# Who is the #1 Pound for Pound fighter in the World?



## S_515_S (Jun 1, 2008)

1 - Anderson "The Spider" Silva - none of his opponents have gotten past the second round and the one who did (P. Cote) suffered a devastating knee injury about 15 seconds into the 3rd.

1.2 - Fedor "The Last Emperor" Emilianenko - He has dismantelled the former UFC Heavyweight Champion list and many more.

1.5 - Georges "Rush" St. Pierre - Probably the greatest all around fighter in MMA today (probably of all time). The best thing about GSP is that after each defeat he comes back indistructible, he evolves every second, his conditioning is uncanny and he is very humble with himself and his fans.

Notice that there's no 2's because any of this 3 could be the #1 Pound for Pound Fighter in the World.


----------



## wukkadb (Jan 1, 2007)

I say Fedor because he doesn't use size to his advantage like Silva and GSP does. Fedor is always the smaller heavyweight.


----------



## UFC on VHS (Dec 16, 2008)

Fedor


----------



## Lotus (Jul 4, 2007)

for the love of god not another one. 

Fedor is number one plain and simple, he has been dominant his entire career and continues too. There's really nothing to add here thank you come again.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Switch GSP and Anderson and the list will work better. GSP has more wins over top 10 fighters, not to mention in his last fight completely destroyed Penn, who at the time was considered a pound for pound great(still is considered one of the greatest in most eyes).

Fedor should be right where he is, #2. He defeated two top 5 heavyweights in his most recent fights, and did so easily, both in the first round. Not to mention not having a single loss in almost a DECADE. This alone would make me want to put him at #1, it's just his lack of top 10 guys that put him slightly behind GSP.

Anderson, well, he's a very good fighter. But his record is basically: Henderson, Franklin x2, and Nate. Yes, he beat them in a quick, awesome form. However, other than these fighters, he beat Travis(and got mounted in the fight), beat James, and looked bad against Cote, who is a good fighter himself, but I would expect more from the #1 pound for pound in the world than what Anderson showed against Cote. He's done great in staying undefeated in the UFC, great fighter, but if we're going to base him #1 because of that, Fedor hasn't been defeated in almost a decade.

Anyways, pound for pound is always subjective, no one can really say who is the best, it's all based on opinion. I believe it was Frank Mir(I could be wrong) that said he believes Miguel Torres is the pound for pound best. I think he's up there, but not number one or top 3, but his opinion is different than mine.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Try searching "pound for pound" in the forum search box. Click on any one of the 10000 threads that come up.


----------



## MenorcanMadman (Jan 8, 2009)

Fedor


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

:sarcastic11:

Macho Man Randy Savage... OOOOOHHHH YYYYEEEAAAHHH!!!


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

In b4 close

Fedor is #1 

and i wanted to say something else? :confused02:


----------



## randyspankstito (Sep 25, 2006)

Having a heavyweight at the top of a pound for pound list is just ridiculous and ignorant. A brief synopsis of how the term "pound for pound" was coined:

The original "sugar" Ray Robinson, a welterweight who was in his prime in the late thirties early 40's and is arguably the best pugilist to slap on the gloves was the first widely recognized "pound for pound" champ. This because though a heavyweight may have beat him on sheer size alone, he was such a good fighter that he would have beaten that heavyweight if weight was the same. 

So when you put a heavyweight at the top of a pound for pound list you are missing the whole point of the exercise. Unless you really think that if you shrunk fedor down to 185 he would beat anderson silva, or Torres at 135, or GSP at 170. I guess everybody is entitled to their own opinion though. 

I think this is the last time I'll comment on any pound for pound threads, because it get's me all worked up.


----------



## Lotus (Jul 4, 2007)

CornbreadBB said:


> :sarcastic11:
> 
> Macho Man Randy Savage... OOOOOHHHH YYYYEEEAAAHHH!!!


----------



## TERMINATOR (Jul 6, 2008)

1.Fedor
2.GSP
3.Anderson Silva
4.Torres
5.?


----------



## SpoKen (Apr 28, 2007)

Andy Wang for his heart alone.

Has this joke been done before? Yes, but so has this thread.


----------



## Suvaco (Mar 31, 2007)




----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

OH, Macho Man, how I missed thee.


----------



## Alex_DeLarge (Sep 5, 2006)

Brendan Fraser.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

randyspankstito said:


> Having a heavyweight at the top of a pound for pound list is just ridiculous and ignorant. A brief synopsis of how the term "pound for pound" was coined:
> 
> The original "sugar" Ray Robinson, a welterweight who was in his prime in the late thirties early 40's and is arguably the best pugilist to slap on the gloves was the first widely recognized "pound for pound" champ. This because though a heavyweight may have beat him on sheer size alone, he was such a good fighter that he would have beaten that heavyweight if weight was the same.
> 
> ...


your logic is ridiculous ... read your own post again on the origins of the concept pound for pound. What it says is that IF the best lighter guy were theoretically given the same weight and strength as the best heavyweight AND beat him, he would be considered the pound for pound best. However, if, even with the lighter fighter theoretically scaled up to HW, the HW fighter would still win in most peoples eyes, based on talent and domination he has shown .. the HEAVYWEIGHT CAN BE TERMED AS P4P BEST. 

People like you with a lighter weight bias for p4p are ironically the ones who have no idea it means and then get worked up about it. p4p can be any weight class fighter, including SHW, HW, LHW etc.. it is essentially weight class neutral, that's the idea. It doesn't have to be some skinny little flyweight because when scaled up, he would somehow be Zeus. You have to scale up rationally, accounting for how extra weight would affect his speed, technicality etc. The only rational way to do this is to compare how dominant guys are against the best in their own weight class, and Fedor clearly edges out the other contenders in that regard. If anything Fedor has an even higher claim to p4p because he is a 230 lb fighter fighting natural 250-350 lb guys on occasion (hence making his pound count more per pound), whereas other guys never fight with more than a 15 lb difference. And yes, I do think that if Fedor were scaled down to 185, he'd beat anderson, or GSP at 170, that's the point. Based on the skill, speed, agility and more importantly *domination* he has shown for a guy lugging around 230 lbs, he would be insane when scaled down. But no, it haz to be Torres duh he way smalls n stil kik ass lolz!


