Abolish P4P! [Archive] - East Side Boxing Forum

View Full Version : Abolish P4P!

IntentionalButt

11-22-2007, 12:59 PM

That's right, I'm waging a one-man grassroots jihad against the status quo, campaigning to get the entire community - writers, broadcasters, fans alike - to forsake this broken and unworthy system that blatantly disregards talent in favor of marketability and name recognition. :deal

It's going to start here, and spread to the boxrec forums, and then - the WORLD. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (shout out to my cousin shane)

Who's with me? :happy:happy:happy:happy:happy

Mohak

11-22-2007, 01:05 PM

That's right, I'm waging a one-man grassroots jihad against the status quo, campaigning to get the entire community - writers, broadcasters, fans alike - to forsake this broken and unworthy system. :deal

It's going to start here, and spread to the boxrec forums, and then - the WORLD. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (shout out to my cousin shane)

Who's with me? :happy:happy:happy:happy:happy

You would've got my vote but your fraternizing with the enemy. So no :bart

IntentionalButt

11-22-2007, 01:08 PM

You would've got my vote but your fraternizing with the enemy. So no :bart

It is sometimes necessary to make sacrifices for the cause! :twisted:

VIVA LA REVOLUCION!

dangerousity

11-22-2007, 01:11 PM

Decebal

11-22-2007, 01:11 PM

Nothing wrong with p4p as long as it means: "best fighters in the world"...and not "greatest resumes, best-known names, legends in the sport and yet to retire"

IntentionalButt

11-22-2007, 01:12 PM

Silly. So how do we rate boxers? If someone says who is the best boxer right now we just say Wlad, Peter etc cos in theory they should be able to beat up on the guys below. Id rather base it on whoever is really the best regardless of weight. No way in hell someone like Briggs should get more credit than the likes of PBF, Pac, Calzaghe just because head2head they win.

This is about reform. Coming up with a new alternative - but first we must slay the beast of tradition. The current method is nice in theory, but ANTONIO TARVER in the top 10????????? I think you see my point.

p4p may have originally been intended to mean "who's the best fighter regardless of weight class" but it's come to mean "who's counted the biggest coups against other "star"-caliber fighters on PPV". Accomplishment should not be part of the equation. Cristian Mijares only has ONE huge marquee win. But in a pure p4p list - the way it should be done, not the way it is done - he'd have to be on anyone's top five because in that one fight alone (setting aside for a moment his great fights with Kawashima or any others that tv audiences haven't seen) he demonstrated that in terms of skill, he is one of the best fighters in the world without regard to weight class.

dangerousity

11-22-2007, 01:14 PM

This is about reform. Coming up with a new alternative - but first we must slay the beast of tradition. The current method is nice in theory, but ANTONIO TARVER in the top 10????????? I think you see my point.

If you reform it, it will end up to be the same thing with a different name for it. The lists will be revised but eventually it will come back to the same thing. It may look different initially but people base their judgements on fighters performance against other fighters who are recognised to be great.

p4p is a great thing, it has created a whole lot of great debates and recognised fighters for their greatness. Imagine never recognising names like Duran, SRL just cos their not HW's.

Mohak

11-22-2007, 01:16 PM

It is sometimes necessary to make sacrifices for the cause! :twisted:

VIVA LA REVOLUCION!

Nay!

Fuck Boxrec! ESB 4 LIFE!!!!!

joe the great

11-22-2007, 01:16 PM

I don't have a problem with P4P

IntentionalButt

11-22-2007, 01:20 PM

If you reform it, it will end up to be the same thing with a different name for it. The lists will be revised but eventually it will come back to the same thing. It may look different initially but people base their judgements on fighters performance against other fighters who are recognised to be great.

p4p is a great thing, it has created a whole lot of great debates and recognised fighters for their greatness. Imagine never recognising names like Duran, SRL just cos their not HW's.
WHAT? You're saying Duran and SRL would not be ATG legends if the abstract, subjective, non-scientific, useless p4p format didn't exist????? They'd have just been forgotten, buried in the sands of time because there wasn't a made-up ranking system by definition impervious to empirical proof? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?

What is this assumption that only heavyweights will ever be given credit without p4p rankings? This isn't 1900. We have featherweights headlining ppvs. Boxing may be fringe right now but the hardcore contingent don't need a patronizing p4p format to know that the talent is spread throughout the pro ranks, from minimum to unlimited, and that individual fighters ought to be recognized on their own merits.

