is it actually possible for a heavyweight to ever be the p4p #1??

The klitschkos, especially vitali, have pretty much done whatever they humanly can to be considered one of the worlds greatest fighters yet they hardly ever seem to get a mention in the p4p rankings.

Its almost always that the lower the weight you fight at the better chance you have of making these rankings. Sure the lower the weight the more punches you throw and receive thats simple genetics. But surely with such a vast array of people actually calculating these rankings someone would actually devise the simple solution that the bigger you become the harder you can hit therefore you dont need to engage in these out and out wars.

Ive not actually researched the whole ring magazine thing with a great deal but has there ever actually been a p4p #1 who weighed more than 154pounds at any point??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

The klitschkos, especially vitali, have pretty much done whatever they humanly can to be considered one of the worlds greatest fighters yet they hardly ever seem to get a mention in the p4p rankings.

Its almost always that the lower the weight you fight at the better chance you have of making these rankings. Sure the lower the weight the more punches you throw and receive thats simple genetics. But surely with such a vast array of people actually calculating these rankings someone would actually devise the simple solution that the bigger you become the harder you can hit therefore you dont need to engage in these out and out wars.

Ive not actually researched the whole ring magazine thing with a great deal but has there ever actually been a p4p #1 who weighed more than 154pounds at any point??

---

Good points here and it's very true, HW's do seem to get overlooked a lot in p4p rankings.

Wasn't Mike Tyson P4P #1 right after he knocked out Spinks ?

Yeah it's a fair gripe really, and I've no idea as to whether a Heavyweight has ever been ranked at no.1 for any length of time.

However, from what I've read before, the whole concept of the ring having a p4p ranking initially was meant to indicate who the best fighter in the world was ASIDE from the Heavyweight champion. As the division has fallen into shambles in recent years it's kind of a moot point as your hard pressed to find a HW who deserves to be ranked in the top 10 anyways imo... But perhaps they were meant to be exempt to begin with, as it was a given that the best heavyweights around were the best fighters in the world at one point.

Furthermore, if you were to somehow compile a p4p list of athletes from ALL sports, I think it would consist of almost entirely of heavyweights, due to biomechanics alone, but that's up for debate to some extent, and not worth debating really. Fact is HW boxing hasn't had anyone you could really chalk up with a Lebron James type of athlete etc. since the 90's at best(really ever imo, but whatever), and even then it's extremely unlikely. But it's a whole can of worms not worth opening, the debate just doesn't work. P4P lists are never going to be concrete due to the vast differences in physical attributes between men of a given size.

Roy Jones was #1 pound for pound after he beat John Ruiz as a heavyweight. Also Holyfield and Lewis regularly appeared on The Ring pound for pound list in the 1990s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hulk

Wasn't Mike Tyson P4P #1 right after he knocked out Spinks ?

---

Correct. In fact he was ranked #1 p4p in '87, '88, and '89 by Ring Magazine. Before that it was Marvin Hagler in '83, '84, '85, '86.

Ring magazine pound for pound

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Ive not actually researched the whole ring magazine thing with a great deal but has there ever actually been a p4p #1 who weighed more than 154pounds at any point??

---

Roy Jones Jr. was one, Bernard Hopkins was another, Mike Tyson and Marvin Hagler are the other ones. All ranked #1 p4p by the Ring Magazine and were more than 154 pounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

Yeah it's a fair gripe really, and I've no idea as to whether a Heavyweight has ever been ranked at no.1 for any length of time.

However, from what I've read before, the whole concept of the ring having a p4p ranking initially was meant to indicate who the best fighter in the world was ASIDE from the Heavyweight champion. As the division has fallen into shambles in recent years it's kind of a moot point as your hard pressed to find a HW who deserves to be ranked in the top 10 anyways imo... But perhaps they were meant to be exempt to begin with, as it was a given that the best heavyweights around were the best fighters in the world at one point.

Furthermore, if you were to somehow compile a p4p list of athletes from ALL sports, I think it would consist of almost entirely of heavyweights, due to biomechanics alone, but that's up for debate to some extent, and not worth debating really. Fact is HW boxing hasn't had anyone you could really chalk up with a Lebron James type of athlete etc. since the 90's at best(really ever imo, but whatever), and even then it's extremely unlikely. But it's a whole can of worms not worth opening, the debate just doesn't work. P4P lists are never going to be concrete due to the vast differences in physical attributes between men of a given size.

