Title fights and weight divisions aren't given much importance by historians because;
a. there are far more weight divisions now than before and
b. there are allot of insignificant titles.
Most boxers use this to pick & choose the easiest opponents.
The Klitchkos are considered top p4p fighters mostly because of longevity.
the way i do my P4P list is simple if the boxers were all the same weight who would win .
so take JMM and andre ward now these two boxers are very skilled fighters with marquez probably having the bigger win of the two koing manny but i rate ward higher because i think if they were both the same size ward would win .
it's a tough call who rates higher a fighter like hagler who dominated a weight for nearly a decade or a fighter like mayweather who has jumped weights with out clearing up a weight class .
i think there are a few fighters like tommy hearns /manny pac /floyd that have made their names by jumping weights but not all fighters have the frame to add massive amounts of weight and that shouldn't hold them back in the P4P ratings .
The fighters talent and resume is what I base ranking fighters on.
I agree about HW's though. I think Wlad is a top ten P4P fighter, but he isn't too high b/c his division isn't deep at all and it's void of any extremely good fighters.
My criteria includes:
Quality of opposition
Record
Skill Level
Historical Impact
Number of fights
Length of career
Beat the best of the best. Thats what u gotta do. Titles and weight divisions mean jack sht.
who deserves higher P4P:
a fighter that dominates one weight class and fights "great" fighters along the way.....
or a fighter that conquers multiple weight classes, by beating "good" opponents along the way
how come heavyeights usually never get much P4P love from the elitist boxing media establishment??/
