Can you rate a HW high on a P4P List?

A couple of threads recently have pointed out a curious phenomenon that I think is misrepresented, or of which I do not understand the definition. Posters reguraly rank HWs such Ali or Johnson high on all-time P4P ratings. How can this be? Both rarely fought fighters significantly larger than themselves, but often held reach or weight advantages over their opponents. My understanding of a highly rated P4P fighter would be someone who fought successfully against opponents who were larger than themselves or in weight classes above their own natural division. Ali and Johnson really do not fall under these definitions, and thus may be ranked highly but only in their weight class or from a historical perspective. Armstrong or Langford come to mind as true examples, or even Louis being that he was the giant slayer of the HW division (Carnera, Buddy and Max Baer, and Simon). Any thoughts?

 

I hear what you are saying, but there is another way to assess P4P greatness, on top of performance against bigger guys.

i.e. Superiority over same-sized guys.

For example, those who believe Ali's performance over Cleveland Williams to be one of the greatest displays in boxing can grant him high P4P status.

No, Williams wasnt bigger than Ali, but he was toyed with like a child DESPITE being the same size.

 

that realy not a great example as p4p mean if every thing was the same example weight ,heights,and age who would win. williams was not an elite fighter had ali toy'd with an elite fighter that way then i could say yes .hw dont really get to high on the p4p list because it's harder to guage them.the p4p title was origally mad for sugar ray robinson wich stated if h were to fight any other guy wether smaller or bigger on a level platform or playing field he would beat them on skill alone

 

i put ali as a p4p heavy yes but can you rate him above armstrong,robbinson,lenord,charles,whittaker,pep,hagler,duran,hopkins,just to name a few. im not talking greatness im talking skills and p4p. greatness is messured not on skill but what you've accomplished

p4p is rated on skill vs skill on an even playing field no adantages

 

Ross is number 1. Ross is number 1,

No heavyweights outside of Ruby Fitz made my top ten. The REASON Fitz made the top ten is because he was a middleweight champ, that capture the heavyweight crown. He did what Walker and Ketchal failed to do.

 

i feel your criteria but the actuall definition of p4p wich was made for robbinson was defined as same size, same weight no advantages. skill vs skill of course chin heart grit , and all play in to the fight . but the overall greatness of a fighter has nothing to do with pound for pound ranking . only because greatness is judged on over all accomplishment and not skill

 

I actually rate Marciano higher p4p than as a head-to-head heavy, as he was so small. Fitz is the other guy to consider, obviously, but perhaps we should include Dempsey, who was the equivalent of a modern day cruiser.

 

Of course you can.
The notion that you can't is ridiculous to me.

The term 'p4p' means if all the fighters were the same weight and height as one another who would be best.
Its perfectly acceptable to think that heavyweights would do well against any other fighters from another weight class if those fighters were the same size.

 

Only difference that there is a large variety of weight, so how do you compare Louis and Lewis p4p?

 

Ali's in my top 10.