Why isn't Wlad P4P?

Heavyweights have been on it, but don't try to exaggerate. The term was made for Sugar Ray Robinson and I've never seen Tyson P4P #1 in a past magazine ranking. Heavyweights can be on it, but who the **** has Wlad beaten? If fighters got on the P4P list for how they destroyed opponents, Edwin Valero would be top 3. Wlad needs to beat his brother if he wants to be in there. That's a popular myth. He may have helped popularize the term, but other fighters before him such as Tony Canzoneri and Bob Fitzsimmons were called by boxing writers as "the best, pound for pound".

Chagaev, Peter, Ibragimov, and Byrd, is not a better lineup than Adamek, Tarver (2x), and Johnson (2x). If you want to claim rankings, they had better rankings than them too. just based on rankings, wlad's lineup is better. chagaev, ibragimov and byrd were ranked higher in their division than the 3 fighters that Dawson fought at the time of their fight. And Peter wasn't ranked that high when wlad fought him, but he did work his way up the HW rankings to 2nd at one point just like Adamek worked his way up the Cruiserweight rankings AFTER his fight with Dawson. Although the Adamek win can be considered better than the Peter win, the rest of the wins are better for Wlad according to the rankings.

Pound for pound is the term used in boxing, mixed martial arts, and other combat sports to describe a fighter's value in relation to fighters of different weight classes. In boxing, Ring Magazine's pound for pound list is the established standard for ranking fighters pound for pound. Because of the emphasis on the size of the boxer, pound for pound ratings predominantly feature fewer heavyweights, focusing primarily on boxers middleweight or below. The website where that quote comes from does have Wlad in the top 10 though. I understand the quote and the point you're making, guess I just don't think it's right as a concept but p4p lists are interesting anyway so I'm not complaining.

Chagaev, Peter, Ibragimov, and Byrd, is not a better lineup than Adamek, Tarver (2x), and Johnson (2x). If you want to claim rankings, they had better rankings than them too. No, it sure isn't.

Overrated Tarver and Glen "13 losses" Johnson were both washed up senior citizens when they fought Dawson. Adamek was totally weight drained and sick for the Dawson fight. He was killing himself to make 175. You're killing me with that excuse. That's why he moved up 25 lbs to cruiserweight. Sick weight drained Adamek still managed to knockdown and badly hurt Dawson and win the last 3 rounds. The only true part of that is that Dawson was knocked down. The rest is a flat out lie.

It doesn't make sense that Wlad isn't in the p4p top 10. He has certainley beaten better comp in his own division than someone like Chad who is at #9. Personally I don't like Wlad, but he has still beaten a lot of the top guys in the HW division and has accomplished more than some of the guys in the top 10 p4p. Cliff Rold, who does p4p rankings for boxingscene and the ring, doesn't include HW's in his rankings. It's his belief that they do not belong there so it's a matter of definition.

because his resume is extremely weak

It's based off rankings though and the level of competition fighters have beaten in their own weight division. Besides, if say Pacqiuao and Mayweather were the same size as Wlad then would they be able to fight the same as they do now? No and vice versa so it's pretty pointless to even contemplate 'if two fighters were the same size'. Plus, it's kind of harsh to dismiss Wlad because he uses his 'height and reach' to his advantage, do fighters in other weight classes not do the same if they can? Maybe not to the same extent but using your physical advantages as best you can is just smart boxing. Lewis did the same and you know if he was fighting today he'd be top 10 p4p but you don't think that would be right? I get what people mean with the weight issue but it's not like Wlad hasn't fought fighters who weighed an equal amount or more than him. Personally I think he should be top 10 Pound for pound is the term used in boxing, mixed martial arts, and other combat sports to describe a fighter's value in relation to fighters of different weight classes. In boxing, Ring Magazine's pound for pound list is the established standard for ranking fighters pound for pound. Because of the emphasis on the size of the boxer, pound for pound ratings predominantly feature fewer heavyweights, focusing primarily on boxers middleweight or below.

