-
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
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
long overdue if you ask me
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
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.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
I find it hard to believe many of the 9 people above him have achieved more.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
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.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
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.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
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.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
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.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
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
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Donaire at number 4 LMAFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
What a fucking joke!!!
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
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".
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
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.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
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.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
wlad defo deserves to be in top 10
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nameless
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.
So you think size should be a factor in the p4p rankings because you are arguing since it's a natural gift, it should not be ruled out? Correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Because that is not what p4p rankings are all about. Never has and never will be. It is about mythical rankings on who would be the best boxers in the sport if size was taken out of it, of course other factors are weighed in such as boxing skill, accomplishments, and level of competition. But the reason why there are these rankings are because it is to recognize the best boxer regardless of size. So that's why size is taken out of the equation.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nameless
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.
So you think size should be a factor in the p4p rankings because you are arguing since it's a natural gift, it should not be ruled out? Correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Because that is not what p4p rankings are all about. Never has and never will be. It is about mythical rankings on who would be the best boxers in the sport if size was taken out of it, of course other factors are weighed in such as boxing skill, accomplishments, and level of competition. But the reason why there are these rankings are because it is to recognize the best boxer regardless of size. So that's why size is taken out of the equation.
No. It's not what I was saying. Sorry for the confusion and I disagree with the "without size" thing, the P4O:
1) in my opinion,is there to show who are the best boxers of their category with all gift taken in consideration. That includes things as jaw, speed, strength, ring generalship, size etc. NOwhere is it written or said that size shouldn't be considered, it's about the best of their categories, all gifts and competition they had included.
2) My point was that we should not say such thing as "Wlad would never have been as dominant wouldn't be of its size" as we could say that of any boxer picking up one of their best ability/attribute. LEnnox Lewis neither wouldn't have been as good as he was without a huge size, that's part of the deal and of the whole package, especially because the size helps a lot in the HW but requires more to that to be a good champion.
3) The "P4P" does not state such thing as "with the exception of the ability X", no matter what it could be, it's about the whole thing, including the level of competition. If Wlad as the size for the HW, good for him, he can use that natural ability to its advantage, I don't see why we should downgrade his accomplishment because he's naturally gifted in that department.
In that respect, I strongly disagree with the argument to downgrade Wlad's talent (or any other fighter) by a "yeah but only because he was so huge". Size is something important but it's not enough, Valuev is the living proof of it. size helped HW such as Lewis, Big George or Wlad, it helped them to become champion but these were not necessarilymore important than Iron Mike strength for example, it's one of the many factors that build a HW champion and I do not see no reasons to overlook that or to downgrade one accomplishment because he had the size gift, among other things.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
No way Sergio Martinez is that low
-
No way Hopkins is that high!
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
0james0
Boxrec rankings are the biggest joke going mate, after CFH opened the Collazo thread I had a little look to see when Sergiy Dzinziruk was fighting Mayorgo after Collazo didn't fancy it and Boxrec have him ranked at 24 at 154!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TWENTY FUCKING FOUR LMAO just one ahead of our world class British champion Sam Webb lol.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Yeah got to agree boxrec rankings are basically a joke and whatever points system they have is insane for the most part.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Completely overdue imo, the guy has dominated the heavyweight scene for the last 4 or so years.
I know some purists dont like having heavyweights ranked p4p but I really disagree. I think it's important for ALL boxers to be eligable for the p4p rankings. I don't really see them as a 'who would win if all every fighter was the same size' type nonsense, I just see them as who are the top 10 best fighters across all weight classes right now, and clearly Wlad has dominated the heavyweight weight class for pretty much longer than any other fighter has dominated their own, so it's a bit nonsensical to just pretend he doesn't exist because he's a heavyweight.
I mean if heavyweights are going to feature on the all time rankings how can they not feature in the current rankings, that makes no logical sense to me at all.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nameless
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nameless
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.
So you think size should be a factor in the p4p rankings because you are arguing since it's a natural gift, it should not be ruled out? Correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Because that is not what p4p rankings are all about. Never has and never will be. It is about mythical rankings on who would be the best boxers in the sport if size was taken out of it, of course other factors are weighed in such as boxing skill, accomplishments, and level of competition. But the reason why there are these rankings are because it is to recognize the best boxer regardless of size. So that's why size is taken out of the equation.
No. It's not what I was saying. Sorry for the confusion and I disagree with the "without size" thing, the P4O:
1) in my opinion,is there to show who are the best boxers of their category with all gift taken in consideration. That includes things as jaw, speed, strength, ring generalship, size etc. NOwhere is it written or said that size shouldn't be considered, it's about the best of their categories, all gifts and competition they had included.
