Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings

[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".

[Fenster]

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.

[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.

[Drago]

wlad defo deserves to be in top 10

[SalTheButcher]

i actually happened to check the p4p rankings for the first time in a long time just a few minutes ago


klitschko should have been there long ago

[Niko's Girl!]

It's fair. Although Calderon should be above Wladdy and Donaire (replacing Donaire, who shouldn't be so high anyways). Adding: Wladdy can "crack" my "pound for pound ratings" anytime.

[generalbulldog]

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.

[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.

[0james0]

Out of interest, what do people make of boxrec pfp rankings?

They use a points based system, giving points based on the difficulty of the opponent and then adding or subtracting the appropriate points. Kind of how I think a pfp list should be done.

their list is currently this:

1
Floyd Mayweather Jrwelterweight2
Manny Pacquiaowelterweight3
Wladimir Klitschkoheavyweight4
Bernard Hopkinslight heavyweight5
Vitali Klitschkoheavyweight6
Juan Manuel Marquezlightweight7
Paul Williamslight middleweight8
Shane Mosleywelterweight9
Lucian Butesuper middleweight10
Timothy Bradleylight welterweight11
Juan Manuel Lopezfeatherweight12
Chris Johnfeatherweight13
Andre Dirrellsuper middleweight14
Jean Pascallight heavyweight15
Fernando Montielbantamweight16
Sergio Gabriel Martinezmiddleweight17
Miguel Angel Cottolight middleweight18
David Hayeheavyweight19
Amir Khanlight welterweight20
Antonio Margaritolight middleweight

[El Kabong]

No way Sergio Martinez is that low

[skel1983]

Out of interest, what do people make of boxrec pfp rankings?

They use a points based system, giving points based on the difficulty of the opponent and then adding or subtracting the appropriate points. Kind of how I think a pfp list should be done.

their list is currently this:

1
Floyd Mayweather Jrwelterweight2
Manny Pacquiaowelterweight3
Wladimir Klitschkoheavyweight4
Bernard Hopkinslight heavyweight5
Vitali Klitschkoheavyweight6
Juan Manuel Marquezlightweight7
Paul Williamslight middleweight8
Shane Mosleywelterweight9
Lucian Butesuper middleweight10
Timothy Bradleylight welterweight11
Juan Manuel Lopezfeatherweight12
Chris Johnfeatherweight13
Andre Dirrellsuper middleweight14
Jean Pascallight heavyweight15
Fernando Montielbantamweight16
Sergio Gabriel Martinezmiddleweight17
Miguel Angel Cottolight middleweight18
David Hayeheavyweight19
Amir Khanlight welterweight20
Antonio Margaritolight middleweight

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.

[amat]

Out of interest, what do people make of boxrec pfp rankings?

They use a points based system, giving points based on the difficulty of the opponent and then adding or subtracting the appropriate points. Kind of how I think a pfp list should be done.

their list is currently this:

1
Floyd Mayweather Jrwelterweight2
Manny Pacquiaowelterweight3
Wladimir Klitschkoheavyweight4
Bernard Hopkinslight heavyweight5
Vitali Klitschkoheavyweight6
Juan Manuel Marquezlightweight7
Paul Williamslight middleweight8
Shane Mosleywelterweight9
Lucian Butesuper middleweight10
Timothy Bradleylight welterweight11
Juan Manuel Lopezfeatherweight12
Chris Johnfeatherweight13
Andre Dirrellsuper middleweight14
Jean Pascallight heavyweight15
Fernando Montielbantamweight16
Sergio Gabriel Martinezmiddleweight17
Miguel Angel Cottolight middleweight18
David Hayeheavyweight19
Amir Khanlight welterweight20
Antonio Margaritolight middleweight

I think that's the opposite of how a P4P list should be done, none of that takes into account how a guy actually looks when he gets into the ring.

[Fenster]

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.

[Kev]

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.

[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.