ATTN Chael: a modern definition of P4P best

So I'm just listening to Chael talk about the history of P4P, apparently some reporter from Brooklyn back in the 30's defined it as "no weight classes, who walks away with the belt?".  If I heard that correctly.

 

Seems like a sort of boring definition.  It's just the HW champ, with very few historical exceptions.  And it's not useful either, because if history has taught us anything, a weight division is very rarely well-ordered ranking from 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 ...  For example, I thought the ladies BW title would be a revolving door where Holly beats Ronda, Amanda beats Holly, Meisha beats Amanda, and Ronda beats Meisha.  That's a revolving door.  So it really depends who is given opportunities, as opposed to actual talent.  And this is one of the big problems with HW, also one of the big problems with P4P.

 

So propose a simple definition of P4P based on math.  In the weight classes that a fighter has fought at or could fight at, who casts the biggest shadow?  For example, if Izzy could take out everyone at 185 and 205, then that casts a bigger shadow than someone like GSP who arguably cherry picked 185 by taking out Bisping.  Almost no one believes that GSP could have beat Yoel, Rockhold or Weidman.

 

The other nice thing about this definition is that it respects the depth of competition at each weight class.  For example, 145-170 is a murderer's row due to the number of guys competing at those weights.  HW and LHW, on the other hand, there's much less depth.  So being the champ over both 205 and HW might not cast as big of a shadow as a guy like Holloway, who smokes everyone at 145 and probably 95% of the guys at 155.  Similarly, not to disrespect Triple C, but 125 and 135 aren't deep weight classes.  Holloway would cast a bigger shadow.

 

FRAT.  Come at me bro.