2) My point was that we should not say such thing as "Wlad would never have been as dominant wouldn't be of its size" as we could say that of any boxer picking up one of their best ability/attribute. LEnnox Lewis neither wouldn't have been as good as he was without a huge size, that's part of the deal and of the whole package, especially because the size helps a lot in the HW but requires more to that to be a good champion.
3) The "P4P" does not state such thing as "with the exception of the ability X", no matter what it could be, it's about the whole thing, including the level of competition. If Wlad as the size for the HW, good for him, he can use that natural ability to its advantage, I don't see why we should downgrade his accomplishment because he's naturally gifted in that department.
In that respect, I strongly disagree with the argument to downgrade Wlad's talent (or any other fighter) by a "yeah but only because he was so huge". Size is something important but it's not enough, Valuev is the living proof of it. size helped HW such as Lewis, Big George or Wlad, it helped them to become champion but these were not necessarilymore important than Iron Mike strength for example, it's one of the many factors that build a HW champion and I do not see no reasons to overlook that or to downgrade one accomplishment because he had the size gift, among other things.
You're saying size should be regarded as an ability like speed, power, chin, heart etc? (if VD said that he'd be getting the vd smiley ;))
Wlad's greatest asset is his size. It's simple as that. He brings a massive height/weight advantage to almost every fight, something that no other "world-class" fighter has the benefit of (barring his big bro).
The heavyweight champ is the KING of all boxing. If Wlad fought Floyd he'd kill him because he is simply too big for him, so the fight can't happen. But in a P4P - if they were equal in size - scenario then it's a different matter.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nameless
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nameless
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.
So you think size should be a factor in the p4p rankings because you are arguing since it's a natural gift, it should not be ruled out? Correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Because that is not what p4p rankings are all about. Never has and never will be. It is about mythical rankings on who would be the best boxers in the sport if size was taken out of it, of course other factors are weighed in such as boxing skill, accomplishments, and level of competition. But the reason why there are these rankings are because it is to recognize the best boxer regardless of size. So that's why size is taken out of the equation.
No. It's not what I was saying. Sorry for the confusion and I disagree with the "without size" thing, the P4O:
1) in my opinion,is there to show who are the best boxers of their category with all gift taken in consideration. That includes things as jaw, speed, strength, ring generalship, size etc. NOwhere is it written or said that size shouldn't be considered, it's about the best of their categories, all gifts and competition they had included.
2) My point was that we should not say such thing as "Wlad would never have been as dominant wouldn't be of its size" as we could say that of any boxer picking up one of their best ability/attribute. LEnnox Lewis neither wouldn't have been as good as he was without a huge size, that's part of the deal and of the whole package, especially because the size helps a lot in the HW but requires more to that to be a good champion.
3) The "P4P" does not state such thing as "with the exception of the ability X", no matter what it could be, it's about the whole thing, including the level of competition. If Wlad as the size for the HW, good for him, he can use that natural ability to its advantage, I don't see why we should downgrade his accomplishment because he's naturally gifted in that department.
In that respect, I strongly disagree with the argument to downgrade Wlad's talent (or any other fighter) by a "yeah but only because he was so huge". Size is something important but it's not enough, Valuev is the living proof of it. size helped HW such as Lewis, Big George or Wlad, it helped them to become champion but these were not necessarilymore important than Iron Mike strength for example, it's one of the many factors that build a HW champion and I do not see no reasons to overlook that or to downgrade one accomplishment because he had the size gift, among other things.
You're saying size should be regarded as an ability like speed, power, chin, heart etc? (if VD said that he'd be getting the vd smiley ;))
Wlad's greatest asset is his size. It's simple as that. He brings a massive height/weight advantage to almost every fight, something that no other "world-class" fighter has the benefit of (barring his big bro).
The heavyweight champ is the KING of all boxing. If Wlad fought Floyd he'd kill him because he is simply too big for him, so the fight can't happen. But in a P4P - if they were equal in size - scenario then it's a different matter.
I agree more with Nameless to be honest. Size alone doesn't make a great fighter, there are bigger fighters than Wlad in the heavyweight division and they are mostly completely shit. In fact the Klitschko's aside (and Lennox) it's hard to really name many great huge heavyweights, the extra size usually comes at a cost of reduced mobility, speed and and a tendancy to be a bit shit.
If you want to say height and size should be discriminated on then all athletic abilities should be equally so imo. Let's imagine a mythical p4p matchup between Ivan Calderon and Felix Trinidad, should Felix be marked down because he has been genetically gifted with a much harder punch? What about a fighter like Roy Jones who in his prime had super human reflexes and speed? Surely that speed was a major factor in his first fight with Hopkins for example and thus, as it's a purely inherited trait should he not be so credited for it?
