
Originally Posted by
Fenster

Originally Posted by
generalbulldog

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.
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?
Bookmarks