Talk:Pound for pound

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Boxing, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to boxing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
WikiProject Boxing "To Do"

This article is incorrect when it says that this title passed directly from Jones to Mayweather. It did not, and when I try to fix it someone keeps changing it back. Almost everyone ranked Hopkins P4P king after Jones lost. This is a fact. I can get lots and lots of references for this. Jones was P4P king, then Hopkins, then Mayweather. Stop changing it.

[edit] define pound for pound

in response-

As it says in the article, the included list of fighters from Whitaker on who were considered pound for pound best is based simply on 'who beats who if everyone was the same size'. This is the original and simplest use of the term. The list doesn't factor in extra factors like quality of opposition, landmark achievements, fighting attitude, status, style, etc, as many lists do. It was these extra factors that put Hopkins on top of some lists. The fact that he topped some lists is acknowledged in the article. The likes of Trinidad and De La Hoya topped some magazine lists during the Jones era (again, acknowledged in the article), even as, when explaining their decision, the writers acknowledged Jones was the better fighter, but just didn't behave as a pound for pound number 1 should. Hopkins' case vis a vis Jones and then Mayweather is similar.

There was never a time when Hopkins was generally agreed to be simply the best fighter in the world on 'who beats who if everyone is the same size' basis. Claiming there was is inaccurate. If someone wants to overhaul the article so that the p4p succession list reflects all kinds of factors rather than simply 'who beats who if everyone were the same size', then there would be no problem with Hopkins' name being on there after Jones. As it stands, though, Hopkins simply doesn't belong on that list.

However I would think it best that it stay a 'wbwiewtss' list, not only because this is the original and purest definition of pound for pound (and therefore the most relevant, understandable and useful to people who casually read the article), but because the definition is simple and relatively easily agreed. Take into account every factor that any group of boxing people consider and there's no way you could make a clearly defined list, as once you stray from the 'wbwiewtss' starting point, everyone includes different factors and places different weight on those factors. Instead of having a list of the last decade that simply reads Jones, then Mayweather, you'd have something like 'Jones or De La Hoya, then Jones or Trinidad, then Jones or Trinidad or Mosley, then Jones or Hopkins or Mosley or Mayweather... oh yeah, maybe Holyfield should have been in there somewhere, and we're doing Ricardo Lopez a disservice, and there's Winky Wright, and...'

Hopkins was ahead of most people's P4P lists, he was #1 on Ring Magazine's P4P list, HBO frequently referred to him as P4P king. Mayweather wasn't universally recognized as P4P king until Hopkins had his controversial loss to Taylor.-7/6/06


A Biased Article

The author seems to think that "who beats who at the same weight" is a somehow "purer" definition of pound for pound than "quality of opposition" and that a "who beats who" definition somehow excludes any consideration of "quality of opposition."

Has the author conducted scientific studies on the speed and power of Mayweather's punches? Does he have hard data on Mayweather's coordination, reaction speed, pain tolerance, endurance, stamina, accuracy, and any other attribute of a boxer? Has he measured the speed, power and accuracy of PBF's jab, cross, uppercut and hook? Has he tested PBF's footwork? Of course the author has done none of these things, of course he does not have this data.

So why does he think that PBF is no.1 pound for pound? Is it simply because PBF "looks" good in the ring?

The author does not want to admit it, but the only support for his claim that PBF is no. 1 is the quality of the fighters that PBF beat. That is the ONLY reasonable way to judge the greatness of a fighter.

Boxing is not ballet dancing. It doesn't matter how "good" or how "graceful" a boxer looks. The only reasonable way to verify a claim as to a boxer's supposed skill is to TEST that skill.

Simply put, PBF has not been tested in four years. He has not fought a pound-for-pound ranked fighter in four years.

The pound-for-pound list is intended to be a CURRENT list. It is not based on the accomplishments of five years ago or more.

The fighters with a better claim to the CURRENT no. 1 pound-for-pound spot are Winky Wright and Manny Pacquiao. The skill of these fighters has been tested and verified time and again in these past four years against other elite fighters.

PBF might have been no.1 pound for pound four years ago, but whether he is still the best boxer in the world is simply unproven speculation at this point. Other fighters have continued to prove themselves, PBF has not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarozek (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Re: A biased article

Hello, Sazorek. If you're still around, welcome to Wikipedia.

I'm not sure you understand how wiki articles work, but there are multiple authors for this and all, unless their brand-new, articles. This is a collaborative online encyclopedia: some of us are here to help, some aren't (unfortunately). However, one of the big things here is verifying and citing sources. If you or anyone could do this without using original research, the article's quality will likely increase.

Personally, I don't know much about "pound for pound" and I don't follow boxing much, but someone must some articles from boxing commentators about how PBF (i.e. Floyd Mayweather) stands as a boxer. Maybe they could be helpful for building this article's quality, but the article must maintain neutrality and remain encyclopedic.

Oh, and please sign comments when using talk pages and keep a cool head while performing work in articles so we can build a better Wikipedia. I'm a relative newbie here so I may have stumbled here and there while making this message, but let's help each other, okay?

Thanks for stopping by. -- CRiyl 18:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I deleted the entire application section as it was pure OR. Quadzilla99 22:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)