You're completely missing the point I think. I know why p4p was invented. In SRR's time not being a heavyweight champ limited your visibility and potential star power. Alright fine, so they made up a way for smaller fighters to get credit in an era where it wasn't readily available to them. No problem with that. But what I'm trying to do is isolate and destroy the virus that has infected p4p rankings - the "beat the man to be the man" mentality that has NOTHING to do with recognizing talent regardless of weight class. If a guy looks fantastic against an endless stream of B-level opposition, he deserves more credit than some protected hack who got pushed through some ABC org's rankings by a coddling promoter and put in with a weak paper champ.

You're arguing on behalf of the ideal of what p4p should be - what it maybe used to be, or maybe never quite was. I'm not arguing with you over an ideal. I'm warring against the bleak reality of what IS. The reality of p4p is NOT your ideal. Did you even read my initial post before you first replied or did you just see the title and reflexively start typing "Silly..."? You think I am proposing that we rate competitors head-to-head so that Shannon Briggs is over Rafael Marquez? WHAT? Why would you make that leap of (il)logic? What I'm saying is that p4p is a BROKEN system, ruined by people's tendency to gravitate toward star power. The way people formulate p4p rankings does NOT equate to an accurate assessment of who is the best regardless of weight

Smith

11-22-2007, 01:36 PM

The problem nowadays is people look at the resume a lot more so than how good the fighter actually is at boxing when defining P4P.

warrior85

11-22-2007, 01:50 PM

the whole p4p thing is purely based on opinions not facts or stats.

dodong

11-22-2007, 01:51 PM

As of now, it's fine the way it is. Different respected boxing sites pretty much have it the same.

iceman

11-22-2007, 01:56 PM

Just go by the ESB P4P lists - forget the rest

dangerousity

11-22-2007, 02:00 PM

WHAT? You're saying Duran and SRL would not be ATG legends if the abstract, subjective, non-scientific, useless p4p format didn't exist????? They'd have just been forgotten, buried in the sands of time because there wasn't a made-up ranking system by definition impervious to empirical proof? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?

What is this assumption that only heavyweights will ever be given credit without p4p rankings? This isn't 1900. We have featherweights headlining ppvs. Boxing may be fringe right now but the hardcore contingent don't need a patronizing p4p format to know that the talent is spread throughout the pro ranks, from minimum to unlimited, and that individual fighters ought to be recognized on their own merits.

You're completely missing the point I think. I know why p4p was invented. In SRR's time not being a heavyweight champ limited your visibility and potential star power. Alright fine, so they made up a way for smaller fighters to get credit in an era where it wasn't readily available to them. No problem with that. But what I'm trying to do is isolate and destroy the virus that has infected p4p rankings - the "beat the man to be the man" mentality that has NOTHING to do with recognizing talent regardless of weight class. If a guy looks fantastic against an endless stream of B-level opposition, he deserves more credit than some protected hack who got pushed through some ABC org's rankings by a coddling promoter and put in with a weak paper champ.

You're arguing on behalf of the ideal of what p4p should be - what it maybe used to be, or maybe never quite was. I'm not arguing with you over an ideal. I'm warring against the bleak reality of what IS. The reality of p4p is NOT your ideal. Did you even read my initial post before you first replied or did you just see the title and reflexively start typing "Silly..."? You think I am proposing that we rate competitors head-to-head so that Shannon Briggs is over Rafael Marquez? WHAT? Why would you make that leap of (il)logic? What I'm saying is that p4p is a BROKEN system, ruined by people's tendency to gravitate toward star power. The way people formulate p4p rankings does NOT equate to an accurate assessment of who is the best regardless of weight

Which is exactly what I said. All you will do is give it a new name. You wanna reform the ranking system, fine...its still gonna be p4p with a different name... Maybe you should be asking to change the system for ranking p4p, rather than abolishing p4p. To abolish p4p would be to abolish any other formula for deciding who is the best fighter, you can call it whatever you like but its still p4p under a different system and name.

And just out of curiousity, how do you propose the new method of ranking p4p should be? Whats your list and on what basis? Theres a counter argument to everything and I think the current system we got now, although not perfect is still one of the best methods out there.

