Talk:Pound for pound

Comments

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.

define pound for pound

Manny Pacqiuao. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.115.142 (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

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) .

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)

Cleanup

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

Redirect

This is an entirely necessary article, as the term "pound for pound" is often used in boxing articles, and may be unfamiliar to the general public. There is certainly not enough information to create new articles (i.e. "pound for pound boxing", "pound for pound martial arts", ect.), and such new articles would almost certainly be merged here. Perhaps a better idea would be to merge Ring Magazine pound for pound here. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible page move

Also, in line with User:Teapeat's suggestion, perhaps this article should be titled "Pound for pound (sport)", which would differentiate it from a common adjective. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead moved the page, which should alleviate concerns about "having articles about adjectives". I also removed the information that wasn't specifically germane to sport. What is left is a stub-class, but necessary, article. "Pound for pound" is absolutely necessary for comparing unbeaten champion boxers such as Ricardo Lopez (105 lbs.) and Rocky Marciano (more than twice that). It is not simply a dictionary definition, but a complex concept. This referenced article needs improvement and expansion rather than simple redirection. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't what I suggested in any way, I suggested not having an article at all, since it didn't do anything other than define the term exactly like a dictionary would. The title 'pound for pound' is an adjective, as in 'pound for pound cost' where cost is the noun. Sticking '(sport)' on the end doesn't make it not an adjective, it's still an adjective, and in this context it just means 'best' or 'favorite' which we don't have articles for either in that sense (we don't have articles for adjectives in Wikipedia). It's essentially just a slang phrase which is covered by dictionaries perfectly well.Teapeat (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. You said in your edit summary, "Wikipedia does not have articles about adjectives. it would have to be pound for pound best boxer or something". I made it "pound for pound (sport)" instead of "pound for pound (boxing)" because there certainly isn't enough information to have separate articles such as "pound for pound (mixed martial arts)", "pound for pound (Greco-Roman wrestling)", ect. They would wind up being merged into one article. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You can turn it into a disambiguation page if you want, but it's certainly not an encyclopedia article, I don't even think there's anything much to link to.Teapeat (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a "slang phrase", it's a nuanced concept used to compare boxers in a multitude of ways. As noted in the article, The Ring magazine-universally recognized alongside the alphabet organizations as a world championship-recognizes a "pound for pound" champion that ostensibly supercedes the various weight classes. There is plenty to link to, although I did suggest that perhaps The Ring Pound for Pound article may be best if merged here. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No do not merge. This is a separate article on a separate subject. --Wonkey Donkey (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Expansion

There would be less of an argument here if the article was expanded to include controversies about the comparison, what is looked for, etc. There definately is room for that.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. The nominator was simply trolling me the whole way. No matter what I did to the article, he pretended that wasn't what he asked for. But in theory I agree with you. It looks like it's going to be kept, and I look forward to collaborating with others to improve it. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Title

I'd like to note that I'm open to different titles for this article. I just feel consensus should be achieved first, either here or through a formal move request. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I just feel that it shouldn't be a fucking adjective! Is that too much to ask? There aren't ANY adjective titles in Wikipedia; they are ALL disambiguation pages. I made it into a disambiguation page, and moved it to a reasonable title, and you got an admin to delete it? Like WTF?Teapeat (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:STICK. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Per policy:

"Adjective and verb forms (e.g. democratic, integrate) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Democracy, Integration), although sometimes they will be disambiguation pages, as at Organic."

Teapeat (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Not per policy, per guidelines. Your opinion has been made crystal clear. How about letting others weigh in here? Joefromrandb (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You only have opinions, but that's a direct quote from the Wikipedia:Article titles policy.Teapeat (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Pound for pound → pound for pound best fighter –

'Pound for pound' is an adjective, which are not allowed as a title and is used in multiple uses, such as 'pound for pound cheapest' etc. etc. as well as pound for pound [best fighter], which pretty just means whichever fighter you like the look of when don't they ever fight each other, because one of them died years ago or one is twice the fight weight.

