Wlad's p4p ranking

get out of here with the boxerec crap

 

Fair enough, i always sucked at math. i'm just getting a little suspicious of posters damning Wlad with faint praises. "He has so much talent, too bad he is such a coward " or "He's a great fighter in a bad division but he'd be crushed by Holmes in two rounds." If I misjudged you and i think I did, I apologize.

 

He has great footwork, hand speed, skills, jab and power. He would have destroyed haye if he were 6'3 too. Yeah.. hasn't lost in 7 years. He's definitely in the p4p. Just not in the top p4p in fighting style fans appreciate.
It aint easy even if you're big. Just ask Arreola, THompson, K. Johnson, McCline.. Austin etc. I love how people will only say the K. Bros. are good because of their size. Look at all the big guys they've beaten.

 

His reach isn't all that, it rarely gives him a massive advantage. Plus strength wise there is many shorter HW's who have far more muscle mass than him.

 

No, it's truly ridiculous.

I mean just watching him fight you can see that guys his size would own him if they were ANY good. And he doesn't have a body type that lends itself to comparison. He's built pretty big for his height, so he'd be a short fighter in a p4p sense. And his style is based on height. So it's ridiculous to have him in the p4p lists, especially because he looks like **** when he fights.

No hate, I'm a fan. But he's not p4p.

 

I have Louis as my GOAT heavyweight as well. Read several books on him. The "bum of the month club" is so deceiving, it really does **** me off. I have 100% nothing against people who vote Ali, it's practically a wash for me, but when you consider everything about the sport in 1935, that gives Louis the decisive edge in my eyes. Most important figure to the whole sport, by a mile and not even close.

However, being that you draw this conclusion as do I, I do find it a little strange your opinions of Wladimir. Based on past precedent over several decades, heavyweights are given P4P recognition. P4P in itself is objective, but generally, from what I've gathered, it is someone's personal preference and value of SKILL AND ACCOMPLISHMENT combined. The weight on either of which is at the list makers' discretion.

If it were just based on skill, JMM would have elevated in P4P ranking after the fights with Pacquiao, as even those who think Pacquiao won usually acknowledge that JMM displayed more boxing skills. So really, this thread boils down to "What does P4P mean? and Where do you rank Wladimir?"

 

I see the argument, it is valid, but I find it to be somewhat pointless.

Based on "skills" alone, I'd have to list Ward ahead of JMM in 2011. But I don't.

Value of accomplishment + opinion of skills = everyone's personal list...

 

Reading through this thread, that was the one thing that came to my mind.

How you define P4P is what leads to your answer.

For me, P4P is about disregarding the advantages or disadvantages of size. That means that straw-weights aren't punished for lacking power, and it means that heavies aren't punished because they don't have the same agility.

One of the reasons that the heavyweight division is an open division, is because size quickly becomes a disadvantage when you are that large. The fact that guys like Lennox, Wlad and Vitali manage to dominate despite the disadvantages imposed on them by their size is incredible.

The guys in the middle weight classes get the best of the physical advantages, and they can fight accordingly. They can have pop, speed, stamina, everything. So how do you fairly compare strawweights or heavyweights? You can't do it visually. The heavys will always look slow and ungainly.

The way I do it is to look at the skills of a fighter when compared to their competition. Wlad barely loses a round - that isn't because he is big, it is because he is better. By looking at how dominant a fighter is, and considering how good their competition is, you gain a sense of where they fit in a P4P sense.
Wlad's competition is ordinary, but his dominance is extraordinary. If you look at guys like Floyd and Pac, their dominance is also extraordinary, but their competition is better. Someone like Donaire is also dominant, and his dominance is getting up there (not quite as good yet) but again the quality of opponent is better.

 

Why do you think it's crap?