---

What does that even mean, it's only combat sports pretty much that have weight catagories?

If you mean that in most other sports only big men rise to the top that's simply not true. Sure big men are best in basketball of most American Football positions, but there are many sports where big men are at a huge disadvantage.

There's an interesting article here related to distance running, but it would apply to most endurance based sports.


weight and performance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

Yeah it's a fair gripe really, and I've no idea as to whether a Heavyweight has ever been ranked at no.1 for any length of time.

However, from what I've read before, the whole concept of the ring having a p4p ranking initially was meant to indicate who the best fighter in the world was ASIDE from the Heavyweight champion. As the division has fallen into shambles in recent years it's kind of a moot point as your hard pressed to find a HW who deserves to be ranked in the top 10 anyways imo... But perhaps they were meant to be exempt to begin with, as it was a given that the best heavyweights around were the best fighters in the world at one point.

Furthermore, if you were to somehow compile a p4p list of athletes from ALL sports, I think it would consist of almost entirely of heavyweights, due to biomechanics alone, but that's up for debate to some extent, and not worth debating really. Fact is HW boxing hasn't had anyone you could really chalk up with a Lebron James type of athlete etc. since the 90's at best(really ever imo, but whatever), and even then it's extremely unlikely. But it's a whole can of worms not worth opening, the debate just doesn't work. P4P lists are never going to be concrete due to the vast differences in physical attributes between men of a given size.

---

What does that even mean, it's only combat sports pretty much that have weight catagories?

If you mean that in most other sports only big men rise to the top that's simply not true. Sure big men are best in basketball of most American Football positions, but there are many sports where big men are at a huge disadvantage.

There's an interesting article here related to distance running, but it would apply to most endurance based sports.


weight and performance

---

I meant to say that the best athletes in the world, with the best combination of sheer physical attributes are men who weigh over 200 lbs, but I realize that it is a pointless arguement. Weight classes don't really have anything to do with a p4p ranking in the first place, but of course the term is irrelevant without them. I suppose I am just trying to think of specific measures of athletecism which aren't specific to one sport or another. I would also assert that whatever advantages a smaller man would have in dexterity and speed etc. would be more than negated by the strength and power a larger man can achieve, and that the extent to which a big man can still possess speed is greater than to which a smaller one could hope to match with power, without getting into anything specific? I don't even know what I mean, I'm basically being an airhead. I'll read the article shortly;D

Wasnt Nicoli Valuev rated p4p best when he was champion ??
he must have been , that guy had everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hulk

Wasn't Mike Tyson P4P #1 right after he knocked out Spinks ?

---

Correct. In fact he was ranked #1 p4p in '87, '88, and '89 by Ring Magazine. Before that it was Marvin Hagler in '83, '84, '85, '86.

Ring magazine pound for pound

---

That's a great list of fighters.... It's amazing that Hagler dominated the p4p ratings in the 80's with all those mazing fighters. Just makes me respect him all the more.



I think that If p4p ratings were around in the 60's Muhammad Ali would be no.1 for at least 4 years of his career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lance Uppercut

Roy Jones was #1 pound for pound after he beat John Ruiz as a heavyweight. Also Holyfield and Lewis regularly appeared on The Ring pound for pound list in the 1990s.

---

Holyfield and Lewis appeared as the p4p because there was only one champ.


Vitali and Wladimer refuse to fight each other so neither of them should be on the p4p list because they refuse to fight the best fighters at Heavyweight.. each other.

Even Larry Holmes only reached number 3, so it aint easy!

perceived competiton and dominance at your weight.

If you don't have the 'career defining fight(s)' people now think less of your achievements...hence why Calzaghe will always be crappy and no where near an ATG in my eyes. :)

I say no on account of the fact the Pound for Pound ranking was made to figure out who the best fighter in the world is who isn't the heavyweight champion of the world.

So UNLESS someone like Roy Jones Jr., Michael Spinks, or James Toney, Bob Foster, etc who are not natural heavyweights and they win at heavyweight then they can be P4P #1 but I don't rate true heavyweights in the P4P ratings no Ali no Tyson no nobody from heavyweight.