Why isn't Wlad P4P?

[BattlingNelson]

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.

[Calilloyd]

[QUOTE=Klitschko2009;6863109]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.

[Spray_resistant]

Newbies much??

P4P was created to LEAVE OFF heavyweights...because they could ebat up every one in aifght because they re at the highest weight class....

P4P means if all things were equal (WEIGHT).... who are the best fighters in the world...

Incorrect much?......p4p is just a way of saying if all of the best fighters in the world from every weight class could be scaled down to the same size while retaining the abilities that made them successful who would be the best? its totally theoretical and if HWs were excluded then why not CWs too? they are much bigger than flyweights, why stop there even lets exclude LHW and SMW if there are good FWs and LWs that could be considered in this regard......

[Calilloyd]

[QUOTE=QUELOQUE;6870779]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.

[Royabeda]

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.

[-Swizzy-]

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.

[Thread Stealer]

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".