[Kang-War]

Sorry for my english btw

I got a simple question. On what point to we consider some one p4p or even a better question. WHy do we use the term that boxing use to say who is the best fighter when technically i believe it cant be apply yet to mma Why? Simple
In boxing it s always the same rules. Yes there is minor detail like glove type save by the bell and shit like that ok but in MMA different rules examples Stump and soccer kick legal in some place not legal in the US, Some fight in ring some in a ring. Do u believe certain fighter on different rules could do better or Worse of course

Examples of fighter with diferent rules

GSP side mount pounding ur face with is right knee

Wandey stumping people and soccer kick. bisping would have probably die and liddell 2 imo

Aoki with out a japanese ref hmmm not sure

Imagine randy couture in a ring ( terrible imo)

Cro cop in a ring cro cop in a cage Do we really need more detail.


So I believe there to many factor to determine a p4p it s no sence. Its mma with 2000000 variation of rules. Not boxing.

 

[JimmyJames]

IMO the P4P argument is just everyones opinion. But it really doesnt mean anything. Except for us internet geeks who like to argue over everything.

P4P means nothing.

I'll get flamed for this but I dont think rankings mean much either.

 

[NZL]

If I understood your question correctly:

Yes, MMA can definitly use a P4P ranking. Why not?
P4P is basically the assumption, that if you took away things the fighters have limited control over; their size/weight, and purely ranked them by skills and ability, then they would be the better fighter.

So, as B J Penn is generally ranked above Brock Lesnar in P4P rankings, then we can assume that if Brock was 155lb, or BJ was a heavyweight, then BJ Penn should win.

It does not have to be purely a boxing thing. The rules don't make a difference.

So the #1 P4P MMA fighter, who is Anderson Silva, in my opinion of course, should be able to beat any other fighter on the planet if you removed a size advantage from the equation.

 

[MooJuice]

If I understood your question correctly:

Yes, MMA can definitly use a P4P ranking. Why not?
P4P is basically the assumption, that if you took away things the fighters have limited control over; their size/weight, and purely ranked them by skills and ability, then they would be the better fighter.

So, as B J Penn is generally ranked above Brock Lesnar in P4P rankings, then we can assume that if Brock was 155lb, or BJ was a heavyweight, then BJ Penn should win.

It does not have to be purely a boxing thing. The rules don't make a difference.

So the #1 P4P MMA fighter, who is Anderson Silva, in my opinion of course, should be able to beat any other fighter on the planet if you removed a size advantage from the equation.

This man is on the money. So many people seem to think p4p = best in the world. It does, in a way, but more specifically it is about the best in the world when size / weight is removed from the equation.

Also, if size / weight are removed from the equation, i do not claim that it is still a perfect formula, because for some fighters, size / weight is a big part of how they fight and win. Thus, as boxing found out, p4p best fighters are often almost always the lighter ones, because smaller guys will naturally have better cardio and speed than bigger guys.

can you imagine jose aldo or BJ penn if they kept their speed and all other attributes but were scaled up to brock's size?

 

[Cartheron]

Posting in a P4P thread.

 

[MooJuice]

Toasting in a p4p bread