BoxRec

Yes I know it is sacred and sacrilege to say this, especially on
a boxing forum, but here is my argument and why I do not like
them.

Bigger men have different attributes and qualities to a smaller
man.

Middleweights and the middle divisions are in some ways a marriage
of these attributes and qualities.

Being heavier you are naturally slower and well carry more weight
around, which has draw backs and benefits.

A prize fighter fights according to his body type and how his
body and mind respond to training and influences.

I have never under stood the whole lb4lb argument. Size and
weight does make a difference.

What are the criteria for having a lb for lb list, how does one
qualify ? it seems peoples criteria, whether fans or experts
differ.

I know not many share my thougts on this, then so be it.

I just can not or do not know how to make a lb for lb list...

take care guys

Kym

**Yawns**

Coffee ?

Big Bad John wrote:**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.

:) that would make a pretty cool movie...

"My two Napoleon's"

winner of 2008 cannes film festival.

I'm familiar with Granberry's work, both under his current username and his previous ones. The difference is that he says the least with the most word, and I say the most with the fewest words.

And I say nothing at all...

Well, Lennox Lewis was a better fighter than Rocky Juarez. One is a Heavyweight, one a Featherweight, but that would not be a controversial statement. Salvador Sanchez was a better fighter than Hasim Rahman. Vice versa, but ditto. Hence, if you can say that much, then you can formulate a list. Its all subjective, of course, but it is possible to try to determine who is better; the bigger man or the smaller man.

I think you look at what they achieved in the ring to try and bring about an idea of who the top fighters are regardless of weight class.

HWs are at a disadvantage when compared to other weight classes as the fighters can move up a division(s) so they have a greater range of fighters they can face to further their legacy.

The only fighter Lewis could face was Butterbean

Some people really discriminate against heavyweights. They assume that a fighter at a lower weight is would be better if they were the same size as a fighter that is a heavyweight. That may or may not be true. It should be decided on a case by case basis.

Moving up in weight (which the vast majority of fighters in the lower weight classes do) and winning multiple titles also seems to impress people more than a fighter who began his career as a heavyweight and just beats the best heavyweights. Obviously he can't win more titles.

On the other hand, most people are more familiar with heavyweights so if you do an extended list they do well. A Max Schmeling or a Floyd Patterson might make a Top 100 but the #5 Flyweight won't.

If you look at many All-Time Pound For Pound Lists, you will see that guys that were the very best at a lower weight class are usually pretty high (Pep,Armstrong,Wilde) and you certainly can make an arguement for them.
However, if you look at an extended Pound For Pound List (Say a Top 50 or Top 100 or more) then you don't see too many guys in the lower weight classes. ie You don't see 10 Flyweights in the Top 50, maybe just one.

Another problem is the term "Pound For Pound" itself? What exactly does that mean? Are we supposed to imagine how Ray Robinson would have been if he weighed 210 and had the same skills? Are we supposed to imagine Joe Louis as a welterweight?
Are all heavyweights considered the same? In other words if you consider a smaller heavyweight to be even with Lennox Lewis, should you rank the smaller heavyweight higher? Or are they the same since they are both heavyweights?
If people have different interpretations of what "pound For Pound" means, it's not surprising that that you see lists that vary quite a bit.

It's probably better to just say something like "This is a list of the Top 10 (or whatever amount) fighters" and leave it at that.

I don't understand what's so dumb about it . . .fighters regardless of weight display skills associated with the sport of boxing. You have complete fighters through all weight classes . . .Joe Louis, Marvin Hagler, Eder Jofre etc. were all complete fighters who showed skills that could have transcended their own division they fought in at the time.

I don't think the HWs are discriminated against at all. More people around the world weigh 125-170, hence why those divisions are historically much stronger than Heavyweight, and produce more complete fighters overall.

There's no division in boxing that has anywhere near as many fighters as the heavyweight division does. There's a bigger talent pool, and it means a lot more to be the best heavyweight in the world than it does to be the best jr. bantamweight in the world. Take Wladimir Klitschko. He's arguably the most dominating fighter in boxing, and he's in the division with the most fighters, yet people rank Manny Pacquiao and Joe Calzaghe above him pound-for-pound because Pacquiao and Calzaghe beat a couple of old fighter that were really good years and years ago.

I think too many people take pound-for-pound too seriously. Lots of fighters can beat Pacquiao and Calzaghe. No fighter in the world would be better than a +250 underdog against Wlad except perhaps his brother. Pound-for-pound rankings are fun, but let's not see them for anything other than what they are: a marketing ploy.

Demspeyfire,
You might not discriminate against heavyweights on "Pound For Pound Lists", but some people do. (I do want to make it clear that I don't think any heavyweight today is anywhere near the top of current "pound For Pound Lists)

For example, going by Ring Magazine yearly rankings, there is seldom a heavyweight in the Top 5 in the 1990's which was a pretty good decade for heavyweights.

In All-Time Rankings, you often see Top 10 and even Top 20 Lists with no heavyweights.

It's probably true that more people in the world weigh 125-170. However, you have to consider that 125-170 isn't just one weight class.
Right now, there are 8 weight classes in that weight range.
There have been 7 since the early 1960's.
Even before that there were 4.

As a result, the talent pool is divided. There are less people in one particular weight class than there are heavyweights.
So often (though certainly not right now) there is less depth in these weight classes than there are in the heavyweight division.

