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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

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.

---

No it was made for the assumption of who would be best if weight was not a factor. That doesn't preclude heavyweights

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

No it was made for the assumption of who would be best if weight was not a factor. That doesn't preclude heavyweights

---

I don't count the heavyweights in the P4P, that's just the way I do it

The whole idea of P4P is matching fighters with the size and weight leveled.

Wlad has a considerable size and weight advantage over almost everyone he fights. Which is clearly a huge factor in his success.

For a heavyweight to be P4P they would need to be an exceptional phenom like prime Tyson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

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.

---

The same argument that a heavyweight cant be considered p4p#1 could be totally reversed and used for a minumweight having an advantage over every other division.

If the p4p isnt there to recognise the best fighter in the world regardless of weight then what exactly is it for??

Minimumweights fight guys the same size as them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Minimumweights fight guys the same size as them.

---

your point being??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Minimumweights fight guys the same size as them.

---

your point being??

---

The whole idea of P4P is matching fighters with the size and weight leveled.

Wlad has a considerable size and weight advantage over almost everyone he fights. Which is clearly a huge factor in his success.

P4P just seem's to be given to the person who can jump as many weigth classes as they can and get a title at them all! It should be the best figthers beating the best fighters to become P4P but thats a perfect boxing would and we all know that doesnt exist!

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??

---

Lack of competition is the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Minimumweights fight guys the same size as them.

---

your point being??

---

The whole idea of P4P is matching fighters with the size and weight leveled.

Wlad has a considerable size and weight advantage over almost everyone he fights. Which is clearly a huge factor in his success.

---

That's a cracking point. Would either Klitschko be as successful if they didn't have any physical advantages over their opponent? I find it hard to believe that they would, especially in a division where there was a higher skill set than the current Heavyweight division.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ono

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??

---

Lack of competition is the problem.

---

At the time lewis was dominating pretty much everything around he wasnt even making top5 yet the only fighter at the time you would consider that leaves the greater legacy is jones

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ono

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??

---

Lack of competition is the problem.

---

At the time lewis was dominating pretty much everything around he wasnt even making top5 yet the only fighter at the time you would consider that leaves the greater legacy is jones

---

Sorry mate i was referring to Wlad and Vitali.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

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.

---

Not sure I totally agree with that, but either way, a contemporary example would be if Adamek beat Arreola (I'd have him somewhere at the bottom of a top ten p4p or nearby at that point) and then beat a Klitschko. That would be effectively climbing the weight ladder from lhw to hw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

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

---

Lol, I think it depends on the sport. I'm guessing you mean sports where two go head to head.

It's probably a power vs endurance thing. Sports that require size and power obviously the big guy is better.

But there are countless sports where a guy of 5 ft 8 would trounce a guy of 6 ft 5 for example.

Soccer
Running
Cycling
Triathlon
Rock Climbing
Formula One
Horse Racing
Gymnastics
Free Running

I'd imagine all of the above would feature guys mostly below 180 lbs at the elite levels, maybe even 160 lbs.

Ali had to be considered P4P #1 for a portion of his career no?...Did not follow ratings back then due to being 3 but just bguessing