[fsenties4]

This is the latest Ring Magazine pound for pound top ten list:

1 - Floyd Mayweather Jr
2 - Andre Ward
3 - Juan Manuel Marquez
4 - Sergio Martinez
5 - Adrien Broner
6 - Nonito Donaire
7 - Manny Pacquiao.
8 - Wladimir Klitschko
9 - Timothy Bradley
10 - Robert Guerrero

If this list makes sense to most of you guys then please tell what is needed to be a pound for pound member?

My understanding was that in order to be considered as a pound for pound guy you needed to be really good (if not great) at almost everything, technique, reflexes, stamina, power punching, etc. PLUS you needed to have beaten some guys who were considered the best available in the division.

Based on that, I wonder why TF is Adrien Broner at number 5?? The guy has proven he has the abilities, speed and power, but IMO he hasn't beaten any big names to deserve being in that position. I mean, he's ranked higher than Donaire!!

Mares beat Moreno who was at number 10 and now he's been replaced by Robert Guerrero, who also left Vitali Klitschko out the list.

I just don't get it.

[Colzo]

to be a p4per you need boxing talent that is better than anyone esle around in your era you need big wins over world class fighters my current top 3 would be ...

Floyd Mayweather
Marquez
Andre Ward

[fsenties4]

Originally Posted by Colzo

to be a p4per you need boxing talent that is better than anyone esle around in your era you need big wins over world class fighters my current top 3 would be ...

Floyd Mayweather
Marquez
Andre Ward

I agree with your definition.

Do you think Broner deserves the #5 spot?

[Colzo]

Originally Posted by fsenties4

I agree with your definition.

Do you think Broner deserves the #5 spot?

Nope I would have him at the low end of my list if on it at all

[Sonikku]

I've never understand how you can be considered pound for pound if you have never cleaned out your division for one thing. That's why I think Ward should be at number one....

[fsenties4]

Originally Posted by Sonikku

I've never understand how you can be considered pound for pound if you have never cleaned out your division for one thing. That's why I think Ward should be at number one....

And how's that you still have Cotto at number 5 after losing twice in a row?

[Sonikku]

Originally Posted by fsenties4

And how's that you still have Cotto at number 5 after losing twice in a row?

I could ask you the same thing, do you have a problem with PAC being number 7 ahead of Klitschko despite losing 2 in a row?

[fsenties4]

Originally Posted by Sonikku

I could ask you the same thing, do you have a problem with PAC being number 7 ahead of Klitschko despite losing 2 in a row?

Of course I have, that's the point of this thread, that basically I don't understand half of the list.

I pointed Broner and Guerrero as main examples but I do also have problems with Pacquiao being 7 and Bradley existing in the list instead of Vitali.

Shame is that I asked about a spot of YOUR list and you answered me with a question about someone else's list...

[Sonikku]

Originally Posted by fsenties4

Of course I have, that's the point of this thread, that basically I don't understand half of the list.

I pointed Broner and Guerrero as main examples but I do also have problems with Pacquiao being 7 and Bradley existing in the list instead of Vitali.

Shame is that I asked about a spot of YOUR list and you answered me with a question about someone else's list...

Because like you stated in your original post "My understanding was that in order to be considered as a pound for pound guy you needed to be really good (if not great) at almost everything, technique, reflexes, stamina, power punching, etc. PLUS you needed to have beaten some guys who were considered the best available in the division."

Do you believe Cotto is not really good or great in any of these? His Stamina was never good, but I feel that's not good enough to leave him off. Why do you feel he needs to be left off, why dont you actually post your list instead of trying to belittle me for having an opinion. When I stated cleaning out your diviison I wasn't saying that's the only thing you needed to have if that's the case a lot of the guys I listed wouldn't be on there. Off the top of my head only Ward and possbily Klitschko has cleaned out their divisions.

[chooi]

I think it's theoretically being able to beat a number of quality opponents in any weight class, with the talent that a boxer has. I don't think you have to be really great "at almost everything", although that usually helps.

Case in point being Pacquiao, deficient in some of the categories from a purist's standpoint. But he's still elite with everything that he's bringing to the table. Dominance across multiple divisions also helps your p4p stock.

But p4p talk usually just ends up going nowhere. That being said, I'd take off Broner and Guerrero. Getting there, but definitely not top 10 yet. And yes, Vitali would make the list.

I think the top 3 is spot on.