Since Floyd is gone, what is your P4P 10?

[Chepppaaa]

Riggo's been knocked down 3 times in 4 fights so yeah, he should definitely be at the top of these lists. That's dominance. Plus he's had SO many professional fights so far. Has he hit 17 yet? Joke.

GGG #1
Kovalev#2
Roman Helmet #3
who cares about the rest

why are you contradicting yourself. you said rigo has not many fights, so having a lot of fights is important to you?
so why than choose somebody with 33 fights ggg over somebody with 67 fights wlad as p4p #1 ?

rigo has 15 fights and beat a "at that time" p4p top 3 opponent in prime donaire, made him look like a boy from school. thats dominance !!!!!!!
rigo has the best footwork in boxing, is the most athletic gifted boxer on earth and the most technicly well rounded boxer on earth, thats dominance !!!!!!!

ggg has 33 fights, which isnt much either and beat 0 a level boxer and 0 p4p top 10 opponent!
he is a powerful puncher, but is nowhere as technicly superb than rigondeaux. same on speed and footwork level.

Yes, Riggo is SO gifted that he can't find a network that will show his fights. Even Top Rank, in the midst of losing their empire of boxers, doesn't even want him. If he's the most technically well rounded boxer ON EARTH then why is he getting knocked down by everyone? Talk about contradicting one's self. In my book, P4P fighters don't get knocked down. In my book, P4P fighters are sought after talents that people want to see. In my book, Donaire has been washed up for years now if you haven't noticed.

I like Roman a lot but he's been on national TV once and he can't carry an event by himself yet so he's fight on GGG's coattails. To me that also means something. If you want to talk about rare talents with abilities that are God Given, let's talk about GGG's knockout streak and his dominance over a division that historically has never seen anything like him...EVER.

You Riggo lovers are out of control. The guys had 15 pro fights and has been knocked down in 4 times and you want to put him in the HOF. Pump the breaks dude.

you are realy stupid. what has "being a gifted boxer" to do with finding a network?

his style is boring to networks, he cant speak english, but that does not take away the fact that he is the best technicle boxer on earth.
floyd fought the same style, much more boring, only difference was, that he spoke english and had a flamboyant lifestyle and did a lot of show outside the ring that attracted audience, on top had opponent like de la hoya to build his own name. other than that, rigo and floyd in fighting style are similar, both very athletic, fast, technicle high boxers.

you are comparing making money in boxing with technicle quality, that shows how dumb you are.

if you ask me, who was making the most 1998-2000, than i would say oscar...but if you ask me who was the best, than i would say jones....

[Chepppaaa]

I agree. The idea of not even wanting to put Wlad in your top 10 is looney. If his accomplishments haven't impressed you that much yet, it's hard to imagine what he could possibly do that would -- particularly relative to the accomplishments of a few of the other fighters being named, which basically amount to "looking good enough to probably win a meaningful big fight later on."

what is his accomplishment?

world record in holding and hugging in boxing ?

he should be dq'd in 70 % of his fights, due to excessive holding, which is illegal in boxing. to me, he has more DQ losses than any boxer on earth, povetkin being the most clear, were he holded around 100 times +

robotic, slow boxer, non excisting to me, a total shame for boxing. i am so happy floyd retired, soon it is wlads turn

[koolkc107]

I agree. The idea of not even wanting to put Wlad in your top 10 is looney. If his accomplishments haven't impressed you that much yet, it's hard to imagine what he could possibly do that would -- particularly relative to the accomplishments of a few of the other fighters being named, which basically amount to "looking good enough to probably win a meaningful big fight later on."

Depends on how you define what P4P means.

I define it as "if all fighters were the same size" and I place emphasis on quality of opposition.

In other words, 80 victories over mediocre opposition is not as important as having wins over another elite opponent.