Decebal

11-22-2007, 02:04 PM

the whole p4p thing is purely based on opinions not facts or stats.

I don't think it could be based on stats, unless fighters fought each other all the time, quite often, many times, without picking opponents...like they do in tennis, for example...at best, amateur boxers could be ranked according to stats alone...pros simply HAVE to be ranked subjectively, whilst of course also using stats...

IntentionalButt

11-22-2007, 02:31 PM

Which is exactly what I said. All you will do is give it a new name. You wanna reform the ranking system, fine...its still gonna be p4p with a different name... Maybe you should be asking to change the system for ranking p4p, rather than abolishing p4p. To abolish p4p would be to abolish any other formula for deciding who is the best fighter, you can call it whatever you like but its still p4p under a different system and name.

And just out of curiousity, how do you propose the new method of ranking p4p should be? Whats your list and on what basis? Theres a counter argument to everything and I think the current system we got now, although not perfect is still one of the best methods out there.

I'm cool with comparison of fighters on a one-by-one basis, or comparing attributes p4p. Like saying "Rafael Marquez punches harder p4p than Eddie Chambers". Or "Tomasz Adamek has better handspeed p4p than Ricky Hatton". Or even "Ike Quartey is much better p4p than Jermain Taylor".

But a top fighter p4p ranking system is so subject to corruption and favoritism that I'd rather not see one used at all. People aren't to be trusted, they're going to abuse it and give it a bad name. So why even bother? Why not just have a personal list of the "top ten most talented fighters regardless of weight (p4p if you like) IMO" - instead of having journalists and boxing sites come up with "official" p4p lists that 9 times out of 10 are based on celebrity more than actual talent?

IntentionalButt

11-22-2007, 02:32 PM

TALENT= Championships

:hi::hi::hi::hi::hi::hi:

dangerousity

11-22-2007, 03:27 PM

I'm cool with comparison of fighters on a one-by-one basis, or comparing attributes p4p. Like saying "Rafael Marquez punches harder p4p than Eddie Chambers". Or "Tomasz Adamek has better handspeed p4p than Ricky Hatton". Or even "Ike Quartey is much better p4p than Jermain Taylor".

But a top fighter p4p ranking system is so subject to corruption and favoritism that I'd rather not see one used at all. People aren't to be trusted, they're going to abuse it and give it a bad name. So why even bother? Why not just have a personal list of the "top ten most talented fighters regardless of weight (p4p if you like) IMO" - instead of having journalists and boxing sites come up with "official" p4p lists that 9 times out of 10 are based on celebrity more than actual talent?

But do these fighters not become celebrities after they prove their talent? Or would you rather they become celebrities before proving their talent?

The only thing I disagree with in current p4p list is Hopkins over Calzaghe but other than that, its pretty accurate. You cant just jump someone on top because you "think" they have talent, they will have to prove that talent by beating proven fighters.

IntentionalButt

11-22-2007, 11:30 PM

But do these fighters not become celebrities after they prove their talent? Or would you rather they become celebrities before proving their talent?

The only thing I disagree with in current p4p list is Hopkins over Calzaghe but other than that, its pretty accurate. You cant just jump someone on top because you "think" they have talent, they will have to prove that talent by beating proven fighters.
Accurate? As though it were a matter of scientific fact? Whose are you talking about, anyway? Some website? Some poster? Some magazine? Which one's supposed to be the 'official' one? Any p4p list is an individual opinion and should be treated as such. People striving to come to terms and reach one, common, bona fide 'accurate' p4p list is a totally bogus pipe dream. There can never and will never be consistency or 'accuracy'. They're like snowflakes - no two peoples' p4p lists are alike, if you go down far enough. Sure, many might agree on a top three. Fewer will agree on a top five, and fewer still on a top ten. Finding two people with identical top 20 lists is akin to a haystack needlehunt. 'Accurate' doesn't belong in the same sentence as 'p4p'. I won't deny that it's a good way of gauging approximately where a fighter ranks compared to other great fighters in different weight classes (IF - big IF - it's done correctly, based on demonstrated talent regardless of opposition and NOT how many known-name trophies are on a resume) - but the pedestal on which it is put and the officiality with which the lists of certain publications and websites are treated - is a joke. No amount of expertise or reputability can make ANY p4p list 'official'. By nature all it's good for is a conversational tool, to spark discussion between people in comparing their avowedly subjective lists - which are expected by nature to vary from person to person depending on their perspective. That's where p4p can be useful - the second people say "no that's WRONG, so-and-so ISN'T p4p #6, he's p4p #13" is when it gets ridiculous. These aren't facts you're talking about. It's not totally arbitrary, but nor is it anywhere near an exact science. There can never be a 'right' or 'wrong'.

