Why are heavyweights never in the pound-for-pound top 10?

My opinion is that heavyweight are so much slower than middleweight. P4P to me is how many hits you could give and how much damage it does to the opponent. Heavyweights are slow but very strong. Middleweight have good speed and somewhat strong. Lightweight are very fast but not strong. This is why middleweights have the best p4p because their fast and strong. (its just my opinion)

If the heavyweights are good enough they will be in pfp top 10 ten . Prime tyson was the no 1 pfp best fighter in the world from 86 to 89 but prime tyson was more skillful that any of the weights below him which cant be said about todays heavyweights who are at the bottom of the barrel .

I thought the term pound-for-pound materialized for Sugar Ray Robinson; and just for that purpose, to separate the big men from the little men. It's obvious that a heavyweight will beat a smaller fighter, so they needed a way to measure all fighters the same. So in pound-4-pound lists, all fighters are imagined to be the same weight.No heavyweight has the boxing ability of a Morales, Mayweather or Hopkins. I may be wrong though. Exactly. In addition, the majority of the HWs there now are pretty lacking in the technical deprtment. The major determinant in their success is their size (for those who are able to) use it properly and the fact that when a 260Ib guy hits you flush, theres a strong possibility you are going down.In the smaller divisions, that potential for one punch KOs is not as high.

I could swear that there used to be a super-HW division. I thought Butterbean was the reigning champ, too. Boxrec.com shows some of his fights being for super-HW titles, too. I think they just made that up for Butterbean and his sideshow fights.

I could swear that there used to be a super-HW division. I thought Butterbean was the reigning champ, too. Boxrec.com shows some of his fights being for super-HW titles, too.

Maybe because all heavyweights don't weight the same, making it mismatches in fights, meaning you're not always fighting guys your size.. Think about it, you put a small good heavyweight, who is good at fighting guys his size and has never been KO'd, in there with Vitali and Vitali knocks his ass out in the early-mid rounds, by just over-powering, and over-sizing him. Vitali won't deserve that much credit, because he had a clear advantage, his size. It's an interesting point, that the size range is the greatest in the heavyweight division (from tyson at 5 11 to valuev at 7 feet) - maybe we need a superheavyweight division... I actually don't agree though with the theory that vitali only beats people because of his size. Even though he doesn't move very smoothly i think that he actually is an extremely talented boxer-- if Roy Jones Jr. says that you're a good boxer then you've gotta be good, and after the fight with williams Jones said that for his size at least, vitali is a good boxer.

I thought the term pound-for-pound materialized for Sugar Ray Robinson; and just for that purpose, to separate the big men from the little men. It's obvious that a heavyweight will beat a smaller fighter, so they needed a way to measure all fighters the same. So in pound-4-pound lists, all fighters are imagined to be the same weight.No heavyweight has the boxing ability of a Morales, Mayweather or Hopkins. I may be wrong though.

Why are heavyweights not put in top 10 p4p??? BECAUSE THEY SUCK!!(at the moment) Out of all time i would put Joe Louis top 5 p4p of all time and prolly Ali It used to be all the big guys discriminating lil people NOW IS THE SMALLER PEOPLE! GO SMALL PEOPLE!

It doesn't seem fair... I realize that because of their size they can't be as fast or as agile as the little guys, and tend to be more cumbersome and less crisp in their manouvres, but given that that is only because of their size and not because of any lack of skill, why should they be penalized for it? In other words, if the p4p rankings are supposed to be a measure of skill, then why can't we give the heavies a "size handicap" so that the best boxers in the heavyweight division have a shot at making the list? IMO Lennox Lewis should have been on a top 10 p4p list, because for a man his size he was a great boxer. I think its beacuse thw HW division is so unstable, I mean i think Klitchko is the best right now, but hes the best amongst fighters who arent that great, so how can you call that p4p great? I think he should be, but he can still be considered untested, and also as has happened over and over, great HW can lose to lesser HW's, because the division is based off of fighters who can KO each other with one punch landed flush, so if power is the dominating factor, it's hard to say who really, is that skilled.

I think Vitali has what it takes to maintain a top p4p ranking but he needs to beat the top contenders. Rahman is a good start, a revenge win over Byrd would help allot and a KO blowout of the winning of Ruiz - Toney would seal the deal!

It's always a particular innate ability or uncanny skill that sets those P4P fighters apart and frankly there isn't anyone in the heavyweight division deserving any P4P recognition. Byrd has the tools except he forgets to counter punch and hasnt performed up to par, Vitali is just big and grossly mechanical though effective and James Toney has to fight someone of note. Even if they had the set of skills to be on the list, the lack of legit opposition is frightening.

Maybe because all heavyweights don't weight the same, making it mismatches in fights, meaning you're not always fighting guys your size.. Think about it, you put a small good heavyweight, who is good at fighting guys his size and has never been KO'd, in there with Vitali and Vitali knocks his ass out in the early-mid rounds, by just over-powering, and over-sizing him. Vitali won't deserve that much credit, because he had a clear advantage, his size. i agree.....

Maybe because all heavyweights don't weight the same, making it mismatches in fights, meaning you're not always fighting guys your size.. Think about it, you put a small good heavyweight, who is good at fighting guys his size and has never been KO'd, in there with Vitali and Vitali knocks his ass out in the early-mid rounds, by just over-powering, and over-sizing him. Vitali won't deserve that much credit, because he had a clear advantage, his size.

kind of how bernard is the #1 p4p and all hes done is middleweight bernard is not even top 20 in p4p hes never gone up.

i look at fighters today like Bryd, who had success at the smaller weight class came up to becaome a champ, then you would have to mention James toney who came all the way up from middleweight to become champ in the cruiserweight div, and continue to have success in the HW div.

Its because people judge the best p4p on the fact smaller guys can go up to higher weight classes and beat people that are bigger. They think he will be unstoppable if he keeps his speed and stamina. They dont seem to realize how dangerous a big man could be if he could keep his punching power at smaller weights. However, right now, no HW belongs in the top 10 p4p. The heavyweight divison is in a sad sad state.

It doesn't seem fair... I realize that because of their size they can't be as fast or as agile as the little guys, and tend to be more cumbersome and less crisp in their manouvres, but given that that is only because of their size and not because of any lack of skill, why should they be penalized for it? In other words, if the p4p rankings are supposed to be a measure of skill, then why can't we give the heavies a "size handicap" so that the best boxers in the heavyweight division have a shot at making the list? IMO Lennox Lewis should have been on a top 10 p4p list, because for a man his size he was a great boxer. I agree. Its just an example of little people discriminating against big people.