Am I wrong in my interpretation of this...

[strikesubmit]

the term best "pound for pount" fighter.

i started thinking about this more after posting on this thread:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=72485

first off, i ask here because it was a term used largely in boxing...

it was always my interpretation that best pound for pound meant more than just dominating the weight class you are fighting in.

it meant also being able to move up a weight class (or two), and proving that you can also suceed there as well.

am i wrong to think this? is it really alot simpler than what i think it is?

 

[punisher73]

As I have understood it, it was more in reference to the fact that if weight were not a factor than that person would be the best fighter. So if you hear that a 140lb. is the best pound for pound they are saying that his skill is better than a 200lb. fighter.

Usually, fighters are too sucessful when they move up weight classes because the attributes that made them great at the lower weight class are sometimes lost or diminished.

 

[strikesubmit]

As I have understood it, it was more in reference to the fact that if weight were not a factor than that person would be the best fighter. So if you hear that a 140lb. is the best pound for pound they are saying that his skill is better than a 200lb. fighter.

Usually, fighters are too sucessful when they move up weight classes because the attributes that made them great at the lower weight class are sometimes lost or diminished.

hey thanks man. makes more sense in that regard.

 

[Steve]

I've always taken it to be the gauge were weight not a factor. Or in other words, it's a lot of imagination and pretend.

Fedor is often said to be the best pound for pound MMA fighter. Meaning, if he were 155, he'd be the best 155 lb'er. If he were 205, he would be the best at that weight. Of course, I can't imagine Fedor fighting at 155.... It's imagination!

Or, if you take a guy like Anderson Silva. He's the best 185 lb'er and arguably the best pound for pound. If you're making the argument that he's the best lbs for lbs, you're basically saying that, if he were 220 lbs, he'd be better than Fedor.

I think it's largely a bunch of hooey. It's like comparing Bart Starr to Joe Montana and saying that one was the greatest QB of all time. Or... for you Europeans, pick two great soccer players. The only two I can name from memory are Pele and Beckham, because in America soccer is what clumsy kids who have no hand/eye coordination play.

 

[strikesubmit]

I've always taken it to be the gauge were weight not a factor. Or in other words, it's a lot of imagination and pretend.

Fedor is often said to be the best pound for pound MMA fighter. Meaning, if he were 155, he'd be the best 155 lb'er. If he were 205, he would be the best at that weight. Of course, I can't imagine Fedor fighting at 155.... It's imagination!

Or, if you take a guy like Anderson Silva. He's the best 185 lb'er and arguably the best pound for pound. If you're making the argument that he's the best lbs for lbs, you're basically saying that, if he were 220 lbs, he'd be better than Fedor.

I think it's largely a bunch of hooey. It's like comparing Bart Starr to Joe Montana and saying that one was the greatest QB of all time. Or... for you Europeans, pick two great soccer players. The only two I can name from memory are Pele and Beckham, because in America soccer is what clumsy kids who have no hand/eye coordination play.

hey Steve, yet again i have to thank you.

funny you mention how we view soccer here...Chicago has one of the best, most consistent pro teams in the Chicago Fire...only problem is that it's soccer. no matter how many championships they've won, they get absolutely no press.

i haven't played soccer since i was a wee little one...and the reason i haven't played since is because i was tremendously horrible at it....