That's first of all. That's in a perfect world where people are rating just visible current talent (meaning a total domination of a B-level opponent, or overcoming a styles disadvantage against a fringe contender gets you a HIGHER rating than coasting to an easy, cautious decision over a shot former champ or hyped young paper champ) and not taking holistic resumes and established names into consideration. Even in that perfect world (which doesn't exist) - p4p should be nothing mroe than a light conversation piece for individuals to share their perspective and be exposed and open-minded to others. It's not ever something that should be regarded as 'official'. It should not become an honorific that people argue about (no, Pacquiao is #2...no, he isn't...neener, neener, eat my weiner... :roll:)

Second of all, it isn't a perfect world. That ISN'T how people compile p4p lists. The current method is NOT PURE. People don't determine who their subjective view of the best is regardless of weight class based on talent. Neither do most websites, tv commentators, or magazines. They all determine who they think the best is regardless of weight class based on accomlishment (and maybe factor in talent as an afterthought). There are all sorts of examples to support this. Tarver is the most glaringly obvious one in recent memory. Was he ever one of the top ten most talented fighters in the world? The night he first beat Roy, was he at that moment one of the top ten most talented fighters in the world? You might have thought so, based on a lot of 'official' or otherwise self-important p4p lists.

So really the way I see it two things need to happen.

A) This is the more important step...people need to change their criteria for p4p. Put the kaibosh on "to be the man you got to beat the man". Actually use your eyes and witness displays of talent and rank fighters based on that. Sure, the quality of opposition can and should be factored into it to a point, but don't give a win over a shot Erik Morales the same weight as a win over a prime Erik Morales, just because he's still a beloved and well-known name. This is my main problem with p4p. It's based on "who did you beat, have I heard of them?" - not "how do you beat the people you beat? what mastery or innovation of the craft do you demonstrate, regardless of opposition? how do you overcome adversity...and...(important distinction from the other method)...who did you beat, and regardless of whether or not the average casual boxing fan has heard of them, are they any good right now?"

B) Even if the system is reformed, I don't want to see anybody calling any p4p list - even a 'pure' one based on talent as described above - called official or accurate. You can say one individual, or one magazine, or one website, tends to be pretty on the money with their rankings, in your opinion - but don't ever call anyone's list 'right'. Because that is simply not possible.

KO Boxing

11-22-2007, 11:34 PM

thesandman

11-22-2007, 11:40 PM

Any system that seems to currently list Bernard Hopkins as in the top 3 or 4 P4P boxers in the world RIGHT NOW is obviously flawed.

he lost 2 on the bounce to Taylor. so he goes UP in weight 2 divisions. the higher the weight, the less "allowances" you're given. At LHW, Hopkins is only 2 divisons away from heavyweight - so he should need to be flawless to be ranked so high.

Wheras Calzaghe, in a LOWER weightclass has just beaten the other champ, is rated below him??? Even though Hopkins LOST to a guy in a LOWER weight division?

A guy that has been shit ever since?

I'm sorry, if ever a system rated past glories and 'name recognition' above actual talent and achievements, it's the current P4P system.

IntentionalButt

11-22-2007, 11:43 PM

Abolish p4p? I can live with that...

Abolish achievements? :patsch

Wow, just wow.

There's a difference between potential talent and realized talent (or just potential and talent, however you wanna look at/argue it)... And how does one realize talent? By testing themselves, and achieving...

It's all one and the same.
What do you consider achievement though? Beating famous fighters? Or beating world-class fighters without worrying about whether the American HBO audience has ever seen them perform in Vegas before?

IntentionalButt

11-22-2007, 11:46 PM

Wow, this is really a very close poll. And I STRONGLY suspect that a lot of the people voting in favor of the current p4p rankings are either making a kneejerk reaction without hearing me out, or don't fully understand where I'm coming from. Hence the long posts - I want to make myself as CLEAR as possible. I think once you comprehend my position, it's really hard to disagree with.

