Do P4P ratings underestimate heavy weights?

You can't just say yes, because it depends on who is doing the list but it does happen a lot. Ali has a fantastic resume, and you see him ommitted from lists, i think it's wrong to do that. P4P just means 'regardless of weight', not 'let's try and be a smart ass and get rid of fighters who should clearly be in the list and then justify it'.

 

I can understand why there is some back lash in response to these appauling lists, hell i've probably done it myself in the past.

 

Yeah that's fair. To be honest the only gripe i have is with the placement of Pep over Ali, I don't think it's right. I have no problems with those who believe that Pep was better than Ali though.

 

I'm not huge pound for pound type of fan. Back in the day fighters used to actually fight at their weight. Today most of them drain weight 48 hours before the fight, then re-hydrate. So we have welters passing the middle weight limit on fight night. Aren't they really middles then?

Heavyweight can not fight anyone but themselves. However a talented light weight, and take belts at light weight, jr welter, wetler, and jr middle.

Wlad is #8 in the ring magazine pound for pound ratings. Vitali I believe is #12 and might make the list someday if two fighters ahead of him retire before he does or lose.

 

I am not sure i agree (necessarilly with all of this).

Ali at no 2 is defendable. Remember, he is arguably one of the fastest ever fighters. On a pound for pound level (ie compared to other fighters his weight) , he is definitely the fastest fighter ever, and by a fair way. Same goes with his chin and possibly his recovery ability and heart. From a mythical head to head perspective, he probably has a better case than virtually anyone to be no 1. Even his resume is not too shabby by any standards, although i personally think the actual fighting record is a little overated even at heavy.

Louis at 4 is also defendable. He held his title longer and was more dominant than virtually any other fighter. That alone is enough to place him virtually anywhere you want.

JOhnson at 8 is i acknowledge a tough one. I do think he was arguably the third best heavyweight. But i cant really see how he gets this high, although technically he did beat some pound for pound greats (Burns, Langford, Obrien, Ketchell), he was the larger fighter in all these fights. Saying this, his reign was vastly underated. I think he ranks higher than most think, but struggle to see how he is 8.

Dempsey 9 is interesting. You really need to buy into the Dempsey myth. But if you do, I think it is defendable. He beat some much, much larger figthers.

Marciano at 15 is definitely defendable and arguably underating. He was never beaten, he beat pound for pound greats (admittedly a little past their best) but although he is not credited with it, both Walcott and Charles were pretty much the same weight as him. I think 15 is not far from being right for marciano.

 

it's an interesting take, especially the note about dempsey. ali for me is an easy top 5 fighter but i can absolutely see the argument against it (and have). he's the best ever heavyweight on my list and his skills at his prime match almost anyone who ever lived.

louis at 4 would be way too high for me. his dominance, technical skill and knockouts give him top 10 but not top 5.

marciano at 15 is interesting...i would argue that the greats he beat were WAY past their best. moore was above his best weight (despite great success at heavy) and well past his physical peak. walcott and charles were still wicked heavies but had seen their best. from what i've seen of marciano he's a monster but pound for pound is a tough call...

 

Not really i mean Lewis,Bowe,Holyfield were in everyones top 10 pfp.... Tyson was the last hw to be a consensus number 1 over such fighters as a prime Chavez,Whittaker,Nunn etc etc looking back both those guys(Chavez,Whittaker) are rated much higher in all time rankings... If anything i think Wlad is sometimes overrated, if he was in a lighter division and suffered ko losses to say welter versions of Brewster,Corrie Sanders he might not be rated so high.

 

I don't think so. Most heavyweights simply aren't very good, skill wise.

 

Good post anarci. :good

Tyson was Ring's P4P #1 in '87, '88 & '89. :happy

 

The ESPN list specifically inserted the caveat that their list was NOT a lb-for-lb list.

This content is protected

The original idea of pound for pound and how it came to be associated with Robinson has altered quite a bit over the years.

We had one poster a while back (who went under a number of usernames) get quite excitable when others took a different view of the concept. He started vitriolic threads on the subject.

However, current lists tend to focus on some combination of ring skills, achievement, longevity, weight-jumping, opposition, age, dominance, records, ring-smarts etc.

Using the criteria cited by ESPN, I would find it harrd to argue too much with their top five or six.


There will always be some bias towards the era when the list is compiled and and the further back we go (especially to pre-film times), the less meaning ful and more arbitrary the lists become.



Regarding the OP's question, given that big HWs (Lewis, Klitschkos etc) are at some disadvantage in that they can't jump weights and so must compensate by overperforming in other criteria in order to be competitive in this kind of consideration.