Originally Posted by SwordofAres
I agree with some of your points and disagree with other but let me question you on this one.
Do you think the definition of boxing P4P should be the same as MMA P4P?
I'm not a boxing fan so feel free to correct me on this but wouldn't a well rounded boxer just be a good striker?
Do you have to be well rounded in MMA to be P4P King? If someone is has world class wrestling, and kick boxing but no BJJ are the disqualified from P4P?
I think the concept should be the same, not the details. A boxing p4p guy is going to break down the elements of boxing: footwork, handspeed, power, defense, conditioning, etc. It's a little more detailed than simply saying a fighter has great striking.
A good illustration of how this is overlooked is people commonly disregard Jake Shields as not having any stand up at all, when he's actually got excellent striking defense. He's able to stay in the pocket and work for the clinch or the takedown because he's hard to hit and has a great chin, but a lot of people focus their definition of striking entirely on offense.
For me, in order to be considered p4p elite, you need to be well rounded, particularly as the sport evolves. Years ago, you had guys like Hughes ranked p4p because there were so few fighters more well-rounded than them, but that's changing as you have fighters who are focusing on cross-training right away, instead of becoming elite in a single discipline and passable in others.
I have Anderson currently ranked at #3, despite the glaring holes in his game.
All manner of men came to work for the News: everything from wild young Turks who wanted to rip the world in half and start all over again -- to tired, beer-bellied old hacks who wanted nothing more than to live out their days in peace before a bunch of lunatics ripped the world in half.
Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
The Rum Diary