BoxRec

Redback Rasta wrote:RING would have us believe Roman Gonzalez.

Followed by Wlad, GGG and then Rigo.

x2x wrote:I hate this "pound for pound" baloney they propagate now, as if it's something real. It started as a nothing but a space filler in the crap boxing rag, Ring. It's not any kind of objective rating at all. It's nothing but a list of somebody's favorite boxers, usually little squirts.

punchoutsb wrote:I tend to avoid HW's in p4p discussions because it goes against the point of p4p.

I'd go with Gonzalez at the moment, but GGG and Kovalev are right there.

And if Ward ever fights another legitimate world class opponent (at any weight) he'll most likely take the spot.

Redback Rasta wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:I tend to avoid HW's in p4p discussions because it goes against the point of p4p.

I'd go with Gonzalez at the moment, but GGG and Kovalev are right there.

And if Ward ever fights another legitimate world class opponent (at any weight) he'll most likely take the spot.

Personally I think it is wrong to disregard the claims of heavyweights in P4P assessments. If a heavyweight happens to be far and away the most dominant fighter on the planet he deserves to be P4P #1.

punchoutsb wrote:

Redback Rasta wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:I tend to avoid HW's in p4p discussions because it goes against the point of p4p.

I'd go with Gonzalez at the moment, but GGG and Kovalev are right there.

And if Ward ever fights another legitimate world class opponent (at any weight) he'll most likely take the spot.

Personally I think it is wrong to disregard the claims of heavyweights in P4P assessments. If a heavyweight happens to be far and away the most dominant fighter on the planet he deserves to be P4P #1.

I can definitely see that point of view. I've just always looked at HW's as the absolute since they have no weight limit. There is no doubt that Wladimir Klitschko beats Floyd Mayweather or Roman Gonzalez head to head, so why bother including him in p4p which was essentially created to give press time to the little guys?

Redback Rasta wrote:quote]
P4P does not mean head to head. If it did the guys at the top end of the P4P ratings always be the big guys. P4P factors in weight difference.

punchoutsb wrote:I tend to avoid HW's in p4p discussions because it goes against the point of p4p.

punchoutsb wrote:

Redback Rasta wrote:quote]
P4P does not mean head to head. If it did the guys at the top end of the P4P ratings always be the big guys. P4P factors in weight difference.

I know. And since HW is the absolute champion (head to head), there is no point to me in including the absolute champion in p4p discussions. I tend to avoid CW's too.

P4P is all arbitrary and opinion based anyway. I like to use p4p for the smaller guys only really.

Lackeos wrote:I wouldn't mind Wladimir Klitschko being the new #1, given that he's won 25 world title fights, has been the reigning king of his division for 9 years, was ranked as the previous #2 p4p by some sources, has been p4p top 10 for over 5 years, and is top 10 all-time in his division. After next month, his rating on boxrec is gonna be like 400 points higher than the next highest guy. He's cleared out his division multiple times since 2006, and in the course of doing so, has scarcely even been in a close fight. Even Mayweather has been in a ton of fights that were pretty close, or where he was barely nicking each round.

Andre Ward would also be a reasonable new #1. He dominated Chad Dawson, Carl Froch, Mikkel Kessler, and Arthur Abraham. A lot the other fighters that people are nominating barely have 1 scalp that's as good as Carl Froch, let alone several others of good quality. I think people are merely biased against Ward because of his inactivity, his style, and his alias.

punchoutsb wrote:I tend to avoid HW's in p4p discussions because it goes against the point of p4p.

Not really. The whole reason it exists is so a middleweight can say "I can't beat a heavyweight straight-up, but I'm better than him pound-for-pound." If you don't include heavyweights in pound-for-pound discussions, then SRR or Armstrong lose the ability to say "I'm better than him pound-for-pound." They have to instead say "I can't beat a heavyweight straight-up, and also punchoutsb prohibits me from commenting on whether I'm better than him pound-for-pound." It's absolutely essential that heavyweights are including in pound-for-pound comparisons. This is precisely why the concept was invented.

Redback Rasta wrote:

Lackeos wrote:I wouldn't mind Wladimir Klitschko being the new #1, given that he's won 25 world title fights, has been the reigning king of his division for 9 years, was ranked as the previous #2 p4p by some sources, has been p4p top 10 for over 5 years, and is top 10 all-time in his division. After next month, his rating on boxrec is gonna be like 400 points higher than the next highest guy. He's cleared out his division multiple times since 2006, and in the course of doing so, has scarcely even been in a close fight. Even Mayweather has been in a ton of fights that were pretty close, or where he was barely nicking each round.

Andre Ward would also be a reasonable new #1. He dominated Chad Dawson, Carl Froch, Mikkel Kessler, and Arthur Abraham. A lot the other fighters that people are nominating barely have 1 scalp that's as good as Carl Froch, let alone several others of good quality. I think people are merely biased against Ward because of his inactivity, his style, and his alias.

punchoutsb wrote:I tend to avoid HW's in p4p discussions because it goes against the point of p4p.

Not really. The whole reason it exists is so a middleweight can say "I can't beat a heavyweight straight-up, but I'm better than him pound-for-pound." If you don't include heavyweights in pound-for-pound discussions, then SRR or Armstrong lose the ability to say "I'm better than him pound-for-pound." They have to instead say "I can't beat a heavyweight straight-up, and also punchoutsb prohibits me from commenting on whether I'm better than him pound-for-pound." It's absolutely essential that heavyweights are including in pound-for-pound comparisons. This is precisely why the concept was invented.

Spot on. The simplest yet probably most accurate explanation of P4P is a "comparison given that all fighters are all the same size."

So if you are comparing Wlad to Floyd P4P it is on the basis they are the same size.

punchoutsb wrote:

Redback Rasta wrote:
Not really. The whole reason it exists is so a middleweight can say "I can't beat a heavyweight straight-up, but I'm better than him pound-for-pound." If you don't include heavyweights in pound-for-pound discussions, then SRR or Armstrong lose the ability to say "I'm better than him pound-for-pound." They have to instead say "I can't beat a heavyweight straight-up, and also punchoutsb prohibits me from commenting on whether I'm better than him pound-for-pound." It's absolutely essential that heavyweights are including in pound-for-pound comparisons. This is precisely why the concept was invented.

Spot on. The simplest yet probably most accurate explanation of P4P is a "comparison given that all fighters are all the same size."

So if you are comparing Wlad to Floyd P4P it is on the basis they are the same size.