KO Boxing

11-22-2007, 11:53 PM

What do you consider achievement though? Beating famous fighters? Or beating world-class fighters without worrying about whether the American HBO audience has ever seen them perform in Vegas before?
Usually the 2nd one, but if its a famous/name fighter it doesn't neccessarily mean they're not world class either, obviously. I get what your saying, and I agree, and I'm happy to do away with p4p too (because after all, its all subjective)... but not with accomlishments. Obviously its all relative whether or not someone thinks beating a certain fighter is an "accomplishment", but most hardcore boxing fans at least know the difference.

For example, Calzaghe didn't achieve much by fighting guys like Tocker Pudwill and Ricky Thornberry for the majority of his title reign. He's ALWAYS had the potential there though, just simply by looking at him fight (and he did realize it to a certain degree against Eubank, but one fight in his first 40 doesn't amount to THAT much)... I think its safe to argue, however, that after Lacy and Kessler (the two new young undefeated new bloods of the division), adding the earlier Eubank fight and the length of his title reign, that Calzaghe has NOW realized his potential.

Thus, his ranking is now somewhat equal to his talent (potential). Before Kessler, and CERTAINLY before Lacy, his ranking was not equal to his potential, but definately equal to his accomplishments.

I know I'm now just getting confusing and just blabbing on, but one more thing: if you rank a fighter purely on potential talent, but later in their career its found out they don't have a few intangibles, and then never "realize" that talent, has this fighter not been ranked wrongly? It's this reason I feel when it comes to rankings, achievements FAR outweigh talent.

IntentionalButt

11-23-2007, 12:05 AM

Usually the 2nd one, but if its a famous/name fighter it doesn't neccessarily mean they're not world class either, obviously. I get what your saying, and I agree, and I'm happy to do away with p4p too (because after all, its all subjective)... but not with accomlishments. Obviously its all relative whether or not someone thinks beating a certain fighter is an "accomplishment", but most hardcore boxing fans at least know the difference.

For example, Calzaghe didn't achieve much by fighting guys like Tocker Pudwill and Ricky Thornberry for the majority of his title reign. He's ALWAYS had the potential there though, just simply by looking at him fight (and he did realize it to a certain degree against Eubank, but one fight in his first 40 doesn't amount to THAT much)... I think its safe to argue, however, that after Lacy and Kessler (the two new young undefeated new bloods of the division), adding the earlier Eubank fight and the length of his title reign, that Calzaghe has NOW realized his potential.

Thus, his ranking is now somewhat equal to his talent (potential). Before Kessler, and CERTAINLY before Lacy, his ranking was not equal to his potential, but definately equal to his accomplishments.

I know I'm now just getting confusing and just blabbing on, but one more thing: if you rank a fighter purely on potential talent, but later in their career its found out they don't have a few intangibles, and then never "realize" that talent, has this fighter not been ranked wrongly? It's this reason I feel when it comes to rankings, achievements FAR outweigh talent.
That's perfectly fair and reasonable. Beating Kessler was an accomplishment - but you're actually helping prove my point there. Kessler wasn't an accomplishment because he was a 'commodity fighter' beloved by the American HBO audience (who had seen him all of once before then) - he was an accomplishment because he had demonstrated his skill by beating lots of B and C-level opposition in Europe and collecting belts in dominating fashion under the radar of the casual boxing public.

I don't want to 'do away with accomplishment' and I'm sorry if there are mixed signals going out, I'll try and articulate a bit better. I want to do away with overrating high-profile big-name accomplishments, and calling victories over has-beens with huge followings 'accomplishments' when by rights, they are not.

4Rounder

11-23-2007, 12:06 AM

The pound for pound rankings should stay there where they are.