In the end every boxer has different strengths and weaknesses, both in terms of genetics and skills. You can't discriminate against any aspect.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Here is Tyson's height/weight advantage when P4P ranked (1986-1989).
(a couple of inches/pounds either way have been ignored)
Berbick - none
Bonecruser - none
Thomas - none
Tucker - none
Biggs - none
Holmes - none
Tubbs - none
Spinks - none
Bruno - none
Williams - none
That's zero combined height/weight advantage over ANY opponent. In most cases Tyson was giving both height and weight away.
Here are Wlads height/weight advantages since he won the IBF title.
Byrd - 6" shorter, 25lbs lighter
Brock - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Austin - none
Brewster - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Ibragimov - 5" shorter, 20lbs lighter
Thompson - none
Rahman - 5" shorter, none
Chagaev - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Chambers - 6" shorter, 30lbs lighter
So Wlad has fought ONLY three guys where he didn't have a HUGE combined height/weight advantage.
His SIZE is clearly his greatest attribute. Eradicating SIZE is exactly what P4P is meant to do. Fact.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Here is Tyson's height/weight advantage when P4P ranked (1986-1989).
(a couple of inches/pounds either way have been ignored)
Berbick - none
Bonecruser - none
Thomas - none
Tucker - none
Biggs - none
Holmes - none
Tubbs - none
Spinks - none
Bruno - none
Williams - none
That's zero combined height/weight advantage over ANY opponent. In most cases Tyson was giving both height and weight away.
Here are Wlads height/weight advantages since he won the IBF title.
Byrd - 6" shorter, 25lbs lighter
Brock - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Austin - none
Brewster - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Ibragimov - 5" shorter, 20lbs lighter
Thompson - none
Rahman - 5" shorter, none
Chagaev - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Chambers - 6" shorter, 30lbs lighter
So Wlad has fought ONLY three guys where he didn't have a HUGE combined height/weight advantage.
His SIZE is clearly his greatest attribute. Eradicating SIZE is exactly what P4P is meant to do. Fact.
Tyson was a HW phenom that didn't have a huge weight, height, reach advantage over opponents. He deserved that p4p #1 ranking. I think possibly ALi and Marciano would have been #1 as well.
Quote:
Taking weight out of the equation, this subjective list factors in fighters' recent results, as well as their style, resilience and punching power.
BBC Sport - BBC pound-for-pound world rankings
Again boxing's p4p list takes weight/size out of the equation to rank the best fighter regardless of what they weigh. That has been boxing's criteria ever since the list popped up decades ago.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Here is Tyson's height/weight advantage when P4P ranked (1986-1989).
(a couple of inches/pounds either way have been ignored)
Berbick - none
Bonecruser - none
Thomas - none
Tucker - none
Biggs - none
Holmes - none
Tubbs - none
Spinks - none
Bruno - none
Williams - none
That's zero combined height/weight advantage over ANY opponent. In most cases Tyson was giving both height and weight away.
Here are Wlads height/weight advantages since he won the IBF title.
Byrd - 6" shorter, 25lbs lighter
Brock - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Austin - none
Brewster - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Ibragimov - 5" shorter, 20lbs lighter
Thompson - none
Rahman - 5" shorter, none
Chagaev - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Chambers - 6" shorter, 30lbs lighter
So Wlad has fought ONLY three guys where he didn't have a HUGE combined height/weight advantage.
His SIZE is clearly his greatest attribute. Eradicating SIZE is exactly what P4P is meant to do. Fact.
Tyson was a HW phenom that didn't have a huge weight, height, reach advantage over opponents. He deserved that p4p #1 ranking. I think possibly ALi and Marciano would have been #1 as well.
Quote:
Taking weight out of the equation, this subjective list factors in fighters' recent results, as well as their style, resilience and punching power.
BBC Sport - BBC pound-for-pound world rankings
Again boxing's p4p list takes weight/size out of the equation to rank the best fighter regardless of what they weigh. That has been boxing's criteria ever since the list popped up decades ago.
Exactly. That's what I have highlighted. There's a world of difference between a heavyweight phenom and an athletic big man that is heavily favoured by a huge size advantage.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Here is Tyson's height/weight advantage when P4P ranked (1986-1989).
(a couple of inches/pounds either way have been ignored)
Berbick - none
Bonecruser - none
Thomas - none
Tucker - none
Biggs - none
Holmes - none
Tubbs - none
Spinks - none
Bruno - none
Williams - none
That's zero combined height/weight advantage over ANY opponent. In most cases Tyson was giving both height and weight away.
Here are Wlads height/weight advantages since he won the IBF title.