Per Wikipedia:Article titles policy:

"Adjective and verb forms (e.g. democratic, integrate) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Democracy, Integration), although sometimes they will be disambiguation pages, as at Organic."relist --Mike Cline (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Teapeat (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose While I have no real problem with a page move, I don't think "pound for pound best fighter" is the best we can do. First of all, this article isn't meant to encompass strictly "fighting sports". We have discussed pound-for-pound rankings in collegiate/olympic wrestling, for instance. (And as a follower of the sweet science, I disagree with boxing being called "fighting"; I assume others do too.) Also, the article is not meant to identify the "best" athlete, but rather discuss objectively the nuanced concept itself. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Teapeat has a bizarre vendetta against this article; his actions have included edit-warring, an AfD proposal, move-warring, a deletion review proposal, and now this. Throughout the whole of this, he has behaved deceitfully and assumed bad faith. I should note that it was Teapeat who moved the article back to pound for pound after I had moved it to "pound for pound (sport)" in an attempt to compromise. He is quite caught up in "rules". We don't have rules here. And we do have articles with adjective titles. The article is "Heavyweight". "Heavyweight boxer" redirects there. Sometimes we need to think outside the box. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:STICK!Teapeat (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your continual personal attacks are obvious and boring. You started the edit warring when you went 4RR in 24 hours[1][2][3][4] to even get this article created in the first place, and you've never stopped. You have absolutely no room to call out other people on edit warring.Teapeat (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

'Heavyweight' is if you look it up in any dictionary, a noun, as in 'a heavyweight' who is a boxer in the heavyweight division, and heavyweight boxers are, as you even noted above are covered at that article. I would prefer that name to be 'heavyweight division' it seems a better name, but whatever, it's still a noun.

Are you actually trying to say that in "heavyweight boxer", "heavyweight" is a noun? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No, there it acts as an adjective. Boxer is the noun there. Adjectives are comparators like 'best' 'fastest' 'lightest' or specifying terms like 'pound for pound' as in 'pound for pound best' or 'very' as in 'very best'. Adjectives have nouns usually stuck on the end, like 'very best boxer', but sometimes it's before, like 'he is the best, pound for pound'. In that case the noun is 'he'.Teapeat (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

'pound for pound' is never, ever, a noun, it's an adjective. As such it takes different meanings depending on what you put after it, as in 'pound for pound most valuable metal', 'pound for pound best buy', 'pound for pound best boxer'. You always have to specify what you're talking about. That's because it's an adjective.Teapeat (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

And the Wikipedia will break if an adjective is used as an article title! Joefromrandb (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It does tend to, in several ways, one way is because if people link it like "pound for pound most valuable metal is platinum", and then if somebody clicks it they end up in the middle of something about boxing. If you make it a disambiguation page then the user at least can sort it out. But there's much more subtle ways it breaks Wikipedia as well.Teapeat (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• My counter-proposal is to simply move the article back to "pound for pound (sport)". It's descriptive and all-encompassing. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The bit in brackets isn't part of the title, it's just a disambiguation, it still means 'pound for pound' and it's still an adjective. And it literally seems to be saying 'pound for pound best sport', but how can you compare different sports, by the pound??? Is skiing a better sport than croquet, pound for pound? What about tennis? And 'Pound for pound' is always used with a 'best' or 'worst', 'lightest', 'most', 'better', 'worse', etc. It sort of dangles. Article titles are supposed to be self-contained, they're supposed to specify exactly what they're talking about, and that doesn't..Teapeat (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose it is a set phrase, so should be pound for pound, the best fighter or pound for pound the best fighter. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's nothing wrong with the title of this article about the phrase/concept of "pound for pound", any more than there are problems with our existing articles on the phrase/concepts ceteris paribus (all other things being equal) or mutatis mutandis. In addition, the restriction to fighters is inapt since the concept is also used to discuss other types of sport comparisons such as "pound for pound strongest" (running back, weightlifter, etc.) [5][6][7] or just to compare differently-sized players' abilities in any sport (e.g. see this usage in the obituary of baseball great Paul Waner[8]). --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pound for pound. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100423000351/http://www.fightersonlymagazine.co.uk/features/viewarticle.php?id=4258 to http://www.fightersonlymagazine.co.uk/features/viewarticle.php?id=4258

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Battling Nelson 1906

Battling Nelson 1906 pound for pound. A Dane not American. Poor research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.101.119.149 (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hyphens

Shouldn't this, and its associated articles, be hyphenated?; i.e., pound-for-pound. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It ought to be hyphenated when used as an adjective modifying and immediately preceding a noun ("a top pound-for-pound, all-around contender"), but not otherwise ("the best of all time, pound for pound"). I can't think of an adjectival, rather than adverbial, use of the term that doesn't precede the noun; e.g., it makes no sense to say, "That fighter is pound for pound." Mucketymuck (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I've been changing instances of "[...] the best pound for pound boxer" for years. It's nonsensical to refer to the concept as a noun. How I tend to word it, albeit in a long-winded way, is to write "[...] is ranked by [magazine] as the world's best boxer, pound for pound." Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)