----------



## randyspankstito (Sep 25, 2006)

Liddellianenko said:


> your logic is ridiculous ... read your own post again on the origins of the concept pound for pound. What it says is that IF the best lighter guy were theoretically given the same weight and strength as the best heavyweight AND beat him, he would be considered the pound for pound best. However, if, even with the lighter fighter theoretically scaled up to HW, the HW fighter would still win in most peoples eyes, based on talent and domination he has shown .. the HEAVYWEIGHT CAN BE TERMED AS P4P BEST.
> 
> People like you with a lighter weight bias for p4p are ironically the ones who have no idea it means and then get worked up about it. p4p can be any weight class fighter, including SHW, HW, LHW etc.. it is essentially weight class neutral, that's the idea. It doesn't have to be some skinny little flyweight because when scaled up, he would somehow be Zeus. You have to scale up rationally, accounting for how extra weight would affect his speed, technicality etc. The only rational way to do this is to compare how dominant guys are against the best in their own weight class, and Fedor clearly edges out the other contenders in that regard. If anything Fedor has an even higher claim to p4p because he is a 230 lb fighter fighting natural 250-350 lb guys on occasion (hence making his pound count more per pound), whereas other guys never fight with more than a 15 lb difference. And yes, I do think that if Fedor were scaled down to 185, he'd beat anderson, or GSP at 170, that's the point. Based on the skill, speed, agility and more importantly *domination* he has shown for a guy lugging around 230 lbs, he would be insane when scaled down. But no, it haz to be Torres duh he way smalls n stil kik ass lolz!




Read it douchebag. 

http://www.hbo.com/boxing/features/history/pound_for_pound.html


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> your logic is ridiculous ... read your own post again on the origins of the concept pound for pound. What it says is that IF the best lighter guy were theoretically given the same weight and strength as the best heavyweight AND beat him, he would be considered the pound for pound best. However, if, even with the lighter fighter theoretically scaled up to HW, the HW fighter would still win in most peoples eyes, based on talent and domination he has shown .. the HEAVYWEIGHT CAN BE TERMED AS P4P BEST.
> 
> People like you with a lighter weight bias for p4p are ironically the ones who have no idea it means and then get worked up about it. p4p can be any weight class fighter, including SHW, HW, LHW etc.. it is essentially weight class neutral, that's the idea. It doesn't have to be some skinny little flyweight because when scaled up, he would somehow be Zeus. You have to scale up rationally, accounting for how extra weight would affect his speed, technicality etc. The only rational way to do this is to compare how dominant guys are against the best in their own weight class, and Fedor clearly edges out the other contenders in that regard. If anything Fedor has an even higher claim to p4p because he is a 230 lb fighter fighting natural 250-350 lb guys on occasion (hence making his pound count more per pound), whereas other guys never fight with more than a 15 lb difference. And yes, I do think that if Fedor were scaled down to 185, he'd beat anderson, or GSP at 170, that's the point. Based on the skill, speed, agility and more importantly *domination* he has shown for a guy lugging around 230 lbs, he would be insane when scaled down. But no, it haz to be Torres duh he way smalls n stil kik ass lolz!


This post just fails all kinds of ways.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

MLS said:


> This post just fails all kinds of ways.


which is why you graced it with an intellectual well argued response I see. Clearly your logic wins.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> which is why you graced it with an intellectual well argued response I see. Clearly your logic wins.


You say "the HEAVYWEIGHT CAN BE TERMED AS P4P BEST"

Name me one HW that has ever been deemed #1.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

randyspankstito said:


> Read it douchebag.
> 
> http://www.hbo.com/boxing/features/history/pound_for_pound.html


What, all that proves is that there are writers that share your douchebag opinion. The guy is by no means the authority on Boxing, there's as much debate on this in the boxing community as in MMA.



MLS said:


> You say "the HEAVYWEIGHT CAN BE TERMED AS P4P BEST"
> 
> Name me one HW that has ever been deemed #1.


None, until now with Fedor. Because in history, there has never been as dominant a HW champ or as technically skilled as some of the smaller guys (because most HWs have been KO artists relying on power), but that doesn't mean that they can't exist in theory. But Fedor has been ranked #1 p4p on most MMA/Fight sports sites that know what they're talking about including MMAWeekly, MMANews, Sherdog etc., because he has shown a level of skill, technicality and domination to rival, on scale, any other top fighter from any other weight class. He isn't just some heavy-handed KO artist, his submissions, sub-defence, TDD, Judo and GnP technicality are unrivalled.


----------



## randyspankstito (Sep 25, 2006)

Liddellianenko said:


> What, all that proves is that there are writers that share your douchebag opinion. The guy is by no means the authority on Boxing, there's as much debate on this in the boxing community as in MMA.


That's because it's a boxing term, that is being twisted by mma fans that don't understand the meaning. That is what always bugs me about it. I've never really heard that much debate about the heavyweight aspect in boxing.

by the way, sorry for my douchebag comment. This debate get's me fired up.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

MLS said:


> You say "the HEAVYWEIGHT CAN BE TERMED AS P4P BEST"
> 
> Name me one HW that has ever been deemed #1.


So, because a HW has never in the past been #1, a HW can never be #1? There's always a first for everything and many people on this forum think Fedor, a HW, is the #1 pound for pound fighter. 

America never had a black president before, but guess what?

Anyways, I have Fedor at #2, but saying that he can't be #1 because no one in the past has ever been so at HW is pretty unreasonable.


----------



## randyspankstito (Sep 25, 2006)

OK I need to step away from the computer before my head explodes.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Michael Carson said:


> So, because a HW has never in the past been #1, a HW can never be #1? There's always a first for everything and many people on this forum think Fedor, a HW, is the #1 pound for pound fighter.
> 
> America never had a black president before, but guess what?
> 
> Anyways, I have Fedor at #2, but saying that he can't be #1 because no one in the past has ever been so at HW is pretty unreasonable.


Ok, the reason there has NEVER been a HW that was #1 is because they aren't CONSIDERED for it. Ali was never #1, Dempsey never #1, Tyson never #1, Louis never #1, and so on.


----------



## Suvaco (Mar 31, 2007)

MLS said:


> Ok, the reason there has NEVER been a HW that was #1 is because they aren't CONSIDERED for it. Ali was never #1, Dempsey never #1, Tyson never #1, Louis never #1, and so on.