Byrd - 6" shorter, 25lbs lighter
Brock - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Austin - none
Brewster - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Ibragimov - 5" shorter, 20lbs lighter
Thompson - none
Rahman - 5" shorter, none
Chagaev - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Chambers - 6" shorter, 30lbs lighter
So Wlad has fought ONLY three guys where he didn't have a HUGE combined height/weight advantage.
His SIZE is clearly his greatest attribute. Eradicating SIZE is exactly what P4P is meant to do. Fact.
Tyson was a HW phenom that didn't have a huge weight, height, reach advantage over opponents. He deserved that p4p #1 ranking. I think possibly ALi and Marciano would have been #1 as well.
Quote:
Taking weight out of the equation, this subjective list factors in fighters' recent results, as well as their style, resilience and punching power.
BBC Sport - BBC pound-for-pound world rankings
Again boxing's p4p list takes weight/size out of the equation to rank the best fighter regardless of what they weigh. That has been boxing's criteria ever since the list popped up decades ago.
Exactly. That's what I have highlighted. There's a world of difference between a heavyweight phenom and an athletic big man that is heavily favoured by a huge size advantage.
Lennox Lewis had the same kind of advantage against his opponents, so did Big George. Does it make them any lower in the list of the P4P of their time or in the list of the best HW of all time? IN a division where there is no physical limitations, why should we discriminate such factors that helps them? Isn't Valuev the proof that size is not everything, after all? I would like to have your opinion on that matter.
Following that argumentation, I would say that we should not consider those who have been blessed by ultra speed because it's unfair to the others and because it doesn't mean that they are that good, just saved by speed. We could say that also with strength or Jaw, it's one of the many things that help winning a boxing match)
Would Wlad be smaller, he would fight differently and would be probably faster, for example. He did learn to fight with what he has and he's done it pretty well and he's not only "big and tall", he also has power and a damn good technique(albeit un-exciting).
What about, let's say Paul WIlliam? Is he any good or it's just because he has a freak reach and size and therefore shouldn't be classed at all because he's just saved by his size?
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Nice breakdown, Fenster.
I'm not happy about this Wlad "P4P" deal. Certainly there is no way he moves past 10!
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BoxingGorilla
I'm not happy about this Wlad "P4P" deal. Certainly there is no way he moves past 10!
Wladimir is the offical stinkweed of the Heavyweight divison. Well, maybe it's Vitali. Still, one of those two needs to make way for the other.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nameless
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Here is Tyson's height/weight advantage when P4P ranked (1986-1989).
(a couple of inches/pounds either way have been ignored)
Berbick - none
Bonecruser - none
Thomas - none
Tucker - none
Biggs - none
Holmes - none
Tubbs - none
Spinks - none
Bruno - none
Williams - none
That's zero combined height/weight advantage over ANY opponent. In most cases Tyson was giving both height and weight away.
Here are Wlads height/weight advantages since he won the IBF title.
Byrd - 6" shorter, 25lbs lighter
Brock - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Austin - none
Brewster - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Ibragimov - 5" shorter, 20lbs lighter
Thompson - none
Rahman - 5" shorter, none
Chagaev - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Chambers - 6" shorter, 30lbs lighter
So Wlad has fought ONLY three guys where he didn't have a HUGE combined height/weight advantage.
His SIZE is clearly his greatest attribute. Eradicating SIZE is exactly what P4P is meant to do. Fact.
Tyson was a HW phenom that didn't have a huge weight, height, reach advantage over opponents. He deserved that p4p #1 ranking. I think possibly ALi and Marciano would have been #1 as well.
Quote:
Taking weight out of the equation, this subjective list factors in fighters' recent results, as well as their style, resilience and punching power.
BBC Sport - BBC pound-for-pound world rankings
Again boxing's p4p list takes weight/size out of the equation to rank the best fighter regardless of what they weigh. That has been boxing's criteria ever since the list popped up decades ago.
Exactly. That's what I have highlighted. There's a world of difference between a heavyweight phenom and an athletic big man that is heavily favoured by a huge size advantage.
Lennox Lewis had the same kind of advantage against his opponents, so did Big George. Does it make them any lower in the list of the P4P of their time or in the list of the best HW of all time? IN a division where there is no physical limitations, why should we discriminate such factors that helps them? Isn't Valuev the proof that size is not everything, after all? I would like to have your opinion on that matter.
Following that argumentation, I would say that we should not consider those who have been blessed by ultra speed because it's unfair to the others and because it doesn't mean that they are that good, just saved by speed. We could say that also with strength or Jaw, it's one of the many things that help winning a boxing match)
Would Wlad be smaller, he would fight differently and would be probably faster, for example. He did learn to fight with what he has and he's done it pretty well and he's not only "big and tall", he also has power and a damn good technique(albeit un-exciting).
What about, let's say Paul WIlliam? Is he any good or it's just because he has a freak reach and size and therefore shouldn't be classed at all because he's just saved by his size?
