Of course valuev would beat floyd... due to him being 5x's his size, not because of his ability. but my question is , do you think valuev is a better boxer then mayweather? I dont want to hear about other sports in this case as boxing is unique, in that yes.... how good you are is not always dependant on the fact that you may or may not be able to beat someone. Like i said.... Kevin Mcbride very well could beat Izrael Vasquez... but Izrael is 10x the fighter and boxer that kevin is, but kevin happens to outweigh him by over 100lbs, and is multiple times his size. which dramitically effects the outcome. Your confusing outcomes of fights, with ability..... when thats simply not the case when talking large differances in ones size. And because boxing IS one of the unique and exceptions in that yes, you can very well be better at boxing, but lose to someone not in your leauge, but 50lbs heavier then you, is why people do these lists in the first place. I dont know, i cant break this down any further.... its just simple logic. Again, your equating outcome of a fight with ability, and also confusing outcome of the fight with being the better boxer and fighter. this is simply not true..... you have to use common sense. Let me ask you, and its a yes or no question (because as you put it, Pac and Mayweather are simply not as good at the sport of boxing as the Klitschkos, because in this sport in any direct confrontation they would lose. *So, my question (again... its yes or no, based on your criteria) Is Kevin Mcbride a better boxer then Izrael Vasquez or Erick Morales? Is Chris Arreola a better boxer then Floyd Mayweather or Pernel Whitaker?
Boxing is not about results. It's about the appreciation of what men are capable of doing in combat. First and foremost boxing is entertainment. A 'good' fight isn't 'good' because the bigger fighter won. There's nothing interesting about Valuev fighting a toddler or a robot smashing Valuev. Pound-for-pound is an idea that one subscribes to in order to measure various aspects of the sport that we value beyond the simple notion of size. To a large extent it's subjective, but if you find it to be bull**** perhaps you are watching the wrong sport.
Everyone is piling on, but the original poster has a valid point. If boxing is the art of knocking the other man out, then yes, The Heavyweight Champion is the best at boxing. This is irrefutable. In many sports size and stature are an intrinsic component. Weight classes allows smaller men to make a living in spots that have them. On the flip side, you'll probably never see a 6'8 300lb championship sprinter or gymnast either.
p4p is stupid because its just opinion. i think paul williams is #1 p4p. he can dominate the best fighters from welterweight to middleweight RIGHT NOW. not like these little guys who start at 108 or 118 and move up 20-30 pounds. there should be no catchweights, no "p4p" bs hype just fights in real divisions
yes to both. p4p they aren't, in terms of pure skill they aren't, but in terms of boxing as a whole, yes they are. it really is as simple as getting really short guys and really tall guys, and finding the tall guys are generally better at basketball. boxing is a form of fighting, and in fighting, physical size is a significant attribute. you might not like to hear 'arreola is better than mayweather', but at the end of the day that is what it comes down to
P4P is based on who's the most talented, dominate fighter in his weight class. You cannot compare boxing to other sports. Using the posters logic weight classes would be irrelevant and 250lb guys would be fighting 118lb guys. The lengths some people go to discredit Mayweather's current success is irritating.
I don't like p4p lists because they tend to give much less credit to fighters in the higher weight classes.
lol.... well then we will have to agree to disagree, because... they arent better at boxing in anything but being bigger, and because they are bigger, the smaller fighters will not be able to do anything with them, while they could hurt a smaller fighter with a jab practically... that doesnt make them better, just bigger. but i see your point, and its just one of those things that its impossible to agree on, there is no way arreola is a better boxer then mayweather, morales, jmm, cotto, ect.... hes just bigger, which allows him to beat them in a direct confrontation. Its like two hunters... One hunter is riding on the back of a 4 wheeler up in the hills, shooting a sniper rifle at deer he sees football fields away with binoculars and scope... and he ends the week with killing 15 deer One hunter has a bow, and is on foot, he has to track his prey, set up, ambush, ect... using skills, ability, knowledge, ect... at the end of the week he only kills 5 dear Then going on saying how much better the first hunter is because he cought 10 more deer, because 'its all about results' I dont know if that analogy makes sense to you, but thats the only way i can try to draw a paralell... and thats the way i see it.
Also to me its about respect... having a way to show respect towards ones ability, and what theyve done, which is why people put resume into it a lot. Ya i might think Williams would beat Mayweather, but i put mayweather ahead because hes fought and beat the better names. Not necisarrily because i think mayweather would beat williams.
Muhammad Ali is generally considered a top 5 P4P great. In this modern era I see no reason for any HW to be considered. The Klits to me are manufactured giants. Dominating weak competition because of their size.
In what way is Miguel Cotto superior to Vitali Klitschko? Just as an example. Most people have Cotto on their lists, but not Vitali.
Actually, i think if Vitali had been active, kept winning impressivly, stayed injury free, ect, ect... he WOULD be on some p4p lists. As also i think Wlad should be approaching the top 10 should he continue to win like he has.
Another thing, why is he only top 5? Who beats him? Theoretically, in a head to head fight, neglecting size, who is above him? It's absolute bull****. Smaller men are placed higher purely because they are smaller.
Well I can see that you chose the right Klitschko because he smokes Wladimir in his ability to recover from being rocked, and ad******g to styles. IMO i think he has overall natural boxing ability than both. I said "general considered. Personally I think a prime level headed Tyson beats Ali.