What is your definition of P4P?


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

MLS said:


> Ok, the reason there has NEVER been a HW that was #1 is because they aren't CONSIDERED for it. Ali was never #1, Dempsey never #1, Tyson never #1, Louis never #1, and so on.


Ok, that's fine, but right now Fedor, a HEAVYHWEIGHT, IS being considered #1, things change, times change, and a heavyweight is being considered as #1.

Even the rankings we have here on this forum have Fedor at #1.

Things change, get used to it.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

MLS said:


> Ok, the reason there has NEVER been a HW that was #1 is because they aren't CONSIDERED for it. Ali was never #1, Dempsey never #1, Tyson never #1, Louis never #1, and so on.


Oh yes, they aren't even considered, that's why we got HW Klitcho at #17 and #10.

http://boxing.about.com/cs/rankingschampions/a/top_fifty.htm

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/120983-bleacher-report-boxing-pound-for-pound-rankings-feb-09

He's not #1, but if they weren't even considering HWs, they wouldn't be on the list. You can't say the criteria for #1 p4p is different than the criteria for #2 p4p or #10 p4p .. it's the same damn concept. The fact that they're there on the lists means that they're considered, and if, in theory, they were better technically and domination wise, they could be #1.


----------



## wukkadb (Jan 1, 2007)

Fedor is a really small heavyweight though... he is smaller than some LHW's.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

randyspankstito said:


> That's because it's a boxing term, that is being twisted by mma fans that don't understand the meaning. That is what always bugs me about it. I've never really heard that much debate about the heavyweight aspect in boxing.
> 
> by the way, sorry for my douchebag comment. This debate get's me fired up.


No prob, sorry for reacting the same. But yeah, I still think you're wrong though.. IMO it's just your opinion that what you think is the accepted Boxing definition and MMA is twisting it. Look at the P4P boxing lists, they all have Klitcho on them .. he's not #1 because he's not as technically sound as some of the lighter guys, but he's in the running at #10 or so. If HWs could never be considered for p4p, why is he on those lists? Or are you saying, we can consider them, but we'd never give them #1? What is this some kinda fat guy glass ceiling? If they're good enough for #2 or #10, they can in theory be good enough for #1 based on the same criteria.

The lists prove that, in theory, if say the 9 guys above him didn't exist, he WOULD BE considered #1 based on the criteria they use. They wouldn't arbitrarily pick some lighter guy with, by their own admission on their lists, lesser skill, and make him #1 just because HWs "can never be p4p". That's just silly.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> None, until now with Fedor. Because in history, there has never been as dominant a HW champ or as technically skilled as some of the smaller guys (because most HWs have been KO artists relying on power), but that doesn't mean that they can't exist in theory. But Fedor has been ranked #1 p4p on most MMA/Fight sports sites that know what they're talking about including MMAWeekly, MMANews, Sherdog etc., because he has shown a level of skill, technicality and domination to rival, on scale, any other top fighter from any other weight class. He isn't just some heavy-handed KO artist, his submissions, sub-defence, TDD, Judo and GnP technicality are unrivalled.


There have been HW's in boxing just as skilled as Fedor but they weren't #1.



Suvaco said:


> What is your definition of P4P?


Very simplified version, if a fighter is a better quality of fighter than a heavier fighter, he is ranked higher.



Michael Carson said:


> Ok, that's fine, but right now Fedor, a HEAVYHWEIGHT, IS being considered #1, things change, times change, and a heavyweight is being considered as #1.
> 
> Even the rankings we have here on this forum have Fedor at #1.
> 
> Things change, get used to it.


Not a change of times but ignorance to the term.



Liddellianenko said:


> Oh yes, they aren't even considered, that's why we got HW Klitcho at #17 and #10.
> 
> http://boxing.about.com/cs/rankingschampions/a/top_fifty.htm
> 
> ...


Is this the slow crowd today, HW's AREN'T CONSIDERED FOR THE #1 SPOT, maybe that will help.

And damn, try and get some more reputable rankings.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

MLS said:


> Is this the slow crowd today, HW's AREN'T CONSIDERED FOR THE #1 SPOT, maybe that will help.
> 
> And damn, try and get some more reputable rankings.


You must be the slow one.. how does the criteria for a theoretical concept magically change from #1 to #2? Why can someone with the skills to be #2 not be #1 based on the same criteria? What if the #1 died, heck all top 20 p4p contenders died except for the HW, would they pick some lighter guy that sucked and put him at #1 just because they can't have a HW p4p #1? You're blind.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> You must be the slow one.. how does the criteria for a theoretical concept magically change from #1 to #2? Why can someone with the skills to be #2 not be #1 based on the same criteria? What if the #1 died, heck all top 20 p4p contenders died except for the HW, would they pick some lighter guy that sucked and put him at #1 just because they can't have a HW p4p #1? You're blind.


All I have to say is, you are trying to say that history is wrong. There has never been a #1 HW and there is a reason and that is because a HW will always beat a smaller fighter so they tried to do a rankings separate from HW's. Joe Louis would have beat SRR but SRR was the better fighter so hence the #1 spot.


----------



## duncanjr (Dec 12, 2008)

Liddellianenko said:


> your logic is ridiculous ... read your own post again on the origins of the concept pound for pound. What it says is that IF the best lighter guy were theoretically given the same weight and strength as the best heavyweight AND beat him, he would be considered the pound for pound best. However, if, even with the lighter fighter theoretically scaled up to HW, the HW fighter would still win in most peoples eyes, based on talent and domination he has shown .. the HEAVYWEIGHT CAN BE TERMED AS P4P BEST.
> 
> People like you with a lighter weight bias for p4p are ironically the ones who have no idea it means and then get worked up about it. p4p can be any weight class fighter, including SHW, HW, LHW etc.. it is essentially weight class neutral, that's the idea. It doesn't have to be some skinny little flyweight because when scaled up, he would somehow be Zeus. You have to scale up rationally, accounting for how extra weight would affect his speed, technicality etc. The only rational way to do this is to compare how dominant guys are against the best in their own weight class, and Fedor clearly edges out the other contenders in that regard. If anything Fedor has an even higher claim to p4p because he is a 230 lb fighter fighting natural 250-350 lb guys on occasion (hence making his pound count more per pound), whereas other guys never fight with more than a 15 lb difference. And yes, I do think that if Fedor were scaled down to 185, he'd beat anderson, or GSP at 170, that's the point. Based on the skill, speed, agility and more importantly *domination* he has shown for a guy lugging around 230 lbs, he would be insane when scaled down. But no, it haz to be Torres duh he way smalls n stil kik ass lolz!