You seem to be having a hard time understanding "equal weight." Paul Williams has to weigh the SAME as his opponents.
George Foreman did not have a huge combined size advantage in his pomp - he is around 6'3 and 220lbs. Check Ali, Frazier, Norton et al.
Lewis only flirted with P4P around 2000. His resume, and I would say talent, was is in a different stratosphere to Wlad's.
Valuev destroys your argument. He is the perfect example of how a GIANT with a modicum of boxing ability can take advantage of his HUGE size to beat smaller men.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Valuev destroys your argument. He is the perfect example of how a GIANT with a modicum of boxing ability can take advantage of his HUGE size to beat smaller men.
That's my new quote.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Wondering how people still feel about this pfp list, as voted for by us:
http://i884.photobucket.com/albums/a...P4P29-6-10.jpg
edit: if someone can make that link an image I'd be grateful, doesn't seem to want to work for me.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nameless
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Here is Tyson's height/weight advantage when P4P ranked (1986-1989).
(a couple of inches/pounds either way have been ignored)
Berbick - none
Bonecruser - none
Thomas - none
Tucker - none
Biggs - none
Holmes - none
Tubbs - none
Spinks - none
Bruno - none
Williams - none
That's zero combined height/weight advantage over ANY opponent. In most cases Tyson was giving both height and weight away.
Here are Wlads height/weight advantages since he won the IBF title.
Byrd - 6" shorter, 25lbs lighter
Brock - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Austin - none
Brewster - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Ibragimov - 5" shorter, 20lbs lighter
Thompson - none
Rahman - 5" shorter, none
Chagaev - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Chambers - 6" shorter, 30lbs lighter
So Wlad has fought ONLY three guys where he didn't have a HUGE combined height/weight advantage.
His SIZE is clearly his greatest attribute. Eradicating SIZE is exactly what P4P is meant to do. Fact.
Tyson was a HW phenom that didn't have a huge weight, height, reach advantage over opponents. He deserved that p4p #1 ranking. I think possibly ALi and Marciano would have been #1 as well.
Quote:
Taking weight out of the equation, this subjective list factors in fighters' recent results, as well as their style, resilience and punching power.
BBC Sport - BBC pound-for-pound world rankings
Again boxing's p4p list takes weight/size out of the equation to rank the best fighter regardless of what they weigh. That has been boxing's criteria ever since the list popped up decades ago.
Exactly. That's what I have highlighted. There's a world of difference between a heavyweight phenom and an athletic big man that is heavily favoured by a huge size advantage.
Lennox Lewis had the same kind of advantage against his opponents, so did Big George. Does it make them any lower in the list of the P4P of their time or in the list of the best HW of all time? IN a division where there is no physical limitations, why should we discriminate such factors that helps them? Isn't Valuev the proof that size is not everything, after all? I would like to have your opinion on that matter.
Following that argumentation, I would say that we should not consider those who have been blessed by ultra speed because it's unfair to the others and because it doesn't mean that they are that good, just saved by speed. We could say that also with strength or Jaw, it's one of the many things that help winning a boxing match)
Would Wlad be smaller, he would fight differently and would be probably faster, for example. He did learn to fight with what he has and he's done it pretty well and he's not only "big and tall", he also has power and a damn good technique(albeit un-exciting).
What about, let's say Paul WIlliam? Is he any good or it's just because he has a freak reach and size and therefore shouldn't be classed at all because he's just saved by his size?
You seem to be having a hard time understanding "equal weight." Paul Williams has to weigh the SAME as his opponents.
George Foreman did not have a huge combined size advantage in his pomp - he is around 6'3 and 220lbs. Check Ali, Frazier, Norton et al.
Lewis only flirted with P4P around 2000. His resume, and I would say talent, was is in a different stratosphere to Wlad's.
Valuev destroys your argument. He is the perfect example of how a GIANT with a modicum of boxing ability can take advantage of his HUGE size to beat smaller men.
This is simply not true at all though. Valuev got to where he was through effective management and corrupt scoring rather than beating anyone.
I know hardly anybody who has watched the first John Ruiz fight, the Evander Holyfield fight, the Larry Donald fight, and of course the Haye and Chagaev fights and who thinks Valuev deserved to win any of them.
He 'won' those fights because he was a carnival freak who added curiousity interest to the heavyweight division. In other words, he got the decisions despite losing on the scorecards. His true record in the eyes of most who have seen his fights should read at least 5 losses now. Valuev has only ever beaten a single name opponent in a woeful Lyakhovich. If anything he has proven that exceptional size leads only to exceptional slowness, he has not beaten anybody in a fair fight.
