New Ring P4P rankings: Wladimir Klitschko moved up to #2

[- Ram Raid -]

Ok, take that in consideration and imagine how Wlad should be reguarded when he has exclipsed Tyson in every stat and has infinitely more boxing ability. Think about it. It's been over ten years since the guy lost and he has faced every style in that time including bum rushers and stylistic boxers and has not really even been challenged since 2005. It's not all just the competition. Much should be said for his ability and dedication to his craft.

If Wlad was U.S. American (white or black) he would be on the Wheaties box, in films, commercials galore and in the headlines constantly. He would be the most recognized sports icon since Michael Jordan. Not a doubt about it.

I can't speak highly enough about what we know of Wlad's dedication and professionalism. For me that will be his true legacy to the heavyweight division, so much so that it's only slightly veering into the world of hyperbole to speak of pre and post Wlad when it comes to fight preparation and a championship lifestyle amongst the big men.

And I also agree that if he was an American he'd be held in much higher regard. Where we depart is that not only does he not have 'infinitely more boxing ability' but his boxing ability is frustratingly mediocre historically and in terms of P4P. I really wish that wasn't the case because I so wanted him to develop into much more than he has.

[Beater_of_ass]

I really don't understand why Floyd is still #1 in the ranking. He should get penalize for ducking Pacquiao.

Well Manny hasn't fought Floyd either and Floyd would be the favorite in that fight, however slight it would be.

[-Kev-]

Golovkin and GGG are the same guy. Get your sh%t together and maybe, just maybe you will convince somebody (definitely not me) that you're not a moron ****in wannabe.

He knows GGG and Golovkin are the same guy. He just used poor punctuation. It wasn't bad enough to completely confuse his point though. I disagree with Cliff on almost everything but let's not nitpick his posts for nonsense like that.

[Boxing Goat]

He knows GGG and Golovkin are the same guy. He just used poor punctuation. It wasn't bad enough to completely confuse his point though. I disagree with Cliff on almost everything but let's not nitpick his posts for nonsense like that.

I have acknowledged this and have deleted the post and have taken full responsibility. Thanks for the concern.

[-Kev-]

As a criteria,

Winning titles in MULTIPLE weight classes, while fighting undisputed or linear competitors who are the best in the given division should be the determining factor.

Once again.

Heavyweight is the echelon weight. It's considered by many to be nonsense rating one as a P4P contender.

Sorry. I won't bug you guys again here.

I always thought "pound 4 pound" was self explanatory. Who are the best fighters if they were the same size as every other fighter from every other weight class. So Floyd being #1 means he is the best pound for pound fighter because, pound for pound, he could beat anybody. Wlad is #2 because if he was the same size as his opponent, he would find a way to win.

[crold1]

He knows GGG and Golovkin are the same guy. He just used poor punctuation. It wasn't bad enough to completely confuse his point though. I disagree with Cliff on almost everything but let's not nitpick his posts for nonsense like that.

It wasn't even poor punctuation!

LOL

And everyone isn't supposed to agree. That would suck. But none of this is personal. We are talking about boxing. It's fun.

Or supposed to be.

[crold1]

I always thought "pound 4 pound" was self explanatory. Who are the best fighters if they were the same size as every other fighter from every other weight class. So Floyd being #1 means he is the best pound for pound fighter because, pound for pound, he could beat anybody. Wlad is #2 because if he was the same size as his opponent, he would find a way to win.

That's why I can't have him that high. With his skill set and vulnerabilities, if everyone is the same size he wouldn't 'beat anyone but Floyd.' On resume or dominance, I can see someone goingqt there. I have him back on the list (when it comes out again) because I respect that, he's literally the best, and he's coming off arguably his best performance. Those are all factors. There are no 'rules.' It's barber shop nonsense; unprovable debate fodder.

[Boxing Goat]

Yeah I'd be interested to see who you'd rank him below.

What I'd say first though, is that P4P lists aren't primarily about resumes. It's about skill set and opposition comes into that as an indicator of the calibre of fighter that that skill set can still be successful against.

Obviously if there's a sparsity of talent in a division then a fighter can only face a lower level of opposition. It's what a fighter displays whilst beating them though that counts.

I agree that P4P should also be about who a fighter beat in regard to their skills, ranking, accomplishments, longevity, etc. but that should also include the whole picture between the lines. Like Holmes being old and already having been dethroned by Spinks and losing the rematch. He was basically done at the top when Tyson rolled over him. Tyson was on a good run in 1989 but he should have never been P4P #1. It was just a populatity contest. A case could be made for him to be in the top 5 but no way should he have been ranked over guys like Chavez Sr. , Leonard, Hearns or Whitaker. Some would even say Holyfield.

[Boxing Goat]

I can't speak highly enough about what we know of Wlad's dedication and professionalism. For me that will be his true legacy to the heavyweight division, so much so that it's only slightly veering into the world of hyperbole to speak of pre and post Wlad when it comes to fight preparation and a championship lifestyle amongst the big men.

And I also agree that if he was an American he'd be held in much higher regard. Where we depart is that not only does he not have 'infinitely more boxing ability' but his boxing ability is frustratingly mediocre historically and in terms of P4P. I really wish that wasn't the case because I so wanted him to develop into much more than he has.

What exactly more could Wladimir have done to impress you more than to have the second longest HW champ reign ever? That's not the NFL man, that's over 120 years of history. It says a lot that he has been able to do it relatively easily.

[- Ram Raid -]

What exactly more could Wladimir have done to impress you more than to have the second longest HW champ reign ever? That's not the NFL man, that's over 120 years of history. It says a lot that he has been able to do it relatively easily.

That kind of numbers game doesn't mean as much when each division has four major belts. It's a major achievement and deserves to be respected, but it doesn't automatically bestow the kind of prestige that it at first suggests.

Had there been one belt, so we're talking about being the dominant heavyweight on the planet, then he would have only held that title for two years. Until their respective retirements Lewis and then Vitali were the dominant fighters in the division.

Had Wladimir have been the dominant champion in spite of Lennox and his brother then that would of rightly impressed me. Along side that, what leaves me distinctly unimpressed with Wladimir, not in terms of the current heavyweight climate, but in terms of the P4P and ATG status that some are holding him in, is his comparative lack of craft. That's the gist of the matter for me. It's not his numbers.

We're using very different criteria to judge his greatness or lack of. That's why there is such disparity in our final assessments.