 a. silva at fedors weight would be a very close tilt . fedor is great , cant say hes not . hes also def one of my favorite fighters ,but too many act like hes unbeatable ....which i believe although great , there s alot of hws out there that could hang with him or dare i say beat him .... hes fighting in affliction against guys like arlovski (who since the loss to tim sylvia , way back when , has never been that great ) , beat up a useless tim sylvia ,i mean ....yes he beat nog , (mir just recently creamed nog too ) , beat crocop , so did gg, and kongo fer christ sakes . so in my opioion , his domination hasnt been agaist as great a competition as gsp or a.silva . as much as it pains me to say it , i would give mir, lesnar , carwin , even couture a very good chance in upsetting the almighty fedor .





MLS said:


> This post just fails all kinds of ways.


its how this guy rolls .....everyones an idiot if you look at something defrently from him .




randyspankstito said:


> Read it douchebag.
> 
> 
> that is in fact where that term was first used . dont mind the haters .:thumb02:
> ...





Liddellianenko said:


> which is why you graced it with an intellectual well argued response I see. Clearly your logic wins.


what about mine ? :dunno:


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

MLS said:


> All I have to say is, you are trying to say that history is wrong. There has never been a #1 HW and there is a reason and that is because a HW will always beat a smaller fighter so they tried to do a rankings separate from HW's. Joe Louis would have beat SRR but SRR was the better fighter so hence the #1 spot.


Of course Joe Louis would've beat Sugar in real life, because he was much bigger and stronger... but theoretically scaled to the same weight, Sugar would be the better boxer. That is not the case with Fedor and the current mma p4p contenders. 

This is not a matter of me denying history, it's a matter of logic. Just because there hasn't been an example of something yet doesn't mean there can't BE an example in theory.. especially for a theoretical concept like p4p to begin with. We've never had a female president in US history.. by your logic we never can. This must be the slow class, no woman can be considered for #1 spot lol. It'd be a different thing if the rules or criteria explicitly stated that a woman couldn't be president, or a HW didn't count pound for pound, but that is not the concept. If anything, the fact that boxing seems to be misusing and mangling the concept of p4p to promote the lighter weight classes over the popular HW class is a logical lie and marketing gimmick to get more people to watch lower weight classes more. But the words pound-for-pound in simple english would logically mean for each pound of this guy, how would each pound of this guy match up .. it's mathematical and logical, you can't have arbitrary biases on it.



duncanjr said:


> a. silva at fedors weight would be a very close tilt . fedor is great , cant say hes not . hes also def one of my favorite fighters ,but too many act like hes unbeatable ....which i believe although great , there s alot of hws out there that could hang with him or dare i say beat him .... hes fighting in affliction against guys like arlovski (who since the loss to tim sylvia , way back when , has never been that great ) , beat up a useless tim sylvia ,i mean ....yes he beat nog , (mir just recently creamed nog too ) , beat crocop , so did gg, and kongo fer christ sakes . so in my opioion , his domination hasnt been agaist as great a competition as gsp or a.silva . as much as it pains me to say it , i would give mir, lesnar , carwin , even couture a very good chance in upsetting the almighty fedor .
> 
> 
> what about mine ? :dunno:


Right, and that's a matter of opinion.. maybe A Silva would be slightly better at that weight, maybe GSP, maybe Fedor. But you're still considering Fedor for that spot, in your post you're doing the logical evaluation. I'd say it's close enough between him, GSP and Anderson that it's anyone's guess who would be best when scaled to the same weight. But they can all be considered for it and that's the point, there's nothing disqualifying Fedor from the running.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

double post


----------



## Future_Fighter (Feb 6, 2008)

Fedor is the #1 p4p fighter in mma


Fedor is the best.


----------



## Alex_DeLarge (Sep 5, 2006)

Brendan Fraser, in Encino Man.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> Of course Joe Louis would've beat Sugar in real life, because he was much bigger and stronger... but theoretically scaled to the same weight, Sugar would be the better boxer. That is not the case with Fedor and the current mma p4p contenders.
> 
> This is not a matter of me denying history, it's a matter of logic. Just because there hasn't been an example of something yet doesn't mean there can't BE an example in theory.. especially for a theoretical concept like p4p to begin with. We've never had a female president in US history.. by your logic we never can. This must be the slow class, no woman can be considered for #1 spot lol. It'd be a different thing if the rules or criteria explicitly stated that a woman couldn't be president, or a HW didn't count pound for pound, but that is not the concept. If anything, the fact that boxing seems to be misusing and mangling the concept of p4p to promote the lighter weight classes over the popular HW class is a logical lie and marketing gimmick to get more people to watch lower weight classes more. But the words pound-for-pound in simple english would logically mean for each pound of this guy, how would each pound of this guy match up .. it's mathematical and logical, you can't have arbitrary biases on it.


You keep thinking that you know what you are talking about because your posts are quite entertaining. You would be laughed at by any boxing fan and historian, remember you are using their term.

Fedor is untouchable, just classic.


----------



## Superman55 (May 3, 2007)

In MMA P4P terms, I have Fedor as number #1.


----------



## Suvaco (Mar 31, 2007)

MLS said:


> All I have to say is, you are trying to say that history is wrong. There has never been a #1 HW and there is a reason and that is because a HW will always beat a smaller fighter so they tried to do a rankings separate from HW's. Joe Louis would have beat SRR but SRR was the better fighter so hence the #1 spot.


I know what you're trying to say, but why can't P4P rankings apply to heavyweights? For example, let's take Fedor and Kalib Starnes. Even ignoring the size difference, I think we can all agree Fedor is a better fighter than Kalib Starnes. We have just proven that a heavier fighter can be better P4P than a lighter one.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Because when you compare P4P you are comparing the best so you wouldn't have Starnes there. Say this was boxing and you had GSP and Fedor with comparative skills from mma, obviously not possible but since we are talking hypotheticals, GSP always gets rated ahead because he is the smaller fighter.