Which top 10 heavies do you think Valuev beats? I would say none of them, which is why he never faced any and managed to somehow get to two world titles through boxing politics rather than boxing ability.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nameless
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Here is Tyson's height/weight advantage when P4P ranked (1986-1989).
(a couple of inches/pounds either way have been ignored)
Berbick - none
Bonecruser - none
Thomas - none
Tucker - none
Biggs - none
Holmes - none
Tubbs - none
Spinks - none
Bruno - none
Williams - none
That's zero combined height/weight advantage over ANY opponent. In most cases Tyson was giving both height and weight away.
Here are Wlads height/weight advantages since he won the IBF title.
Byrd - 6" shorter, 25lbs lighter
Brock - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Austin - none
Brewster - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Ibragimov - 5" shorter, 20lbs lighter
Thompson - none
Rahman - 5" shorter, none
Chagaev - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Chambers - 6" shorter, 30lbs lighter
So Wlad has fought ONLY three guys where he didn't have a HUGE combined height/weight advantage.
His SIZE is clearly his greatest attribute. Eradicating SIZE is exactly what P4P is meant to do. Fact.
Tyson was a HW phenom that didn't have a huge weight, height, reach advantage over opponents. He deserved that p4p #1 ranking. I think possibly ALi and Marciano would have been #1 as well.
Quote:
Taking weight out of the equation, this subjective list factors in fighters' recent results, as well as their style, resilience and punching power.
BBC Sport - BBC pound-for-pound world rankings
Again boxing's p4p list takes weight/size out of the equation to rank the best fighter regardless of what they weigh. That has been boxing's criteria ever since the list popped up decades ago.
Exactly. That's what I have highlighted. There's a world of difference between a heavyweight phenom and an athletic big man that is heavily favoured by a huge size advantage.
Lennox Lewis had the same kind of advantage against his opponents, so did Big George. Does it make them any lower in the list of the P4P of their time or in the list of the best HW of all time? IN a division where there is no physical limitations, why should we discriminate such factors that helps them? Isn't Valuev the proof that size is not everything, after all? I would like to have your opinion on that matter.
Following that argumentation, I would say that we should not consider those who have been blessed by ultra speed because it's unfair to the others and because it doesn't mean that they are that good, just saved by speed. We could say that also with strength or Jaw, it's one of the many things that help winning a boxing match)
Would Wlad be smaller, he would fight differently and would be probably faster, for example. He did learn to fight with what he has and he's done it pretty well and he's not only "big and tall", he also has power and a damn good technique(albeit un-exciting).
What about, let's say Paul WIlliam? Is he any good or it's just because he has a freak reach and size and therefore shouldn't be classed at all because he's just saved by his size?
You seem to be having a hard time understanding "equal weight." Paul Williams has to weigh the SAME as his opponents.
George Foreman did not have a huge combined size advantage in his pomp - he is around 6'3 and 220lbs. Check Ali, Frazier, Norton et al.
Lewis only flirted with P4P around 2000. His resume, and I would say talent, was is in a different stratosphere to Wlad's.
Valuev destroys your argument. He is the perfect example of how a GIANT with a modicum of boxing ability can take advantage of his HUGE size to beat smaller men.
This is simply not true at all though. Valuev got to where he was through effective management and corrupt scoring rather than beating anyone.
I know hardly anybody who has watched the first John Ruiz fight, the Evander Holyfield fight, the Larry Donald fight, and of course the Haye and Chagaev fights and who thinks Valuev deserved to win any of them.
He 'won' those fights because he was a carnival freak who added curiousity interest to the heavyweight division. In other words, he got the decisions despite losing on the scorecards. His true record in the eyes of most who have seen his fights should read at least 5 losses now. Valuev has only ever beaten a single name opponent in a woeful Lyakhovich. If anything he has proven that exceptional size leads only to exceptional slowness, he has not beaten anybody in a fair fight.
Which top 10 heavies do you think Valuev beats? I would say none of them, which is why he never faced any and managed to somehow get to two world titles through boxing politics rather than boxing ability.
Fenster is right imo, if Valuev was a 6 3 225lb fighter with the skills he has would proabably not even good enough to become pro never mind fighting for a world title, his sheer size got him further than he could ever have dreamed of if he was the size I said above.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
skel1983
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nameless
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Here is Tyson's height/weight advantage when P4P ranked (1986-1989).
(a couple of inches/pounds either way have been ignored)
Berbick - none
Bonecruser - none
Thomas - none
Tucker - none
Biggs - none
Holmes - none
Tubbs - none
Spinks - none
Bruno - none
Williams - none
That's zero combined height/weight advantage over ANY opponent. In most cases Tyson was giving both height and weight away.
Here are Wlads height/weight advantages since he won the IBF title.
