Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings

[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.

[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.

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.

[BoxingGorilla]

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.

[0james0]

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.

[Kev]

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.

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.

[skel1983]

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.

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.

[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.

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"

[El Kabong]

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.

[ono]

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.

[Nameless]

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.

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.

[Nameless]

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.

Remove Mike Tyson's power and he would never have been dominant at all neither. Remove Kid Gavillan Jaw and he would have never been as dominant neither.
What makes a good boxer is a mix of everything. Size is one of the many factors, some know how to use it and to make it deadly (Wlad, Lennox, Vitali among others), some aren't talented enough (Valuev). It's an advantage but it's definitely not the beginning and the end of it all.

[generalbulldog]

The definition of these p4p rankings are to take size out of the equation and determine a boxer's other attributes. It has been that way for decades. You can't just redefine what it means now.

Okay for the people who say size should be considered in these p4p rankings. Who here believes that Wlad should be ranked higher than Pacquiao and Mayweather?

Maybe we should start a thread with a new poll.

[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.

Remove Mike Tyson's power and he would never have been dominant at all neither. Remove Kid Gavillan Jaw and he would have never been as dominant neither.
What makes a good boxer is a mix of everything. Size is one of the many factors, some know how to use it and to make it deadly (Wlad, Lennox, Vitali among others), some aren't talented enough (Valuev). It's an advantage but it's definitely not the beginning and the end of it all.

Tyson and Gavilan were the same size as their opponents. This is what you're not getting. Fighters can have superior power, chin, speed at any weight. Only fighters in the heavyweight divison can bring a huge size advantage to the table.

Wlad's ability can't be fairly judged in reality, considering his massive size advantage over almost everyone, let alone how he would match up against Mayweather or Pacquiao.

A good big'un will always beat a good little'un. That sums Wlad up.

And you need to do some homework on Foreman. He may have been perceived as huge compared to his opponents but that's quite simply not true. Especially compared to the size advantages Wlad has over his today.

[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.

Exactly.

I think any heavyweight needs to be exceptional to rate P4P. The only thing that stands out about Wlad is his size.

[Nameless]

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.

Exactly.

I think any heavyweight needs to be exceptional to rate P4P. The only thing that stands out about Wlad is his size.

He's still more than just a 6.6/6.7 HW Skel, he has a very good technique, one of the best jab and he packs load of power, biggest problem is that he doesn't have the exciting killer instinct. Anyway, seems like we're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one.