a reasonable discussion to the level of farce.

I missed your weirdo posts while you were banned, you funny looking bugger.

[ebeneezer]

**Yawns**

It's good to have Decagon back. I'd forgotten what a tool he was.

I can't wait till he meets that other tool Granberry.

It will be like the scene in the mental home where two blokes who both think they are Napoleon bump into each other.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hoa76Vf-u14

"whoooooaaa!! He's getting a little wee-eeettt!!!"

[observer1]

Sanchez was better pound-for-pound, but overall, Rahman is the better fighter.

no offense mate, i do agree that Hasim Rahman is a better fighter, but what you said makes no sense.... what so ever.

[Big Bad John]

The only concrete way we can measure how good a fighter is is by seeing who he can beat.

[Collins2000]

The only concrete way we can measure how good a fighter is is by seeing who he can beat.

Hard to understand what you are trying to get at here, Zac.

So because Joe Louis never fought Horizontal Jeff Pegues there is doubt in your mind as to who would have won?

[Big Bad John]

Just so you know, I have you on my "ignore" list, Collins. I can't read any of your posts.

[Collins2000]

Just so you know, I have you on my "ignore" list, Collins. I can't read any of your posts.

Just so you know Zac, I don't believe you.

Take care you don't accidentally respond to me in a fit of anger, or you'll have to construct yet another elaborate fantasy to explain it away...

[Expug]

All I know is some of those lil guys hit freakin hard.
Just yesterday my ten year old son asked me if I was gonna ever get my nose fixed.
Its bent real bad.
Here is one of the guys who did it.In the gym.
He was much lighter , only a welterweight.
Man I thought the ceiling fell on me. Kid hit hard.
http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer
Ive always felt that a skillfull little guy can do some damage.

[Borinken25]

Definition of oxymoron: conjoining contradictory terms (as in “Sanchez was better pound-for-pound, but overall, Rahman is the better fighter.”)

[Big Bad John]

When Zora Folley beat Bob Foster, who was the better fighter, the guy who won every round, or the guy who was more "skilled"?

[Borinken25]

When Zora Folley beat Bob Foster, who was the better fighter, the guy who won every round, or the guy who was more "skilled"?

Apparently you still don’t know how to read. I did say many times before not always the better fighter wins and that is a fact. Styles do make fights and not always the better skilled fighter wins. However, when comparing who the better fighter p4p you have to look at which fighter has the better overall skills. P4P are necessary when comparing two fighters from different weight classes and if you are going to compare Rahman vs Sanchez you have to compare them according to their accomplishments. Sanchez by far was more skillful and accomplished fighter than Rahman. Period and there is no way to argue against that.


In a p4p ranking, who do you rank higher Foster or Folley? Not head to head but p4p.