Symphenyceo

11-23-2007, 12:08 AM

Accurate? As though it were a matter of scientific fact? Whose are you talking about, anyway? Some website? Some poster? Some magazine? Which one's supposed to be the 'official' one? Any p4p list is an individual opinion and should be treated as such. People striving to come to terms and reach one, common, bona fide 'accurate' p4p list is a totally bogus pipe dream. There can never and will never be consistency or 'accuracy'. They're like snowflakes - no two peoples' p4p lists are alike, if you go down far enough. Sure, many might agree on a top three. Fewer will agree on a top five, and fewer still on a top ten. Finding two people with identical top 20 lists is akin to a haystack needlehunt. 'Accurate' doesn't belong in the same sentence as 'p4p'. I won't deny that it's a good way of gauging approximately where a fighter ranks compared to other great fighters in different weight classes (IF - big IF - it's done correctly, based on demonstrated talent regardless of opposition and NOT how many known-name trophies are on a resume) - but the pedestal on which it is put and the officiality with which the lists of certain publications and websites are treated - is a joke. No amount of expertise or reputability can make ANY p4p list 'official'. By nature all it's good for is a conversational tool, to spark discussion between people in comparing their avowedly subjective lists - which are expected by nature to vary from person to person depending on their perspective. That's where p4p can be useful - the second people say "no that's WRONG, so-and-so ISN'T p4p #6, he's p4p #13" is when it gets ridiculous. These aren't facts you're talking about. It's not totally arbitrary, but nor is it anywhere near an exact science. There can never be a 'right' or 'wrong'.

That's first of all. That's in a perfect world where people are rating just visible current talent (meaning a total domination of a B-level opponent, or overcoming a styles disadvantage against a fringe contender gets you a HIGHER rating than coasting to an easy, cautious decision over a shot former champ or hyped young paper champ) and not taking holistic resumes and established names into consideration. Even in that perfect world (which doesn't exist) - p4p should be nothing mroe than a light conversation piece for individuals to share their perspective and be exposed and open-minded to others. It's not ever something that should be regarded as 'official'. It should not become an honorific that people argue about (no, Pacquiao is #2...no, he isn't...neener, neener, eat my weiner... :roll:)

Second of all, it isn't a perfect world. That ISN'T how people compile p4p lists. The current method is NOT PURE. People don't determine who their subjective view of the best is regardless of weight class based on talent. Neither do most websites, tv commentators, or magazines. They all determine who they think the best is regardless of weight class based on accomlishment (and maybe factor in talent as an afterthought). There are all sorts of examples to support this. Tarver is the most glaringly obvious one in recent memory. Was he ever one of the top ten most talented fighters in the world? The night he first beat Roy, was he at that moment one of the top ten most talented fighters in the world? You might have thought so, based on a lot of 'official' or otherwise self-important p4p lists.

So really the way I see it two things need to happen.

A) This is the more important step...people need to change their criteria for p4p. Put the kaibosh on "to be the man you got to beat the man". Actually use your eyes and witness displays of talent and rank fighters based on that. Sure, the quality of opposition can and should be factored into it to a point, but don't give a win over a shot Erik Morales the same weight as a win over a prime Erik Morales, just because he's still a beloved and well-known name. This is my main problem with p4p. It's based on "who did you beat, have I heard of them?" - not "how do you beat the people you beat? what mastery or innovation of the craft do you demonstrate, regardless of opposition? how do you overcome adversity...and...(important distinction from the other method)...who did you beat, and regardless of whether or not the average casual boxing fan has heard of them, are they any good right now?"

B) Even if the system is reformed, I don't want to see anybody calling any p4p list - even a 'pure' one based on talent as described above - called official or accurate. You can say one individual, or one magazine, or one website, tends to be pretty on the money with their rankings, in your opinion - but don't ever call anyone's list 'right'. Because that is simply not possible.

I agree with you because the whole p4p thing has gone completly away from its initial purpose..it is now based on fame when intially it was really for talent..SRR was the most talented boxer out there but the public realized he couldnt win at HW..so they said since he is the most talented boxer out there then if weigh and size wasnt a factor he would be able to beat everyone out there..

nowadays its based on the names you beat not how good you are..the bad thing about that is if a fighter has bad timing in his career he ends up fighting great fighters that are shot or out of their prime..and beating a shot former great cant really be held more of an acheivment then fighting them in there prime..but that not the fighters fault its all timing sometimes

psychopath

11-23-2007, 12:11 AM

It is sometimes necessary to make sacrifices for the cause! :twisted:

VIVA LA REVOLUCION!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

pejevan

11-23-2007, 02:31 AM

I guess your fave boxer is not in the Pound for Pound.

