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

[Fitz]

(12-06-2018 11:24 PM)Warlord Wrote:  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.

No, I understood the point. What you said wasn't complicated.....It was created for guys like SRR, that despite being smaller, was a tool to say that he was still a better fighter than any heavyweight. That is correct.

(12-06-2018 11:24 PM)Warlord Wrote:  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.

I think people are only using their 'personal' criteria on how to rate a fighter and as a way to justify their spot on their own 'personal' list and people happen to include heavyweights on there if they think they belong on there.
People's p4p list is generally just a list now on who they think the best fighters on the planet are. People include heavyweights now....Maybe now you just take the meaning of the list too literally?
Or we can just try and get the title changed to something like "Top 10 best boxers"

Not saying your definition is wrong, but when people do their lists, they don't take the definition as literally as you do.

(12-06-2018 11:24 PM)Warlord Wrote:  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.

I think people are only using their 'personal' criteria on how to rate a fighter and as a way to justify their spot on their own 'personal' list and people happen to include heavyweights on there if they think they belong on there.
People's p4p list is generally just a list now on who they think the best fighters on the planet are. People include heavyweights now....Maybe now you just take the meaning of the list too literally?
Or we can just try and get the title changed to something like "Top 10 best boxers"

Not saying your definition is wrong, but when people do their lists, they don't take the definition as literally as you do.

(12-06-2018 11:24 PM)Warlord Wrote:  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.

You kind of implied it was wrong earlier, when you said "Heavyweights shouldn’t be on a P4P list anyway. "

http://socialunderground.com/forums/show...7#pid81847

(12-06-2018 11:24 PM)Warlord Wrote:  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?

Well that's pretty much what most published lists have been doing for a few decades now haven't they?
They just rate the best fighters, put them in their ranking order from 1 to 10 and just call them p4p rankings.

I just feel it is totally normal to look at someone like Wlad and say to yourself......"He is better than Adrien Broner, I am putting Wlad above him on my rankings"

I understand the history to why it is introduced, having heavyweights on a p4p list has been happening for decades.