Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings

[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.

[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?

[BoxingGorilla]

Nice breakdown, Fenster.

I'm not happy about this Wlad "P4P" deal. Certainly there is no way he moves past 10!

[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.

[0james0]

But size isn't everything, otherwise we'd have Peter Crouch dominating the heavies.

It's how you use what you've got, big guys on the outside, small guys on the inside.

I've always considered p4p as the results a boxer has had compared to their skills. Almost like a points system where you get more points for beating a better opponent.

You simply cannot shrink or grow fighters as it's part of the whole package. You can't add a foot and a few stone to Mayweather and say if he was a heavy he'd clean up, it doesn't work like that. Same goes for the big guys, you can't shrink them and wonder how they would have then got on. Different weights need different styles and tactics and each boxer would have been COMPLETLEY different had they been born a different size.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.