It's on!! Deontey Wilder-Tyson Fury! December 1st in L.A

[Warlord]

(12-06-2018 04:40 PM)Fitz Wrote:  Exactly. They shouldn't be disregarded. If a heavyweight is better than a middleweight in every way. Guess what? He is ranked higher on a p4p list.

(12-06-2018 04:41 PM)blackbelt2003 Wrote:  Yeah, I get all of that.

But what if the heavyweight champion of the world is actually the most skilled fighter on the planet, too? He can't be the p4p number one?

I'm damned sure Ali was p4p one of the best fighters on the planet in 1966.



Black

(12-06-2018 07:32 PM)ViperSniper Wrote:  EXACTLY!! To say Ali wasn't (p4p) the best fighter in the world once upon a time is crazy!

If you can't have a Heavyweight on a p4p ranking then how are they able to be ranked of all time then? Does that mean that all LHW's & Cruisers are automatically better than Heavyweights?

If you can compare a Welterweight to a Middleweight fighter then I really dont see why you can't do the same while ranking (comparing) a Middleweight (or any weight) to a Heavyweight.

Chavez Jr isnt better than his dad..just because he is bigger, just like how John Ruiz isn't better than Sr. either..

More than 1 thing to consider when ranking fighters..and I personally feel accomplishments is right up there.. regardless of whether that boxer weighs over 190lbs or not..

You guys are still missing the primary point. The point I made, and which I think Teddy concurred with, is the history behind P4P discussions in the first place. You keep saying "yeah, I get it but..." With all due respect, no, I don't think you do.

P4P originated as a way to say that smaller fighters (specifically Sugar Ray Robinson) were better than the heavyweight champion of the world in a relative sense, as he was obviously not better in a comparative sense.

You are all working in your personal definitions of what you think P4P entails, and then making your arguments about who you think should be on your list. That's fine. I'm not disputing that. Create your criteria and then make your list. No one is saying you can't, or that you're wrong for doing so. My first and only point regarding P4P was the history behind it. Why it ever became a talking point in the first place. Which was for pundits to be able to make the claim that a middleweight was the best fighter on Earth, despite the fact that he could never actually have been the best in a comparative sense, because the heavyweight champ would've creamed him.

Think about Ali, since he was the example from earlier. He was the best fighter on Earth in his prime, and there was no fighter below heavyweight that would have ever had a prayer to beat him. You all know that. So what's your argument when you bring up a P4P discussion?

You can make a straight comparison of skills, competition, longevity, etc... without the need for "P4P." P4P was, in most cases, the school yard argument of "well, all things being equal, I could kick your ass."

Ali was literally the best on the planet. Comparatively speaking, and by every objective standard, he was the best. You don't have to create mythical, imaginary scenarios (like the P4P argument) to give him that title. Every one knew it.

Honestly, I've always thought P4P was stupid anyway. There is no science behind it. How much taller, faster, stronger should we assume a fighter to be when magically transporting him to another weight class?

And if you aren't doing that, if instead you're just comparing the careers of two fighters, why does P4P even enter the discussion? It's not a P4P issue at all, is it?