Byrd - 6" shorter, 25lbs lighter
Brock - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Austin - none
Brewster - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Ibragimov - 5" shorter, 20lbs lighter
Thompson - none
Rahman - 5" shorter, none
Chagaev - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Chambers - 6" shorter, 30lbs lighter
So Wlad has fought ONLY three guys where he didn't have a HUGE combined height/weight advantage.
His SIZE is clearly his greatest attribute. Eradicating SIZE is exactly what P4P is meant to do. Fact.
Tyson was a HW phenom that didn't have a huge weight, height, reach advantage over opponents. He deserved that p4p #1 ranking. I think possibly ALi and Marciano would have been #1 as well.
Quote:
Taking weight out of the equation, this subjective list factors in fighters' recent results, as well as their style, resilience and punching power.
BBC Sport - BBC pound-for-pound world rankings
Again boxing's p4p list takes weight/size out of the equation to rank the best fighter regardless of what they weigh. That has been boxing's criteria ever since the list popped up decades ago.
Exactly. That's what I have highlighted. There's a world of difference between a heavyweight phenom and an athletic big man that is heavily favoured by a huge size advantage.
Lennox Lewis had the same kind of advantage against his opponents, so did Big George. Does it make them any lower in the list of the P4P of their time or in the list of the best HW of all time? IN a division where there is no physical limitations, why should we discriminate such factors that helps them? Isn't Valuev the proof that size is not everything, after all? I would like to have your opinion on that matter.
Following that argumentation, I would say that we should not consider those who have been blessed by ultra speed because it's unfair to the others and because it doesn't mean that they are that good, just saved by speed. We could say that also with strength or Jaw, it's one of the many things that help winning a boxing match)
Would Wlad be smaller, he would fight differently and would be probably faster, for example. He did learn to fight with what he has and he's done it pretty well and he's not only "big and tall", he also has power and a damn good technique(albeit un-exciting).
What about, let's say Paul WIlliam? Is he any good or it's just because he has a freak reach and size and therefore shouldn't be classed at all because he's just saved by his size?
You seem to be having a hard time understanding "equal weight." Paul Williams has to weigh the SAME as his opponents.
George Foreman did not have a huge combined size advantage in his pomp - he is around 6'3 and 220lbs. Check Ali, Frazier, Norton et al.
Lewis only flirted with P4P around 2000. His resume, and I would say talent, was is in a different stratosphere to Wlad's.
Valuev destroys your argument. He is the perfect example of how a GIANT with a modicum of boxing ability can take advantage of his HUGE size to beat smaller men.
This is simply not true at all though. Valuev got to where he was through effective management and corrupt scoring rather than beating anyone.
I know hardly anybody who has watched the first John Ruiz fight, the Evander Holyfield fight, the Larry Donald fight, and of course the Haye and Chagaev fights and who thinks Valuev deserved to win any of them.
He 'won' those fights because he was a carnival freak who added curiousity interest to the heavyweight division. In other words, he got the decisions despite losing on the scorecards. His true record in the eyes of most who have seen his fights should read at least 5 losses now. Valuev has only ever beaten a single name opponent in a woeful Lyakhovich. If anything he has proven that exceptional size leads only to exceptional slowness, he has not beaten anybody in a fair fight.
Which top 10 heavies do you think Valuev beats? I would say none of them, which is why he never faced any and managed to somehow get to two world titles through boxing politics rather than boxing ability.
Fenster is right imo, if Valuev was a 6 3 225lb fighter with the skills he has would proabably not even good enough to become pro never mind fighting for a world title, his sheer size got him further than he could ever have dreamed of if he was the size I said above.
Exactly skel.
Even if you think Valuev got a few dodgy decisions, his huge size advantage prevented those fighters from dominating or sparking him. Not his boxing ability. His size.
Larry Donald - “Valuev was able to make it look, just by his sheer size, that he was hitting me even when he wasn’t.”
Evander Holyfield - "He's a tough opponent, the sheer size of him is of course the main factor but he fights well with it too"
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
skel1983
Fenster is right imo, if Valuev was a 6 3 225lb fighter with the skills he has would proabably not even good enough to become pro never mind fighting for a world title, his sheer size got him further than he could ever have dreamed of if he was the size I said above.
Actually I think Valuev is so big it hinders him, he may very well have been BETTER if he was smaller and by "better" I mean skillwise not in record.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BoxingGorilla
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Valuev destroys your argument. He is the perfect example of how a GIANT with a modicum of boxing ability can take advantage of his HUGE size to beat smaller men.
That's my new quote.
I was thinking about this the other day and Fenster is absolutely correct. Heavyweight is the only division where Wlad can have a 20lb weight advantage and it's the only division where he's likely to have a 6 inch height advantage.