And this difference in Fedor and GSP isn't great enough in Fedor's favor to rate him above GSP.


----------



## Suvaco (Mar 31, 2007)

MLS said:


> Because when you compare P4P you are comparing the best so you wouldn't have Starnes there. Say this was boxing and you had GSP and Fedor with comparative skills from mma, obviously not possible but since we are talking hypotheticals, GSP always gets rated ahead because he is the smaller fighter.
> 
> And this difference in Fedor and GSP isn't great enough in Fedor's favor to rate him above GSP.


I know Starnes wouldn't be considered in the top P4P rankings, but I was trying to use an extreme example to prove my point that it is possible for the heavier fighter to be better even ignoring weight differences.

I don't see why the smaller fighter is always ranked higher when the skills are comparable. Seems like a stupid ranking system.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

They are ranked higher because it was made for them. Like I said earlier, SRR was a better boxer than Joe Louis but couldn't beat him in a fight, so P4P he is a better fighter.

Ali when he was doing his thing in the 60's and 70's he had Carlos Ortiz, Eder Jofre, Pascual Perez, Roberto Duran, and Carlos Monzon all ranked ahead of him P4P. And Ali is considered the 1-2 HW ever, some may have him lower but generally he is ranked there.

The bias is there for smaller fighters because it was created for them and in order for a HW to even be considered #1 they have to pretty much be head and shoulders above every fighter and Fedor really isn't that.


----------



## Suvaco (Mar 31, 2007)

MLS said:


> They are ranked higher because it was made for them. Like I said earlier, SRR was a better boxer than Joe Louis but couldn't beat him in a fight, so P4P he is a better fighter.


But what if he wasn't the better boxer? Does it make sense to rank him higher? SRR is the better boxer so he's ranked higher. Fedor is better than Anderson Silva (IMO), so he is ranked higher.



> Ali when he was doing his thing in the 60's and 70's he had Carlos Ortiz, Eder Jofre, Pascual Perez, Roberto Duran, and Carlos Monzon all ranked ahead of him P4P. And Ali is considered the 1-2 HW ever, some may have him lower but generally he is ranked there.
> 
> The bias is there for smaller fighters because it was created for them and in order for a HW to even be considered #1 they have to pretty much be head and shoulders above every fighter and Fedor really isn't that.


If boxing fans created this system just so smaller fighters would be ranked higher, regardless of whether or not they are actually more skilled, then I say we MMA fans take the phrase and give it new meaning, because that system is broken.

I'm not saying Fedor is #1 P4P. He could be, but that's not my point. My point is that, in theory, it's retarded to have a ranking system that gives certain fighters an advantage simply because they are smaller.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Suvaco said:


> But what if he wasn't the better boxer? Does it make sense to rank him higher? SRR is the better boxer so he's ranked higher. Fedor is better than Anderson Silva (IMO), so he is ranked higher.


Well speaking hypothetically again, if SRR wasn't a better boxer than we probably wouldn't be talking P4P. But even if he wasn't Henry Armstrong would have been rated higher than Louis.

Would you rate GSP, Torres, or Fedor higher?



> If boxing fans created this system just so smaller fighters would be ranked higher, regardless of whether or not they are actually more skilled, then I say we MMA fans take the phrase and give it new meaning, because that system is broken.
> 
> I'm not saying Fedor is #1 P4P. He could be, but that's not my point. My point is that, in theory, it's retarded to have a ranking system that gives certain fighters an advantage simply because they are smaller.


No it was created for smaller fighters because they are generally more skilled than heavier fighters, hence why all those guys were rated above Ali even though he is rated so highly at HW.

A comparison could be made between Fedor and Ali, both great fighters but the difference being the mma is still in it's infancy stages so their aren't as many people doing it as their were in boxing back then so the talent pool is a lot smaller. Which helps Fedor and hurt Ali because the amount of great fighters in mma is a lot smaller than in boxing so a HW now in mma has more of a chance at being better.

If the talent pool was switched between boxing and mma, Ali may have been rated #1 P4P but there were a lot of great fighters in boxing then and their aren't that many in mma now.


----------



## Suvaco (Mar 31, 2007)

MLS said:


> Well speaking hypothetically again, if SRR wasn't a better boxer than we probably wouldn't be talking P4P. But even if he wasn't Henry Armstrong would have been rated higher than Louis.
> 
> Would you rate GSP, Torres, or Fedor higher?


I'm terrible at rankings, so I don't really know. I guess I'd have to say Fedor, since I can't even think of any area in the fight game that he isn't very good at.




> No it was created for smaller fighters because they are generally more skilled than heavier fighters, hence why all those guys were rated above Ali even though he is rated so highly at HW.


Generally, they are. Fedor is a freak of nature.


----------



## randyspankstito (Sep 25, 2006)

You guys just need to take MLS' word on this one. The man knows what he's talking about.

Here's a good example. Go and watch a Miguel Torres fight back to back with a Fedor fight and tell me who is more skilled and athletic. I'm serious, then do the same thing with A. Silva and Fedor. 

You'll probably start to get the picture once you do that.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Suvaco said:


> I'm terrible at rankings, so I don't really know. I guess I'd have to say Fedor, since I can't even think of any area in the fight game that he isn't very good at.


But Anderson has clear weakness and people and some sites rank him above Fedor, granted some claim weakness in opponents for Fedor but Andy hasn't had the toughest fights either.



> Generally, they are. Fedor is a freak of nature.


Ali was too but again the difference in the talent pool in boxing and mma allows Fedor to even be considered for the #1 spot .


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

randyspankstito said:


> You guys just need to take MLS' word on this one. The man knows what he's talking about.


I think we need to take Suvaco's word on this.. he knows what he's talking about in MMA terms instead of a broken, biassed, and logically unsound Boxing definition made purely for marketing. I agree with him 100%, and thankfully he gets his point across much calmer than I.


----------



## D.P. (Oct 8, 2008)

Anderson Silva.


----------



## Superman55 (May 3, 2007)

randyspankstito said:


> You guys just need to take MLS' word on this one. The man knows what he's talking about.
> 
> Here's a good example. Go and watch a Miguel Torres fight back to back with a Fedor fight and tell me who is more skilled and athletic. I'm serious, then do the same thing with A. Silva and Fedor.
> 
> You'll probably start to get the picture once you do that.



