No, I don't think they would have the same style. Ali was 6'3", and could move. Tyson weighed 220 .lbs and had extremely fast hands. Those guys are pretty exceptional though. Anyway, per my previous post, I guess I don't really think it's good to compare heavyweights # for # by my definition. Resume is a good comparison, but it seems to me to not really be the same as # for #. I see your point though, and if you want to define it that way, then it makes sense. :good
Uhhhhh, it's a horrible idea to leave heavyweights out of the P4P rankings. If you can't compare a hw to a ww, then heavyweights become bigger than the rest of boxing, and you can't let that happen, or smaller guys won't get the credit for being called p4p over heavyweight champions if they earn it.
Yes. Not that long ago, both Lewis and Tyson were P4P #1. It's just not that feasible right now because the top heavyweights don't have any decent competition to prove themselves against. The fact that they're much larger than most other good heavyweights also hurts a bit.
exactly. the late 80s had hagler who had lost the year before, srl, donald curry who was unproven, whitaker and chavez. whitaker and chavez were reaching their peaks and could have taken the top spot but tyson was a worthy number 1
I think it partly has to do against built in cold war bias as well as the fact that the heavyweights in the U.S are so poor right now that they try to give him as litle respect as possible, Hell look at teddy's sorry ass hell pick anyone possible to beat them as well as cannot hide his contempt for them when discussing them or when he is broadcasting one of their fights.
I don't think you can ever really make that comparison, athough I see what you're getting at. Its like saying if a human were the size and weight of a domestic cat, who would win in a fight? Its a pretty void question because humans have evolved to survive at the size and weight we are. Similarly, the Klitschkos have had to learn to box since the first time they put on gloves to fight much larger men who hit far harder but are slower as a result. What's to say if Pacquaio was 220lbs and taller he would have a chin that holds up to the power of a heavyweight?
Haye and Adamek should be there soon (if they keep winning) since both are coming from lower weights so they are proven to be successful outside HW division.
http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_Pound_For_Pound--1980s The Ring magazine inaugurated its Pound For Pound Annual Ratings with the 1989 list. Mike Tyson Julio Cesar Chavez Pernell Whitaker Michael Nunn Antonio Esparragoza Meldrick Taylor Azumah Nelson Raul Perez Virgil Hill Marlon Starlin
Yes Tyson was P4P #1 and he deserved it. He was destroying people and losing very few rounds. Vitali Klitschko deserves to be on it just for this reason. I think he has lost 2 consensus rounds since his comeback in 4 fights 3 of those fights being stoppages. If size were as big of a deal as you say Valuev would be the undisputed Heavyweight Champion. If you shrunk Vitali Klitschko down to say Middleweight he would still be freakishly tall perhaps 6'2" or 6'3" and have that awkward lean back style with an Iron Chin to go with it. Just because you make someone smaller does not mean they would lose any of their attributes. Do you understand this?
It's quite obvious that both Wlad and Vit make the top 10. The only ones who don't put them on the list are British or US haters, analysts and publications.
They can't be in P4P lists. The only reason they win is because they're so big. So if you assume they're the same size as their opponents, they'd not be in the top 200 of boxing - especially Wlad.
This. If the Klits were white Americans or white English guys we'd probably have another of those Ali-Marciano virtual fantasy fight computer generated videos with the Klits knocking out Ali. Klits are just hated cuz they bear an uncanny resemblance to Drago. Wlad may be a little dull as of late but there's no way in hell you can say Vitali is a boring fighter!