[squiggy]

I agree. The idea of not even wanting to put Wlad in your top 10 is looney. If his accomplishments haven't impressed you that much yet, it's hard to imagine what he could possibly do that would -- particularly relative to the accomplishments of a few of the other fighters being named, which basically amount to "looking good enough to probably win a meaningful big fight later on."

Depends on how you define what P4P means.

I define it as "if all fighters were the same size" and I place emphasis on quality of opposition.

In other words, 80 victories over mediocre opposition is not as important as having wins over another elite opponent.

I know, and I don't really make "what if they were the same size" lists because that level of subjectivity seems pretty meaningless to me. Even real-life competition can't settle that, because fighters just are of different sizes (this is particularly true of Wlad, of course, who is like a superheavyweight. And Holyfield was arguably the P4P better of Bowe even as he was losing to him, and so on.) I'm more inclined to try to bring some measure of objectivity to bear, though of course it's a doomed endeavor. No other active champion has so thoroughly cleaned out and dominated their division. In fact, in that regard, there's considerable space between Wlad and anyone else.
Even "elite opposition" is to a significant extent in the eye of the beholder. You have to take into account the quality of the available opposition, the overall talent pool. It is certainly low in the heavyweight division; I think it's also gotten lower all across the sport. Wlad's accomplishment is this regard has to do with his having been willing, and I think one could say eager, to take all comers. No one can deny that there aren't exactly a bunch of Alis and Holmeses among them, but neither is he ducking any quality opposition that actually exists. And he's kept that up for more than a decade now. That just strikes me more as a list-maker than does, for example, the "having looked good going 4-1 as a professional" of Lomachenko.

[koolkc107]

I agree. The idea of not even wanting to put Wlad in your top 10 is looney. If his accomplishments haven't impressed you that much yet, it's hard to imagine what he could possibly do that would -- particularly relative to the accomplishments of a few of the other fighters being named, which basically amount to "looking good enough to probably win a meaningful big fight later on."

Depends on how you define what P4P means.

I define it as "if all fighters were the same size" and I place emphasis on quality of opposition.

In other words, 80 victories over mediocre opposition is not as important as having wins over another elite opponent.

I know, and I don't really make "what if they were the same size" lists because that level of subjectivity seems pretty meaningless to me. Even real-life competition can't settle that, because fighters just are of different sizes (this is particularly true of Wlad, of course, who is like a superheavyweight. And Holyfield was arguably the P4P better of Bowe even as he was losing to him, and so on.) I'm more inclined to try to bring some measure of objectivity to bear, though of course it's a doomed endeavor. No other active champion has so thoroughly cleaned out and dominated their division. In fact, in that regard, there's considerable space between Wlad and anyone else.
Even "elite opposition" is to a significant extent in the eye of the beholder. You have to take into account the quality of the available opposition, the overall talent pool. It is certainly low in the heavyweight division; I think it's also gotten lower all across the sport. Wlad's accomplishment is this regard has to do with his having been willing, and I think one could say eager, to take all comers. No one can deny that there aren't exactly a bunch of Alis and Holmeses among them, but neither is he ducking any quality opposition that actually exists. And he's kept that up for more than a decade now. That just strikes me more as a list-maker than does, for example, the "having looked good going 4-1 as a professional" of Lomachenko.

Point taken, but Lomo's "looked good" has come against competition several levels above what our beloved heavyweight champ has faced all this time. Russell and Salido are leagues above anyone Wlad has looked across at in the ring.

I know it may be subjective, but I give much more weight to this.