I still think Fedor is more skilled than those guys. Maybe not in individual areas. However overall I would still say he is more skilled.


----------



## randyspankstito (Sep 25, 2006)

Liddellianenko said:


> I think we need to take Suvaco's word on this.. he knows what he's talking about in MMA terms instead of a broken, biassed, and logically unsound Boxing definition made purely for marketing. I agree with him 100%, and thankfully he gets his point across much calmer than I.


Dude is your head full of rocks or crap? I can't figure out which.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

randyspankstito said:


> Dude is your head full of rocks or crap? I can't figure out which.


Neither, but anyone who believes retarded shit like you do in spite of all logical holes and complete inconsistency in definition should be wearing their helmets while they type in their childish insults. Just concerned for your safety, my special little friend. And say hi to all the other tards on the bus will ya .. daah.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> Neither, but anyone who believes retarded shit like you do in spite of all logical holes and complete inconsistency in definition should be wearing their helmets while they type in their childish insults. Just concerned for your safety, my special little friend. And say hi to all the other tards on the bus will ya .. daah.


So again, you are saying how it's been done for over 50 years is wrong, wonderful.

And it's clear you don't understand why Fedor could even be considered #1 in mma and why Ali couldn't in boxing when Ali was just as good or better in boxing than Fedor is in mma.


----------



## Future_Fighter (Feb 6, 2008)

randyspankstito said:


> You guys just need to take MLS' word on this one. The man knows what he's talking about.
> 
> Here's a good example. Go and watch a Miguel Torres fight back to back with a Fedor fight and tell me who is more skilled and athletic. I'm serious, then do the same thing with A. Silva and Fedor.
> 
> You'll probably start to get the picture once you do that.


Well uh you also have to take in account the level of opponent they each face there all around game and their record


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

MLS said:


> So again, you are saying how it's been done for over 50 years is wrong, wonderful.
> 
> And it's clear you don't understand why Fedor could even be considered #1 in mma and why Ali couldn't in boxing when Ali was just as good or better in boxing than Fedor is in mma.


Lots of things have been done for over 50 years, and they're wrong and or stupid. Slavery, human sacrifice, whatever. If your or Boxing's definition is that a lighter fighter should be ranked higher than a heavier guy, regardless of skill just because they're lighter and the system was "made for them", then maybe it is a stupid ranking system that is deceptive and untrue to the literal connotation that it has. Pound-for-Pound should mean what it implies, in plain english. Not this arbitrary we want it to mean this because we made it for them. To quote Suvaco



Suvaco said:


> If boxing fans created this system just so smaller fighters would be ranked higher, regardless of whether or not they are actually more skilled, then I say we MMA fans take the phrase and give it new meaning, because that system is broken.
> 
> I'm not saying Fedor is #1 P4P. He could be, but that's not my point. My point is that, in theory, it's retarded to have a ranking system that gives certain fighters an advantage simply because they are smaller.


Back to MLS, actually, your system goes beyond giving an advantage. It says that it is not even remotely possible to even have a HW as a #1 p4p no matter how skilled. If Fedor and Andy Wang were the only two fighters in existence (and don't bring other top fighters, boxing history yata yata into this, it's called a hypothetical situation), according to your amazing system, Andy Wang would be the #1 p4p fighter on the planet. Good lord. What is the point of such a ranking definition and why would it hold any relevance in discussions of MMA skill, when a blind person could see Fedor was the better fighter size or no.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> Lots of things have been done for over 50 years, and they're wrong and or stupid. Slavery, human sacrifice, whatever. If your or Boxing's definition is that a lighter fighter should be ranked higher than a heavier guy, regardless of skill just because they're lighter and the system was "made for them", then maybe it is a stupid ranking system that is deceptive and untrue to the literal connotation that it has. Pound-for-Pound should mean what it implies, in plain english. Not this arbitrary we want it to mean this because we made it for them. To quote Suvaco


My response to that took care of that and if you still think this, "If your or Boxing's definition is that a lighter fighter should be ranked higher than a heavier guy, *regardless of skill just because they're lighter* and the system was "made for them"," :dunno: maybe reading comprehension needs some working on.



MLS said:


> No it was created for smaller fighters *because they are generally more skilled than heavier fighters, hence why all those guys were rated above Ali even though he is rated so highly at HW.*
> 
> A comparison could be made between Fedor and Ali, both great fighters but the difference being the mma is still in it's infancy stages so their aren't as many people doing it as their were in boxing back then so the talent pool is a lot smaller. Which helps Fedor and hurt Ali because the amount of great fighters in mma is a lot smaller than in boxing so a HW now in mma has more of a chance at being better.
> 
> If the talent pool was switched between boxing and mma, Ali may have been rated #1 P4P but there were a lot of great fighters in boxing then and their aren't that many in mma now.


He then stated something about Fedor being a freak of nature to which I responded so was Ali but he wasn't number 1 and again the difference in the talent pool in boxing and mma allows Fedor to even be considered for the #1 spot."


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

MLS said:


> My response to that took care of that and if you still think this, "If your or Boxing's definition is that a lighter fighter should be ranked higher than a heavier guy, *regardless of skill just because they're lighter* and the system was "made for them"," :dunno: maybe reading comprehension needs some working on.
> 
> 
> 
> He then stated something about Fedor being a freak of nature to which I responded so was Ali but he wasn't number 1 and again the difference in the talent pool in boxing and mma allows Fedor to even be considered for the #1 spot."


Fair enough, but based on this it would seem you concede the point then. That if, hypothetically a HW fighter had *more skill* than a lighter weight fighter then they could in fact be considered p4p #1. Maybe Fedor isn't better skill wise than Anderson or GSP or Torres.. I think he is and many think he is, and it is very much a possibility for him to be ranked #1.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> Fair enough, but based on this it would seem you concede the point then. That if, hypothetically a HW fighter had *more skill* than a lighter weight fighter then they could in fact be considered p4p #1. Maybe Fedor isn't better skill wise than Anderson or GSP or Torres.. I think he is and many think he is, and it is very much a possibility for him to be ranked #1.


In boxing I'm fairly confident that no HW will ever be #1 and if mma gets to where boxing was in it's peak, I doubt a HW would get to #1 either.