In any other division he wouldn't have those advantages and he sure as hell wouldn't be anywhere near as effective.
Anyone with eyes can see that he is dominant because of his physical advantages. He reminds me of a heavyweight version of Andreas Kotelnik, only with a better jab and p4p he obviously hits harder.
I just think his dominance says more about the level of (or lack of it) competition at Heavyweight. I think if you took away his physical advantages he wouldn't really stand out, and for me that's why he wouldn't be in my top ten.
-
Re: Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nameless
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Here is Tyson's height/weight advantage when P4P ranked (1986-1989).
(a couple of inches/pounds either way have been ignored)
Berbick - none
Bonecruser - none
Thomas - none
Tucker - none
Biggs - none
Holmes - none
Tubbs - none
Spinks - none
Bruno - none
Williams - none
That's zero combined height/weight advantage over ANY opponent. In most cases Tyson was giving both height and weight away.
Here are Wlads height/weight advantages since he won the IBF title.
Byrd - 6" shorter, 25lbs lighter
Brock - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Austin - none
Brewster - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Ibragimov - 5" shorter, 20lbs lighter
Thompson - none
Rahman - 5" shorter, none
Chagaev - 5" shorter, 15lbs lighter
Chambers - 6" shorter, 30lbs lighter
So Wlad has fought ONLY three guys where he didn't have a HUGE combined height/weight advantage.
His SIZE is clearly his greatest attribute. Eradicating SIZE is exactly what P4P is meant to do. Fact.
Tyson was a HW phenom that didn't have a huge weight, height, reach advantage over opponents. He deserved that p4p #1 ranking. I think possibly ALi and Marciano would have been #1 as well.
Quote:
Taking weight out of the equation, this subjective list factors in fighters' recent results, as well as their style, resilience and punching power.
BBC Sport - BBC pound-for-pound world rankings
Again boxing's p4p list takes weight/size out of the equation to rank the best fighter regardless of what they weigh. That has been boxing's criteria ever since the list popped up decades ago.
Exactly. That's what I have highlighted. There's a world of difference between a heavyweight phenom and an athletic big man that is heavily favoured by a huge size advantage.
Lennox Lewis had the same kind of advantage against his opponents, so did Big George. Does it make them any lower in the list of the P4P of their time or in the list of the best HW of all time? IN a division where there is no physical limitations, why should we discriminate such factors that helps them? Isn't Valuev the proof that size is not everything, after all? I would like to have your opinion on that matter.
Following that argumentation, I would say that we should not consider those who have been blessed by ultra speed because it's unfair to the others and because it doesn't mean that they are that good, just saved by speed. We could say that also with strength or Jaw, it's one of the many things that help winning a boxing match)
Would Wlad be smaller, he would fight differently and would be probably faster, for example. He did learn to fight with what he has and he's done it pretty well and he's not only "big and tall", he also has power and a damn good technique(albeit un-exciting).
What about, let's say Paul WIlliam? Is he any good or it's just because he has a freak reach and size and therefore shouldn't be classed at all because he's just saved by his size?
You seem to be having a hard time understanding "equal weight." Paul Williams has to weigh the SAME as his opponents.
George Foreman did not have a huge combined size advantage in his pomp - he is around 6'3 and 220lbs. Check Ali, Frazier, Norton et al.
Lewis only flirted with P4P around 2000. His resume, and I would say talent, was is in a different stratosphere to Wlad's.
Valuev destroys your argument. He is the perfect example of how a GIANT with a modicum of boxing ability can take advantage of his HUGE size to beat smaller men.
You did not answer to my question:
Did Lewis extra size helped him or not to become a p4p? No matter what you think about him compared to Wlad. As for Foreman, he had an important advantage at the time over most of his opponents who were all smaller. Same for Wlad and consider that even if he was taller, Wlad fought often people that weren't that much smaller than him, just like Big George at his time.
Is Size as important as power or the bless of a good jaw in the HW? IF so, why should we consider people with a strength much below the average to be a P4P and not the one who's blessed with a very good balance of athletic/size ratio? Aren't both of these gifts something natural? That's where I disagree, for some personal and subjective reason, you seem to be all ok with somebody who's born with a mighty jaw, a dazzling speed way beyond what one opponents might have but not with the fact that one can be taller and more athletic (and exploiting it by being in top notch shape). Why is that?
As the Valuev example shows, which Bilbo did try to explain but you took his example in all another way, being big and having a 100 pounds advantage over an opponent is definitely not enough to notch them convincingly, which means that there is much more to the weight and height thing to be a champion, it takes a good dose of talent to exploit it. Size doesn't automatically makes the difference even if it helps and it's not a bigger advantage than let's say Mike Tyson god a like power, advantage he had over all his opponents.