IntentionalButt

11-23-2007, 02:33 AM

I guess your fave boxer is not in the Pound for Pound.
:huh

I'm a big fan of several guys who are universally regarded as being very high up p4p. I just don't support any system that rewards them 'borrowing' fame from other fighters, or passing it back and forth amongst each other the way certain circles have laid siege to certain divisions in recent years!

psychopath

11-23-2007, 02:39 AM

:huh

I'm a big fan of several guys who are universally regarded as being very high up p4p. I just don't support any system that rewards them 'borrowing' fame from other fighters, or passing it back and forth amongst each other the way certain circles have laid siege to certain divisions in recent years!

Well the only advantage I can see with it's existence is fighters have the luxury of having big fights and big money without the sanctioing fees from the boxing bodies.

IntentionalButt

11-23-2007, 02:45 AM

Well the only advantage I can see with it's existence is fighters have the luxury of having big fights and big money without the sanctioing fees from the boxing bodies.

So if Ring magazine and message board posters never mentioned p4p lists again, you think it would affect whether or not promoters put Manny Pacquiao in with Juan Manuel Marquez? You don't think it's enough for people to say "Hey, these guys are really great, two of the best in their division, we want to see them in with each other! Give us this fight, we demand it!". It has to be "Make this fight because they're top p4p!"?? That's a really sad commentary on the impressionability and idiocy of the organizing powers behind the sport, if so.

psychopath

11-23-2007, 04:16 AM

So if Ring magazine and message board posters never mentioned p4p lists again, you think it would affect whether or not promoters put Manny Pacquiao in with Juan Manuel Marquez? You don't think it's enough for people to say "Hey, these guys are really great, two of the best in their division, we want to see them in with each other! Give us this fight, we demand it!". It has to be "Make this fight because they're top p4p!"?? That's a really sad commentary on the impressionability and idiocy of the organizing powers behind the sport, if so.

Nah nah nah not on this board . . . out there in the real world. This forum doesn't even represent .0000001 % of the total boxing crowd. :D

What I'm saying is . . . if there's no such thing P4P . . . then there's no big money fights. Of course good fighters can always fight each other but it's more likely that they'll be fighting the weak title holders than the real good fighters out there. Lack of HYPE, lack of recognition. :yep

What has Pac accomplished if MAB was not holding the RING P4P title at that time? Will it be a big impact on the Pac's career as viewed today?

:D

Sizzle

11-23-2007, 04:18 AM

Stupidest thread I've ever seen.

IntentionalButt

11-23-2007, 04:28 AM

Nah nah nah not on this board . . . out there in the real world. This forum doesn't even represent .0000001 % of the total boxing crowd. :D

What I'm saying is . . . if there's no such thing P4P . . . then there's no big money fights. Of course good fighters can always fight each other but it's more likely that they'll be fighting the weak title holders than the real good fighters out there. Lack of HYPE, lack of recognition. :yep

What has Pac accomplished if MAB was not holding the RING P4P title at that time? Will it be a big impact on the Pac's career as viewed today?

:D
That's what I want to get away from. Personally, I like Pacquiao. I think he's a fantastic little offensive dynamo, and he's gotten better as he's come along. If he buckled down and started respecting Roach he could be even better.

BUT

Should he be in anyone's list of the top five pound for pound best fighters? No, and I don't support any system in which he is. He's ranked as such why...mainly because he twice beat not one but two former legends? Not saying they're the only two names on his resume, he has a good one overall....and he's displayed skill that certainly warrants him being people's favorite fighter, and warrants him getting big fights, and warrants him being mentioned as one of the best in his weight class...or even the best guy in his weight class until proven otherwise...

But to rate him above Calzaghe? Above Mijares? Above Kessler? Above Vazquez? Above Dawson? He's not more talented than any of those guys. Whether or not any of them have four wins over former legends is irrelevant in discussing who the best of the best are. Pacquiao is great, but he's not one of the top ten most talented fighters alive. With the current format of p4p rankings, though, he is presented as such.

IntentionalButt

11-23-2007, 04:28 AM

Stupidest thread I've ever seen.
Did you even bother looking into the rationale behind it or is this another waste of time knee jerk reaction to just the title? And if you disagree with the rationale, why?

psychopath

11-23-2007, 04:35 AM

That's what I want to get away from. Personally, I like Pacquiao. I think he's a fantastic little offensive dynamo, and he's gotten better as he's come along. If he buckled down and started respecting Roach he could be even better.

