Is it wrong to rate Heavyweights on a P4P list

**Chuckguy** · 02-17-2010, 02:27 PM

NOt if they are legit
To me the undisputed HW should be number 1
but we havent had one since what ...Lennox Lewis????

**Pullcounter** · 02-17-2010, 02:28 PM

HWs can't be on the p4p list. the p4p #1 spot was created for non-HWs.

**hammerhiem** · 02-17-2010, 02:29 PM

No problems at all, only the current set of HW's fcuking suck.

**Joe2608** · 02-17-2010, 02:42 PM

Heavyweights have been on the list before but i always thought the point of the P4P list is to see who's the best regardless of weight so that you can compare a straweight to a heavyweight.

**Davros?** · 02-17-2010, 02:47 PM

Tyson, Lewis, Bowe and Holyfield where all on the p4p list at some point. Tyson was p4p no1 at one point if i remember rightly.

**BetterCallSaul** · 02-17-2010, 02:48 PM

Are heavyweight boxers made up of anything other than pounds?

I agree that Vitali should be in the top 10. He resume at least equals that of Dawson and Williams.

Wlad has a bit of work to do. Haye can also get there if he unifies the HW titles.

**jimmykaba** · 02-17-2010, 04:00 PM

o agree he should be on top 10
but
he didnt dominate heavyweight

**Thread Stealer** · 02-17-2010, 06:56 PM

I don't really have a problem with it.

The term pound-for-pound was first used by a writer about Fitzsimmons (I think) who fought from MW to HW, others like Canzoneri were called it, and Robinson really helped popularize the term. After Robinson helped popularize it, it was said to be for a way for non-heavyweights to get more prestige, but numerous heavyweights have made the list, with Tyson even being ranked #1 in the late 80s.

**The_Demon** · 02-17-2010, 06:58 PM

na its based on level of competition beaten,thats why hes not in the top 10

Is it wrong to rate Heavyweights on a P4P list