P4P Who Beats Who

[The Old LefHook]

I do not care about any other criteria.

Who beats who during their best ring years, is the only criterion I care about. Leave everything else out of it.

1 Heavyweights--Clay
2 Lightheavies--Foster
3 Middleweights--Jones
4 Welterweights--Robinson
5 Lightweights--Duran
6 Featherweights--Saddler
7 Bantamweights--Jofre
8 Flyweights--Wilde

All the work is almost done with this method. Because if you have the best P4P fighter in each division you have the best P4P fighters period.

All that is left is to choose one, if you use my method. Make your own list of divisional P4P greatest, of course.

[Ray Corso]

p4p doesn't have weight classes!
The concept is if A fighter a welter fought B fighter a heavyweight at an equal weight who's talents, and skill level succeeds!

What your asking is who is the best at the weight limits!

Could Willie Pep beat Ali if the body size was equal?

Thats what P4P means!

Ray

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Michael Spinks would beat foster at lightheavy imo

Ali, robinson and roy pretty much untouchable at those weights

Duran might have trouble with ortiz, chavez, floyd, leonard

Saddler would have trouble with Sanchez, and manny

Jofre and wilde would get beat by other greats, especially wilde

[The Old LefHook]

p4p doesn't have weight classes!
The concept is if A fighter a welter fought B fighter a heavyweight at an equal weight who's talents, and skill level succeeds!

What your asking is who is the best at the weight limits!

Could Willie Pep beat Ali if the body size was equal?

Thats what P4P means!

Ray

You are right. I screwed up on the premise of my attempt. I knew and know exactly what P4P means, but my extension of the idea to weight classes failed to put all P4P greats in their ordinal position because there may be two or more men in a weight class superior to the best P4P heavyweight, for instance. Duh! I plead smoking pot!

But we should at least get out of a list designed like this the best P4P fighter ever, in our own opinions. That fighter should be on my list, or your list, if we made one.

My real point, which I made poorly, is that only a single criterion of who- beats-who during respective peak years should be used in P4P lists. People are using many different criteria and merging them together intuitively, which makes things very messy.

* * * * *

There is an interesting aspect of scaling men up and down, just to show how complex and fantasy like the idea is in the first place. Does it matter, for instance, whether we scale Tyson down to Pep or Pep up to Tyson? How likely is a different outcome? Maybe we can have them meet in the middle at middleweight.

We brush such notions aside and say the scaling does not matter. But in reality it might matter which way we scaled a man.

Here's the thing. It is not wholly P4P anyway--these fantasies of everyone including myself. Other measurements are preserved in the fantasy, such as a long reach for the weight class or relative height to the weight class. Marciano at flyweight would look like a guy with his arms amputated, if we did not do something about it.

A prime heavyweight Tommy Hearns will be at least 6'7", I figure, to tower over his opponents at heavyweight the way he did at welterweight. Tommy must have close to a 90 inch reach as a prime heavyweight, as well. He is the thinnest heavyweight great ever. Saddler would be at least a 6'5" heavyweight. But we cannot judge these things and measure them exactly, we just pretend for the sake of fantasy we can.

* * * * *

Take Robinson and Jones, for instance. Most people consider them at middleweight because they both fought in that division, which is wrong. Robinson's peak was as a welterweight and Jones's at super middleweight.

Just because the two men are the same height does not mean the fantasy matchup can take place at the same height. If Jones comes to welterweight he is going to lose 2 inches or more in height. If Robinson goes to super middleweight, he is going to gain 2 inches or more in height.

That is the only way it can be done right. The men are not naturally the same size.

168-147=21 lbs. I figure that is about the difference in their prime weights. Someone has to be adjusted up or down. That means every part of them. Robinson is going to end up a couple of inches taller than Jones, maybe more, because Robinson towered over his opponents at welterweight and Roy did not tower over his at 168 and would not have towered over many if he had stayed in that division for more fights.

Unfortunately, there are even two ways to interpret this. Just how much height does Robinson gain or Jones lose, and under which of the two methods? Is it based on how much they towered over opponents in their respective prime divisions, or is it based on 21 lbs.?

The question may seem frivolous, but I think not.

In any fantasy division the fighter must come in with statistics (measurements besides weight) that match his relative size to his real prime division not to the other fighter. Robinson towered over his prime opponents, Jones did not. That is what I think has to be adjusted for the best fantasy matchup. Robinson will tower over them in any fantasy division, because he towered over them in his real prime division. Jones will be a fighter of average height in any fantasy division because he was only average height for his prime division.