P4P is to say, if two fighters are the same size, who would win? It's based off rankings though and the level of competition fighters have beaten in their own weight division. Besides, if say Pacqiuao and Mayweather were the same size as Wlad then would they be able to fight the same as they do now? No and vice versa so it's pretty pointless to even contemplate 'if two fighters were the same size'. Plus, it's kind of harsh to dismiss Wlad because he uses his 'height and reach' to his advantage, do fighters in other weight classes not do the same if they can? Maybe not to the same extent but using your physical advantages as best you can is just smart boxing. Lewis did the same and you know if he was fighting today he'd be top 10 p4p but you don't think that would be right? I get what people mean with the weight issue but it's not like Wlad hasn't fought fighters who weighed an equal amount or more than him. Personally I think he should be top 10

i agree. He deserves to be in the top 10 p4p list. He's beaten fighters like chagaev, ibragimov, peter, byrd and brewster in the past few years. That's a good quantity of great fighters. ....wtf?????

Chagaev, Peter, Ibragimov, Byrd. It doesn't matter your opinion on those fighters, what matters is their rankings. And that resume is better than Caballero, Williams and Chad. Wlad should be on the p4p list plain and simple. hw's not belonging on the list is a myth. Chagaev, Peter, Ibragimov, and Byrd, is not a better lineup than Adamek, Tarver (2x), and Johnson (2x). If you want to claim rankings, they had better rankings than them too. I'm arguing Chad Dawson's position to be top 10 not Caballero's or Williams, although Williams has a good case. Except for Peter, he outweighed all 3 fighters by 20-30 pounds. I'm not arguing whether heavyweights should or shouldn't be on P4P lists, but that's not P4P.

I agree. He deserves to be in the top 10 P4P list. He's beaten fighters like Chagaev, Ibragimov, Peter, Byrd and Brewster in the past few years. That's a good quantity of great fighters.

Isn't Vitali in there,he definately deserves it!!I think he is better than Wlad,if Vitali is in there,I got no problem with Wlad not being top 10,but Vitali gotta be in there though!!

It doesn't make sense that Wlad isn't in the p4p top 10. He has certainley beaten better comp in his own division than someone like Chad who is at #9. Personally I don't like Wlad, but he has still beaten a lot of the top guys in the HW division and has accomplished more than some of the guys in the top 10 p4p. Because pound for pound is the best fighter in the world regardless of size. Without his size Wlad's skills mean consideribly less. He has beaten some highly ranked heavy's in a weak division but I dont think he is one of the best 10 fighters in the world.

Both Klits are in my top ten.

Pound for pound is the term used in boxing, mixed martial arts, and other combat sports to describe a fighter's value in relation to fighters of different weight classes. In boxing, Ring Magazine's pound for pound list is the established standard for ranking fighters pound for pound. Because of the emphasis on the size of the boxer, pound for pound ratings predominantly feature fewer heavyweights, focusing primarily on boxers middleweight or below. It can also be used to describe how any two things compare when bearing in mind their varying quantities. For example, a tin of tomatoes weighing 250 g and costing $2.50 is more expensive, pound for pound, than one weighing 500 g and costing $4 (as the former costs $1.00 per 100 g and the latter $0.80 per 100 g). People read this and understand what P4P is please.

P4P is to say, if two fighters are the same size, who would win? yeah , some people are a little confused as to what p4p actually means

what does his size and fighitng style got to do with this rankings? thats not how rankings work. they are based on resume not size and fighting style. P4P is to say, if two fighters are the same size, who would win?

Because Wlad uses his height and reach to have an advantage over all of his opponents. If he was the same size as the other guys, he wouldn't be so dominant. what does his size and fighitng style got to do with this rankings? thats not how rankings work. they are based on resume not size and fighting style.

its a bit unfair for wlad because you have to ask in theory would his style be effective at lower weights ( which is the point of p4p lists) and i dont think it would be but at the same time his accomplishments at heavyweight speak for themselves.