Right now Fedor benefits from mma still being in it's infancy and not having that many great fighters. This is what allows him to even think about #1 because if Fedor was put with the same type of competition that Ali had to go against (P4P wise) or someone like RJJ in his prime, I would be willingly to bet a lot of money he wouldn't be #1.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

MLS said:


> In boxing I'm fairly confident that no HW will ever be #1 and if mma gets to where boxing was in it's peak, I doubt a HW would get to #1 either.
> 
> Right now Fedor benefits from mma still being in it's infancy and not having that many great fighters. This is what allows him to even think about #1 because if Fedor was put with the same type of competition that Ali had to go against (P4P wise) or someone like RJJ in his prime, I would be willingly to bet a lot of money he wouldn't be #1.


Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't, but infancy or whatever the cause, it's possible then, in MMA, now, hypothetically, Thank you. Fedor #1 p4p.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

I swear you just post to try and think you prove a point. You aren't even comprehending what I'm saying.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

MLS said:


> I swear you just post to try and think you prove a point. You aren't even comprehending what I'm saying.


I kinda feel the same way about your posts actually. I feel like I'm making an obvious point but you just refuse to look at it logically instead of some fanatical definition you're clinging to without comprehending what I'm saying. I suppose you feel the same way about my point of view.. whatever, I gotta get some sleep.

EDIT: one more thing, apologies if things got a little heated .. i just don't agree with you on this thing but I do respect you as a poster and you have some good knowledge. And I do appreciate that you keep things fairly polite and mature. gnite.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Liddellianenko said:


> I kinda feel the same way about your posts actually. I feel like I'm making an obvious point but you just refuse to look at it logically instead of some fanatical definition you're clinging to without comprehending what I'm saying. I suppose you feel the same way about my point of view.. whatever, I gotta get some sleep, gnite.


No, you have made it quite obvious you aren't getting what I'm saying do we not remember "If your or Boxing's definition is that a lighter fighter should be ranked higher than a heavier guy, regardless of skill just because they're lighter and the system was "made for them" which I had already correct yet you still didn't get it.

You just want Fedor to be #1 and want a HW to be #1 because hypothetically it's possible. Aliens being true is hypothetical as well.

You want to use a boxing term which by your first post you didn't get, then we use boxing's way of rating. I'm stating that in boxing HW's aren't going to be #1 P4P and why this is. And if mma was on the same level as boxing a HW most likely isn't #1 but you seem to want to admit that boxing>mma by putting Fedor at #1 in terms of the amount of great fighers. All I am saying is why HW's are generally excluded, even the great ones and why Fedor in theory is at a disadvantage. If Ali couldn't make it #1 then that tells you something about Fedor because Ali was just as good a boxer or better than Fedor is at mma.

Whether you like it or not P4P is what it is, has been and always will be.

I fully grasp what you are saying but by using a boxing term, you use that definition, kickboxing does, muay thai does, in fact mma is really the only sport I see that tries to change the definition. This is why I don't really believe in P4P for mma and I hate when people try and make P4P out so it benefits there favorite fighter. 

But hey, if you think you are right because anything is possible, why not go live on Mars?


----------



## Embry (Jan 9, 2009)

I gotta go with Anderson Silva. He hasn't failed to be none other then the best yet!:thumbsup:


----------



## MooJuice (Dec 12, 2008)

Here's my take on the issue: 

Many fighters recognise the fact that "90% of fighting is mental" - I've heard it said many times before, by champions and others alike. Because MMA has so many facets of fighting, i believe that whats going on inside your head truly is one of the biggest factors in determining the winner of a fight, especially in fights between two skilled fighters. In boxing however, while mentallity is still vital, i dont think it is as vital as in MMA, which has so many more dimensions.

That being said, i think that fedor has the best mentallity of any MMA fighter i've seen to date. I have never witnessed anybody else be so calm both before and after a fight - and i think that this mental edge would still have a great impact if fedor was shrunk to 185 or 170 or 155 etc.

After reading this thread, i spent some time imagining fedor at 155 versus torres, or at 170 versus GSP or 185 versus Silva. And i think that with his footwork, power, strength, and all his skilled in different areas of MMA, to say that fedor simply could not be #1 P4P is wrong. I'm not saying that i believe that he actually would be #1, (In fact i think it's unlikely) - BUT - i think that to discount him simply for his size is wrong, because unlike boxing, MMA has so many different dimensions that contribute to the winner of a fight - and not all of them are physical.

In fact, if one were to abide by the proper rules of P4p like you mentioned, i dont believe that you could clearly define the ranks. MMA fights are simply more unpredictable (in my opinion) than boxing, and thus specific ranks would be too hard to define. Anything can happen in MMA, as we all know. Look at UFC 92 and Mir versus Nog - who could have predicted that outcome? Fights simply depend on too many different things.

All being said and done however, i still believe that you can have a group of top P4P fighters - but to rank them individually would simply require too much guesswork, and be useless. In my opinion, the top 4 P4p fighters would be GSP, Miguel Torres, Fedor, and Anderson Silva. To define any specific #1 would be innacurate, but also in the same thread to say that any one of those simply could not be #1 is also innacurate. MMA is simply too complex; it has too many variables to consider.


----------



## Xerxes (Aug 14, 2008)

Wow 70 posts in just 8 hours? I guess we don't have enough of these P4P threads :thumb02:

My ranking:

#1 Fedor
#2 Anderson
#3 GSP
#4 Torres
#5 BJ
#6 Faber
#7 Aoki
#8 Brown
#9 Rashad 
#10 Alves


----------



## daitrong (May 27, 2007)

Arguing about the best pound for pound is too abstract to even debate about, but whatever. 

When talking about best pound for pound, Speed, strength, and other such physical related factors CAN NOT be considered. The reasoning why is because those are variables that changes with different weight classes. Since we're debating about best pound for pound, that means both fighters will fight at the EXACT weight. Skill, technique, experience, game plan, and heart will be the main determining factors in who will win. A BJ penn will NEVER be as agile, flexible, and quick as he would be if he moved up to heavyweight, or a Brock Lesner will NEVER be as strong if he moved down to LHW. If two fighters fight at EXACTLY the same weight, than their speed and power are comparable as well. The laws of physics does not change (Force = Mass x Acceleration) A fighter's punching power may or may not be slightly more powerful if he punches a bit faster but the difference is not that big. 