That is the way it has to be done. Robinson is going to be about the literal height of Hearns, or taller, in there against RJJ if their fantasy fight takes place at super middleweight. If it is at welterweight Robinson will enjoy a signifcant height advantage as well.

Any way you cut it, Robinson will be taller than Jones when they fight, though in real life they were the same height. How much and through what method shall the heights be adjusted, is the only question?

I indeed believe that 21 lbs. is the inferior method, and the heights should be adjusted according to how they stack up statistically for height in their respective primes divisons.

I know many will disagee, and probably you among them, but I believe that is the better way to scale height and reach up or down.

Robby was a tall welterweight, Jones was an average height super middleweight. That is what has to be reflected in the fantasy matchup, not a literal 21 lbs.

[DJ Enerate]

Michael Spinks would beat foster at lightheavy imo

Ali, robinson and roy pretty much untouchable at those weights

Duran might have trouble with ortiz, chavez, floyd, leonard

Saddler would have trouble with Sanchez, and manny

Jofre and wilde would get beat by other greats, especially wilde

Good post. I especially agree with your opinion that Carlos Ortiz would give Duran problems. I disagree with your opinion on Jimmy Wilde though.
Wilde was a fantastically patient boxer. His timing and counters are top tier ATG. He's very very underrated in terms of boxing skills. People assume Wilde was some kind of brawler because of his KO record but if you watch his fights you see a sublime technician at work. The only flyweight that I think could beat a prime Jimmy Wilde is Benny Lynch

[Ray Corso]

"Robinson's peak was as a welterweight"..............
sorry but that isn't valid! He fought the World Middleweight Champion and beat him as the contender and Champion. He lost one bout to LaMotta and won the rest actually stopping the unstoppable!
Robinson fought for 15 years as a Middleweight and fought ALL of the available bests men in that class.
He fought top contenders well out of his prime never being stopped by the best!
His best was at Welter and at Middleweight!
His bouts against well respected contenders & champions is well documented! 'Ray

[The Old LefHook]

"Robinson's peak was as a welterweight"..............
sorry but that isn't valid! He fought the World Middleweight Champion and beat him as the contender and Champion. He lost one bout to LaMotta and won the rest actually stopping the unstoppable!
Robinson fought for 15 years as a Middleweight and fought ALL of the available bests men in that class.
He fought top contenders well out of his prime never being stopped by the best!
His best was at Welter and at Middleweight!
His bouts against well respected contenders & champions is well documented! 'Ray

It is very easy to disagree with someone who claims a man's prime began at 29 and 30, which everyone knows it doesn't. The second weight a man fights at after at least 8 years in the previous division, is not his prime division. The same goes for Robinson, I don't care how good he was as a middleweight, it was not his physical prime. Physical prime is what this is about. It starts around 19 and goes to maybe 25.

[Ray Corso]

"It starts around 19 and goes to maybe 25".

Over 147lbs you couldn't be more wrong! In boxing your learning between 19 and 25 and applying your knowledge after that. In Robinsons case his biggest's fights came after 25 years old.

" after at least 8 years in the previous division, is not his prime division. The same goes for Robinson"

..8 years isn't anywhere near his halfway mark! He fought for 25 years!

You need to study up on Robinsons career your assuming way to much!

Ray

[Anthony342]

I do not care about any other criteria.

Who beats who during their best ring years, is the only criterion I care about. Leave everything else out of it.

1 Heavyweights--Clay
2 Lightheavies--Foster
3 Middleweights--Jones
4 Welterweights--Robinson
5 Lightweights--Duran
6 Featherweights--Saddler
7 Bantamweights--Jofre
8 Flyweights--Wilde

All the work is almost done with this method. Because if you have the best P4P fighter in each division you have the best P4P fighters period.

All that is left is to choose one, if you use my method. Make your own list of divisional P4P greatest, of course.

I partially agree with this method, but believe a fighter's resume also has to be taken into account. Who did they beat and when did they beat them. Was their opponent still in their prime or still competitive, at least? Competitive/somewhat tough=good win. Prime and difficult to beat=great win, which should be added to H2H additionally when measuring a fighter's greatness.

[The Old LefHook]

I partially agree with this method, but believe a fighter's resume also has to be taken into account. Who did they beat and when did they beat them. Was their opponent still in their prime or still competitive, at least? Competitive/somewhat tough=good win. Prime and difficult to beat=great win, which should be added to H2H additionally when measuring a fighter's greatness.

Of course you will take everything into account to as to why someone would beat someone else. But that is strictly what you are judging in the end --who-beats-who, not who was the better champion or who lasted a long time at top level or who had the greater historical impact, etc., etc., etc.