BUT

Should he be in anyone's list of the top five pound for pound best fighters? No, and I don't support any system in which he is. He's ranked as such why...mainly because he twice beat not one but two former legends? Not saying they're the only two names on his resume, he has a good one overall....and he's displayed skill that certainly warrants him being people's favorite fighter, and warrants him getting big fights, and warrants him being mentioned as one of the best in his weight class...or even the best guy in his weight class until proven otherwise...

But to rate him above Calzaghe? Above Mijares? Above Kessler? Above Vazquez? Above Dawson? He's not more talented than any of those guys. Whether or not any of them have four wins over former legends is irrelevant in discussing who the best of the best are. Pacquiao is great, but he's not one of the top ten most talented fighters alive. With the current format of p4p rankings, though, he is presented as such.

Well I got your point . . . and it's true. :yep

That's why I said the only advantage of it's existence is on the money side.

Dorfmeister

11-23-2007, 05:13 AM

Let me be the human time bomb, the suicidal martyr in your jihad against the P4P and ATG ratings. I'll blow up the whole system right here in ESB every time a new tendency rises - and that would be great fun.

IntentionalButt

11-23-2007, 11:08 AM

IntentionalButt

11-23-2007, 01:13 PM

Rally, troops! We're losing ground to the savage hordes of confused traditionalist xenophobes!

Dorfmeister

11-23-2007, 02:01 PM

Did you even bother looking into the rationale behind it or is this another waste of time knee jerk reaction to just the title? And if you disagree with the rationale, why?

He doesn't get that Floyd fought Hoya and Ricky is fighting Floyd in unthinkable leveled contests mainly for P4P stature and that behind that label, there's only mainstream (dollar) rationality or sci-fi into the sphere of the legendary. P4P = BS BIG TIME.

IntentionalButt

11-23-2007, 02:20 PM

He doesn't get that Floyd fought Hoya and Ricky is fighting Floyd in unthinkable leveled contests mainly for P4P stature and that behind that label, there's only mainstream (dollar) rationality or sci-fi into the sphere of the legendary. P4P = BS BIG TIME.

:happy:happy

IntentionalButt

11-23-2007, 05:33 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

IntentionalButt

11-02-2008, 05:58 PM

:deal

Vantage_West

11-02-2008, 06:15 PM

I agree with you because the whole p4p thing has gone completly away from its initial purpose..it is now based on fame when intially it was really for talent..SRR was the most talented boxer out there but the public realized he couldnt win at HW..so they said since he is the most talented boxer out there then if weigh and size wasnt a factor he would be able to beat everyone out there..

nowadays its based on the names you beat not how good you are..the bad thing about that is if a fighter has bad timing in his career he ends up fighting great fighters that are shot or out of their prime..and beating a shot former great cant really be held more of an acheivment then fighting them in there prime..but that not the fighters fault its all timing sometimes:good bang on the money.

it's turned into a championship when it's not about that at all.

god i loved this thread. who did the bumpalicous?

IntentionalButt

11-02-2008, 06:18 PM

I resurrected it with inspiration from the new breed: [Only registered and activated users can see links]

:yep

CarlesX7

11-02-2008, 06:20 PM

IntentionalButt

11-02-2008, 08:05 PM

:ibutt

PanchoVilla

11-02-2008, 08:28 PM

Having pound for pound in boxing actually unites all divisions in boxing as a whole. The debate is neverending because it will never satisfy everyone. However it is always clear that the mission to it IMO is to look boxing as a whole in not one or two divisions but all divisions and give credit to the best fighters regardless of weightclass and ofcourse must be entirely based on the majority to avoid bias

IntentionalButt

11-02-2008, 11:44 PM

This is the original anti-P4P thread, it will not be supplanted. The other one had its run, and inspired the bumping of its ancestor, but now it must die. :(

owell

11-03-2008, 02:42 AM

What? ...and diminish the lively atmosphere here on ESB...!!!

Silvermags

11-04-2008, 03:03 AM

The problem nowadays is people look at the resume a lot more so than how good the fighter actually is at boxing when defining P4P.

smith,

So it's ok with you that VALERO is the p4p king. He has an amazing record but " A long list of NOBODY's:tired "...Quanity of wins OVER quality of WINS :patsch

The race for Class C boxer is on the rise to SURELY IMPROVE the W's:nono