With that being said, if you're going to argue about who's the best pound for pound, at least argue about it in a more logical sense.

with all that aside, the more skilled fighter _doesn't_ always win. It takes a heck of a lot more than skill to be pound for pound best IMO.


----------



## Cartheron (Sep 5, 2007)

Posting in a p4p thread.


----------



## Superman55 (May 3, 2007)

Who gives a ****, its not boxing, so we shouldn't use its system. There are WAY more variables in MMA than in Boxing, so even arguing a Boxing concept in MMA is completely retarded.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Superman55 said:


> Who gives a ****, its not boxing, so we shouldn't use its system. *There are WAY more variables in MMA than in Boxing*, so even arguing a Boxing concept in MMA is completely retarded.


I really disagree with that, yes there are more aspects of mma but to be a great boxer there is a lot to it more so then many people realize. There will never be a Willie Pep or Pernell Whitaker in mma and if you think Andy avoiding Franklin's strikes in the second fight were impressive they pale in comparison to what these guys did. Hell just look at my avy of Ali.

And if you don't want to use boxing's system, don't use a boxing term, really simple.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

MLS said:


> No, you have made it quite obvious you aren't getting what I'm saying do we not remember "If your or Boxing's definition is that a lighter fighter should be ranked higher than a heavier guy, regardless of skill just because they're lighter and the system was "made for them" which I had already correct yet you still didn't get it.
> 
> You just want Fedor to be #1 and want a HW to be #1 because hypothetically it's possible. Aliens being true is hypothetical as well.
> 
> ...


I understand what you're saying quite easily.. it is a trivial argument, let me sum it up here:

"but..but, screw logic, we've always done it this way!"

There it is in a nutshell. You don't want to admit any other view because you are aware of how irrational and stupid it is to have a ranking system that *excludes* potential contenders on arbitrary grounds and it seems the only reason you keep going back to your tired boxing arguments are: 
a. you're a boxing fanatic. 
b. Your ego is getting in the way of admitting any holes in yout definition 
c. You enjoy watching smaller fighters more and/or are a smaller guy who boxes but has napoleon (small guy) complex and so have an irrational hate for bigger fighters.

For the record, your definition is not the default or unanimously accepted boxing definition either, there's as much debate on this in boxing forums as in MMA.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=128639

You can pretend otherwise, just to have some sort of legitimacy to your argument, but it is no more than your opinion.

You admitted yourself that Fedor has the skill to be considered among the top p4p fighters, but somehow we can never give him #1 even in a hypothetical world with no other contenders but him and Andy Wang. According to your system in which a heavyweight can never be a #1 p4p fighter, if hypothetically, Fedor and Andy Wang were the only contenders alive, would the #1 p4p be a HW? Simple yes or no, don't dodge the frickin question for the 1000th time by saying the sport would mature, generally lighter fighters have more skill blah blah... no generalities, just this situation, just to see how the system works, what is your answer? Switch Fedor and Wang to Ali and Pinoy Montejo if you want, same question.

You keep dodging the question, ignoring the questions about HOW the system works in any hypothetical situation and keep reverting to historical argments and boxing fanaticism. I'll go to mars if you promise to check into the nearest insane asylum and slap on a straitjacket, it's for all our safety. Aliens existing or not is a completely different logical scenario than a hypothetical testing for a mathematical theory like p4p. That just points out your lunacy more.

And I'm not "using a boxing term", I'm using an *English* language term. It's not "their" term. They can't take a bunch of words that intuitively mean something and forever stake a claim that they mean something else, completely illogical and biased against what it implies; just because they wanted to use it to promote a certain class of fighters, even outside their sport. If they want to do that for their sport fine, but pound for pound is a relative quantitative term long before boxing used it. If I say, pound for pound, tomatoes are higher in vitamin C than grapes, I'm using simple english and mathematical terminology that has existed forever. All it means is I'm dividing the amount of vitamin C in each of those foods by their weight to find out the concentration of vitamin c, per pound, in each of them. There is no bias towards grapes because they're smaller or the term was made for them blah blah .. it is a purely mathematical comparison. The idea when it comes to fight sports is used for a theoretical concentration of skill per pound instead of Vitamic C or what have you. Boxing "borrowed" it's term from english. It's not about benefitting my favorite fighter or whatever, it's about trying to have a consistent and logical definition.. even if Fedor didn't exist, I'd still be having this argument. Maybe Fedor isn't #1, maybe he's #2 or 3, that's not the point, the point is it's possible. Get your head out of your ass.

It's clear to me at this point you are arguing on ego alone Mr almighty admin... just about every other response on this board points out the holes in your logic and how it just doesn't make sense that if we can say someone has among the best skills in the game, we can't call them the best p4p or even in the running, because of some arbitrary glass ceiling. It doesn't even matter what I say, your ego will make you post another inane reply that dodges logic and common sense for what you're emotionally committed to arguing, just "to win".


----------



## Superman55 (May 3, 2007)

MLS said:


> I really disagree with that, yes there are more aspects of mma but to be a great boxer there is a lot to it more so then many people realize. There will never be a Willie Pep or Pernell Whitaker in mma and if you think Andy avoiding Franklin's strikes in the second fight were impressive they pale in comparison to what these guys did. Hell just look at my avy of Ali.
> 
> And if you don't want to use boxing's system, don't use a boxing term, really simple.


Oh I completely agree. I love boxing. However, if you look at MMA, Boxing is encompassed into MMA. Granted there aren't very many guys in MMA who have their boxing evolved to the level of pro boxers. If you look at it though, it would be very difficult to evolve your boxing to that level without seeing a regression in your overall MMA game.

Boxing has a TON of facets, but when something encompasses all of Boxing, Kicks, and Ground game. There is not question in my mind that there are more variables.


Also, I'm not using boxing's term and I never have. From now on, it should be called MMAP4P lol.


----------



## CroCopPride (Jan 13, 2007)

Lotus said:


>


LISTEN HERE BROTHER!










o and fedor


----------



## rickrolled (Feb 3, 2009)

mmm let me see.. bruce lee, chuck norris and mr.miyagi.. seriously i have done so many p4p threads it is getting annoying.. wots even more frustrating is every guy thinking he is gonna start a new thread instead of posting on an existing thread abt p4p champs


----------

