Wladimir cracks the POUND FOR POUND Ratings

[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.