Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings

From The Ring

A number of other candidates, including Ivan Calderon and Tim Bradley, were considered to fill [Chad Dawson's]vacancy but in the end, Wladimir Klitschko’s domination of the heavyweight division, plus his considerable boxing skills and ability to stop his opponents earned him the slot.”

All the pound-for-pound rated fighters ranked No. 7 and below last week advanced one spot each, creating the opening at No. 10 that was filled by Kitschko (54-3, 48 KOs).

The 34-year-old world heavyweight champion has won 12 consecutive bouts since his last loss, which took place in April of 2004. During that stretch, Klitschko defeated seven RING-rated heavyweight contenders.

The Ring Pound For Pound Ratings

long overdue if you ask me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales

long overdue if you ask me

---

absolutly....wlad is responsible for making himself the best, not the quality of his crappy opponets. If he can beat you with nothing more than a jab then that's the fault of the guys he fights.

I find it hard to believe many of the 9 people above him have achieved more.

It's long overdue, Wlad has been the best HW since 2005, all but demolishing his opponents.

The guy may not have a fan friendly style but he is the man at HW.

Good for him...HOWEVER I don't put heavyweights in P4P ratings so I disagree with him being in that group.

It's stupid to rank him P4P. He holds a significant size advantage over virtually everyone he fights.

Just look at Marquez-Mayweather to see what happens when two GREAT fighters meet with an unfair size advantage in effect.

Wlad is a talented big man. He is not an exceptional boxing talent. He would be average without the size advantage.

Well #1 Wlad hasn't held a significant "size advantage" over everyone he's fought...he's not been heavier or taller than everyone he's fought, sometimes heavier, sometimes taller, but usually just one or the other.

#2 I don't think he'd be "average" if he was say 6'1 or 6'3 as opposed to 6'5-6'6, the guy has serious skill....he might be more vulnerable to getting hit but he's a great fighter.

#3 Heavyweights shouldn't be entered in P4P rankings for many reasons but mainly because people simply overrate smaller fighters, they treat them differently. Fans assume lighter fighters have more skill and heavier fighters are all about brute strength. Also take a look at those smaller fighters, it's the biggest of them that garner the most wins and respect, not the smallest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Well #1 Wlad hasn't held a significant "size advantage" over everyone he's fought...he's not been heavier or taller than everyone he's fought, sometimes heavier, sometimes taller, but usually just one or the other.

#2 I don't think he'd be "average" if he was say 6'1 or 6'3 as opposed to 6'5-6'6, the guy has serious skill....he might be more vulnerable to getting hit but he's a great fighter.

#3 Heavyweights shouldn't be entered in P4P rankings for many reasons but mainly because people simply overrate smaller fighters, they treat them differently. Fans assume lighter fighters have more skill and heavier fighters are all about brute strength. Also take a look at those smaller fighters, it's the biggest of them that garner the most wins and respect, not the smallest.

---

p4p means the best fighters regardless of size, so why should HWs be excluded from the list?

Mike Tyson during the 80s was p4p #1 3 years in a row rated by Ring Magazine. And it was justifiable in my opinion. Ali surely would have been p4p #1 during the 60s before his banishment from the ring.

If the hw fighter has serious skills he should make the list or if he's that good rated #1.

I just view the heavyweight champion (regardless of era) as being THE epic accomplishment in boxing....I see the P4P more as "Out of all the weight classes who's the best boxer that's not a heavyweight"....but like I said, that's just my opinion and I've said it in many other threads and if I didn't say it here it would be hypocritical of me

Donaire at number 4 LMAFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

What a fucking joke!!!

I don't understand why isn't he rated higher actually, the size helps but any attribute, speed, strength etc are also natural talent that one must exploit, it's like saying "yeah, Floyd Mayweather is excellent but it's mostly just because mother nature did give him dazzling speed". It's the same for the K with the size, you'Re born with it and you learn to use it or not. Wlad did. Why should "blame" and find reasons for his excellent boxing qualities just because he's born naturally bigger? The guy could be a fatty like Arreola or simple unable to use his size effectively but he went by the book and keep himself in good condition. For that reason, I disagree with the "we shouldn't rate him so high, he's just good because of his size" as we could use the same argument virtually with every boxer by pointing one of their natural ability and saying "yeah, he's only good because of X and therefore he's not that worthy to be in the list".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

I don't understand why isn't he rated higher actually, the size helps but any attribute, speed, strength etc are also natural talent that one must exploit, it's like saying "yeah, Floyd Mayweather is excellent but it's mostly just because mother nature did give him dazzling speed". It's the same for the K with the size, you'Re born with it and you learn to use it or not. Wlad did. Why should "blame" and find reasons for his excellent boxing qualities just because he's born naturally bigger? The guy could be a fatty like Arreola or simple unable to use his size effectively but he went by the book and keep himself in good condition. For that reason, I disagree with the "we shouldn't rate him so high, he's just good because of his size" as we could use the same argument virtually with every boxer by pointing one of their natural ability and saying "yeah, he's only good because of X and therefore he's not that worthy to be in the list".

---

That's a poor comparison.

Wlad has natural speed, strength, ability, just like Floyd/Pac etc. It's part of what makes him a world-class heavyweight.

The difference is, he also has a considerable size advantage over almost everyone he fights. A luxury that Floyd/Pac don't have. They have to weigh the same as their opponents which also makes them, in most cases, of similar height/reach etc.

Wlad is an elite fighter but without his natural size advantage his dominance would be very questionable. Therefore not really P4P worthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

I don't understand why isn't he rated higher actually, the size helps but any attribute, speed, strength etc are also natural talent that one must exploit, it's like saying "yeah, Floyd Mayweather is excellent but it's mostly just because mother nature did give him dazzling speed". It's the same for the K with the size, you'Re born with it and you learn to use it or not. Wlad did. Why should "blame" and find reasons for his excellent boxing qualities just because he's born naturally bigger? The guy could be a fatty like Arreola or simple unable to use his size effectively but he went by the book and keep himself in good condition. For that reason, I disagree with the "we shouldn't rate him so high, he's just good because of his size" as we could use the same argument virtually with every boxer by pointing one of their natural ability and saying "yeah, he's only good because of X and therefore he's not that worthy to be in the list".

---

That's a poor comparison.

Wlad has natural speed, strength, ability, just like Floyd/Pac etc. It's part of what makes him a world-class heavyweight.

The difference is, he also has a considerable size advantage over almost everyone he fights. A luxury that Floyd/Pac don't have. They have to weigh the same as their opponents which also makes them, in most cases, of similar height/reach etc.

Wlad is an elite fighter but without his natural size advantage his dominance would be very questionable. Therefore not really P4P worthy.

---

I disagree Fenster. That's part of his natural ability. Sure, he wouldn't be the same without his height but would Mike Tyson have been the same without his phenomenal strength ?(which was a tremendous advantage over almost every other HW he did faced during his prime) though he was very quick, moving well and his finishing spirit? What about Kid Gavillan and what is probably the best jaw in boxing history (never hit the canvas in over 140 fights)? That's exactly the same reasoning. Floyd and Pac don't have the size advantage but they've been blessed with a capacity to outspeed almost anybody, speed that Wlad doesn't have (though he's not a slow machine by no mean) and they would not have been as dominant without that advantage over the others. It's just part of the natural gift he's been given and opposite to some other boxers, he has been able to use this reach and height very effectively.

wlad defo deserves to be in top 10