If you go to the lower weight classes it's even more apparent. There are 6 weight classes below featherweight. If there were only 2, there would be much more talent in each division.
Take Jr Flyweight. The limit is 108 and the weight limit a class below it is 105.
How many people weigh more than 105 but not more than 108?

It isn't usually as difficult to win a title at these weight classes as it usually is at heavyweight. A guy could win a title at 105,108, and 112 and that may not have been nearly as difficult as winning a title at a higher weight class.

I

I Feel Fine wrote:Salvador Sanchez was a better fighter than Hasim Rahman.

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. When you're World Heavyweight Champion, like Rahman was, You're champion of every boxer out there. Period. When you're World Featherweight Champion, you're champion of everyone under 126 pounds, or at least every human being weighing 123, 124, 125 or 126 pounds.

Big Bad John wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:Salvador Sanchez was a better fighter than Hasim Rahman.

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. When you're World Heavyweight Champion, like Rahman was, You're champion of every boxer out there. Period. When you're World Featherweight Champion, you're champion of everyone under 126 pounds, or at least every human being weighing 123, 124, 125 or 126 pounds.

Salvador Sanchez was a far better fighter than Hasim Rahman all things being equal which is was IFF was talking about. Jesus do people have to spell everything out for you, Decagon? The thread is about p4p not actuality. If they both weighted the same Sanchez would have kick the shit out Rahman. Period. In terms of skills Sanchez was a million miles apart and in completely different class. So it’s kind of silly to say that Rahman was a better fighter.

How many people did Rahman beat while he was champion of every boxer out there?

The original quote was:

Well, Lennox Lewis was a better fighter than Rocky Juarez. One is a Heavyweight, one a Featherweight, but that would not be a controversial statement. Salvador Sanchez was a better fighter than Hasim Rahman. Vice versa, but ditto. Hence, if you can say that much, then you can formulate a list.

I disagree. Calling a featherweight a better fighter than a heavyweight is a controversial statement, because there's no way Sanchez could beat Rahman. All things can never be equal, and it's stupid to pretend they can be.

Big Bad John wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:Salvador Sanchez was a better fighter than Hasim Rahman.

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. When you're World Heavyweight Champion, like Rahman was, You're champion of every boxer out there. Period. When you're World Featherweight Champion, you're champion of everyone under 126 pounds, or at least every human being weighing 123, 124, 125 or 126 pounds.

As I said, it is a matter of opinion. It goes without saying that Rahman would destroy any Featherweight. Pound for pound is not about that. Sanchez, among men his size, was far more dominant than Rahman was among men of his size.

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.

Big Bad John wrote:I'm familiar with Granberry's work, both under his current username and his previous ones. The difference is that he says the least with the most word, and I say the most with the fewest words.

I could agree with that, Zac.

Who could ever forget your short post on that other site where you boasted of your homicidal fantasies involving young girls.

Big Bad John wrote:The original quote was:

Well, Lennox Lewis was a better fighter than Rocky Juarez. One is a Heavyweight, one a Featherweight, but that would not be a controversial statement. Salvador Sanchez was a better fighter than Hasim Rahman. Vice versa, but ditto. Hence, if you can say that much, then you can formulate a list.

I disagree. Calling a featherweight a better fighter than a heavyweight is a controversial statement, because there's no way Sanchez could beat Rahman. All things can never be equal, and it's stupid to pretend they can be.

You seem to love throwing around the word 'stupid', Zac.

I hope you don't use that word on your young lad. But I bet you do, Zac, when you get stressed and the drugs aren't working.

Borinken25 wrote: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.

Big Bad John wrote:There's no division in boxing that has anywhere near as many fighters as the heavyweight division does. There's a bigger talent pool, and it means a lot more to be the best heavyweight in the world than it does to be the best jr. bantamweight in the world. Take Wladimir Klitschko. He's arguably the most dominating fighter in boxing, and he's in the division with the most fighters, yet people rank Manny Pacquiao and Joe Calzaghe above him pound-for-pound because Pacquiao and Calzaghe beat a couple of old fighter that were really good years and years ago.

I think too many people take pound-for-pound too seriously. Lots of fighters can beat Pacquiao and Calzaghe. No fighter in the world would be better than a +250 underdog against Wlad except perhaps his brother. Pound-for-pound rankings are fun, but let's not see them for anything other than what they are: a marketing ploy.

That's completly not true. I would bet a shitload of money there are MANY more middleweights, welterweights, and lightweights in the world than Heavyweights. There are many more guys weighing in the 140s, or 160s, than guys weighing over 200 lbs period, obesity plague withstanding. You can go look at the population stats of any country in the world.

How's it a marketing ploy? Do you understand basic logic? It's frikkin hypothetical. Hence the phrase "POUND FOR POUND" Yes, in the real world, Pacquao loses to Klitschko. However, in total attributes as a fighter, Klitschko isn't in Manny's class in my opinion.

To Alp's post, yes the weight classes have been further diluted in recent years. However, it's fairly null b/c lower weight class fighters jump weight classes all the time. Dela Hoya, for example, has fought top comp from 135 to middleweight. Even thought you know have 'super middle' and 'junior welter' you still basically have the best guys in divisions close to them fighting each other anyway.

Big Bad John wrote:

Borinken25 wrote: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.