Only mental midgets don't have the ability to think PxP. Hence, I can understand the frustration. :tease: ::
Check all the prediction threads, Ugottabebrainless. I'm always there with a clear prediction! Like for example, Pavlik by TKO over Taylor, Agbeko in an upset over Perez, and Vazquez over Rafael Marquez in the rematch. :tease: :crafty: Let it go or I'll beat you with a white picket! :kick: :blobbox: ::
As a mod, youu can go back and edit your picks there afterwards, nobody will notice anyway, it's not like someone read your posts at first place:tease: ::
Seriously though, I have stated it before and to me, p4p fights do not work. They always favor the smaller fighters. here are some points to consider * People always talk about "p4p power", meaning that smaller guys don't hit as hard as the bigger ones, which is reasonable. This means that the smaller the guy is, the less he has to KO his opponents to be as effective "p4p" becuse KOs are more rare in lower weight classes. So far all good. * However, the same should be taken into consideration when discussing chins, but it never is. A midget always has a better chin in p4p fights because midgets can take much more punishment from their opponents, because the difference in power and endurance is not that big. On other words, a KO loss of a big guy shouldn't mean as much as a KO loss of a midget. * Stamina is one. Midgets always have the better stamina because they have less muscle to carry around. So it should be plausible to say that a big gu has "p4p more stamina" than a smaller guy, even though the bigger guy would get more tired in his fights. How often do you hear this? * Speed. Midgets are faster. A heavyweight with average speed never compares well with a midget. For example Holyfield should clearly be considered p4p faster than, say, Roberto Duran at lightweight, since Holy was exceptionally fast for a heavyweight. You never hear this either. * And MOST OF ALL, technique. Midgets have the better body coordination because of their smaller frame. This means that it is easier for them to have a flawless balance and boxing technique. So we should also have "p4p technique", where a heavyweight with average technique would be equal with a small guy with clearly better technique. * Also there are styles. A fighter can base his whole fighting strategy on his physical measurements. When you try not to consider those assets at all, it changes the fighter completely. This is why I don't like p4p fights. But if you find something interesting from them, all good
I picked "I am not a fan of them and I rarely participate " That's not entirely the case, but out of the poll options available comes closest to my opinion. I like the idea of P4P matchups in certain cases. Some fights don't require a ton of "adjustments" to make and can be viewed more upon sylistic analysis. Those are the matchups that are intriguing to think about. I can see P4P matchup such as Tommy Hearns vs Michael Spinks or Marving Hagler vs Julio Cesar Chavez. It's not that much of a stretch to view them as relatively the same size. Just give one guy a bit of a height advantage and such. On the other hand fights such as Vitali Klitschko vs Finito Lopez are ridiculous. What advantage are you going to give Vital other than height?
Damn.... :doh: :: :nono: :nono: Do NOT take away the credit on the greatness of my predictions. It's the only thing I have left..... ld:
Before I respond, overall question: when you say "midgets", what exactly are you referring to? Anyone below HWT? 175? What? 1. Are KOs truly "more rare" in lower weight classes? I think that's in large part a myth...or at least, I think it is exaggerated WAY more than the reality (not saying you do it, just a general observation). Anyway, when evaluating power PxP I do it relative to how each guy ranks relative to their division. 2. Fair point...and I try to take that into account in my PxP analyses. However - there are plenty chinny guys in the lower weight classes. 3. Hmmm...fair, but you also have to analyze workrate, footwork, technique. It is not simply "stamina vs. stamina." And no, midgets do not "always have better stamina". Examples abound (but again, what divisions are you referring to?). 4. Disagree you don't hear that. Again, speed (along with power) should be a function of how each guy ranks relative to their division. If people are saying that the lighter boxer is faster than the heavier boxer simply by making a direct comparison - then they are not doing PxP MMs correctly. 5. Disagree, and I think that is largely a fallacy. Compare Wlad Klitschko to Kelly Pavlik; Holyfield to Arce; Lewis to Darchynian; Archie Moore to Carbajal; Tyson to Pacquiao, and so on. Correct technique is correct technique, and sound fundamentals are sound fundamentals. You can make some allowances for size, but it is what it is. 6. You do try to consider them....given how each guy rates in terms of height, reach, strength, etc. relative to their division. It's not perfect but it's workable....I like PxPs because it opens up a whole new dimension and challenges me to think differently and they can be quite fun. It's quite the mental exercise. Peace.
I find them pointless, more so when an actual fight is discussed and someone says "p-4-p its a different story". It's probably the second most often used excuse, behind "in his prime, so and so beats his ass" when they have to pick against their desired choice. Then again, MM's in general are pointless, just fun to debate. So with that, I picked "I'm not a fan and rarely participate." Sorry, Donny.
They're for people too dumb to think of anything else. The Mythical Matchups forum actually has a lot of potential, but any time some current fighter has a big win, we have idiots talking about how they would do against Harry Greb or a young George Foreman. There's too much emphasis placed on fighters who've fought in the past two weeks, and pound-for-pound matchups. How hard is it to come up with a Louis-Frazier, or somthing?
:: That's ok, bro...to each his own. It's funny - people are ok making PxP lists...but they dislike or are against PxP match-ups. I don't make many of them relative to the MMs I create anyway...most are within weight divisions. Peace.
I think it's stupid to bring "who beats whom" into ranking fighters in the first place. Mythical Matchups are an interesting exercise, but to find out exactly how good a fighter is, you have to look at him on film and see who he beat; see how good those fighters are/were, too. Simply put, it's best to rank fighters based on how good they are at the present, or how good they've been in the past few years. I don't see why you should rank fighters based on fantasy.
Exactly what I'm thinking. If P4P matchups are pointless then to be consistent I hope these same guys stay out of P4P lists. Personally I have no problem with them and I don't think that they're silly. They're certainly more MYTHICAL, I'll give you that but I see no harm in discussing how well, for example, Tyson would do against Hagler if they were in the same weight division. That said, I do understand the concern that Jake and others would have with it...but as Donny said, I hope such people don't make P4P lists either...
You mean like if Tyson dehydrated down to 160? He'd murder Hagler, if he didn't die getting down there.
Agreed. The only way I ever make p4p lists is if you compare fighters based on how clearly they dominate their own divisions. That's why Wladimir Klitschko is among the very best on my p4p list right now
You have to factor in how good the fighters' opposition is. Wlad did beat Byrd, but fighting the Calvin Brocks and the Ray Austins of the world doesn't make you a pound-for-pound great. He should be in the top 10, but he's completely undeserving of a top-5 ranking.
By the way, I hate it when people spell "definitely" wrong. It comes from the root "finite," with an "i," not an "a."