[ElJefe]

1. Andre Ward (Domainted 168 for 6 years. Beat #1, 2 and 3 and SMW and former #1 at LHW.)
2. Wladimir Klitschko (Dominated the HW division for 10 years. Have Ward higher as Froch and Kessler are better than Haye etc.)
3. Manny Pacquiao (ATG. Still one of the best. Was #2. Loss to Mayweather means he drops but as Floyd was #1, Manny shouldn't go lower than #4, plus Floyd has retired so he goes back up 1 to #3. Still beats anyone else at 147 imo.)
4. Guillermo Rigondeaux (Probably the best pure boxer. Win over former p4p top 5 Donaire is better than any win by anyone from 5-10.)
5. Sergey Kovalev (Dominant win over Hopkins and KO against Pascal, unified 175 champ.)
6. Roman Gonzalez (One of my favourite fighters. 3 division world champion. Very good win against Estrada. Interchangeable with Kovalev tbh.)
7. Gennady Golovkin (#1 middleweight, insane punching power, under rated skills imo, but hasn't had signature wins of those above him.)
8. Naoya Inoue (22 year old 2 weight world champion. Great skills. Vicious puncher. Destroyed #1 Super flyweight Navarez.)
9. Saul Alvarez (World champion at 21. Wins over Mosley, Trout, Angulo, Lara. Only defeat to ATG Floyd Mayweather.)
10. Terence Crawford (2 weight world champion. Was #1 at 135, now probably #1 at 140.)

Just outside: Cotto, Bradley, Stevenson etc.

[caldo2025]

you are realy stupid. what has "being a gifted boxer" to do with finding a network?

his style is boring to networks, he cant speak english, but that does not take away the fact that he is the best technicle boxer on earth.
floyd fought the same style, much more boring, only difference was, that he spoke english and had a flamboyant lifestyle and did a lot of show outside the ring that attracted audience, on top had opponent like de la hoya to build his own name. other than that, rigo and floyd in fighting style are similar, both very athletic, fast, technicle high boxers.

you are comparing making money in boxing with technicle quality, that shows how dumb you are.

if you ask me, who was making the most 1998-2000, than i would say oscar...but if you ask me who was the best, than i would say jones....

I'm the stupid one when you just compared Riggo to Floyd Mayweather Jr and Roy Jones Jr. That's not just dumb that like Gold Medal at the Dumb Olympics, record breaking, type stuff right there. FIFTEEN FIGHTS dude.....JUST 15.....and he's been knocked down 4 times in them. Do you understand what P4P means? Can you still be a dominant fighter if you are getting knocked down all over the place by chumps? The answer is "no, you can not".

Riggo is such a great technical boxer that he's been knocked down 3 times in last 4 fights. So dominannt bro. What a fighter. You must be Cuban or something and just want to blow any defector that was able to find a belt.

[Chepppaaa]

you are realy stupid. what has "being a gifted boxer" to do with finding a network?

his style is boring to networks, he cant speak english, but that does not take away the fact that he is the best technicle boxer on earth.
floyd fought the same style, much more boring, only difference was, that he spoke english and had a flamboyant lifestyle and did a lot of show outside the ring that attracted audience, on top had opponent like de la hoya to build his own name. other than that, rigo and floyd in fighting style are similar, both very athletic, fast, technicle high boxers.

you are comparing making money in boxing with technicle quality, that shows how dumb you are.

if you ask me, who was making the most 1998-2000, than i would say oscar...but if you ask me who was the best, than i would say jones....

I'm the stupid one when you just compared Riggo to Floyd Mayweather Jr and Roy Jones Jr. That's not just dumb that like Gold Medal at the Dumb Olympics, record breaking, type stuff right there. FIFTEEN FIGHTS dude.....JUST 15.....and he's been knocked down 4 times in them. Do you understand what P4P means? Can you still be a dominant fighter if you are getting knocked down all over the place by chumps? The answer is "no, you can not".

Riggo is such a great technical boxer that he's been knocked down 3 times in last 4 fights. So dominannt bro. What a fighter. You must be Cuban or something and just want to blow any defector that was able to find a belt.

prime muhammad ali has been knocked down also a couple of times, does that mean prime ali wasnt a good boxer.

down the line it comes down to beat your opponent, rigo beat everybody he ever faced.

also, why is it dumb to compare a 2 time olympic gold, arguably the best amateur boxer ever, who toys p4p boxers to floyd or jones? rigo is certainly as athletic and technicle well rounded as floyd and jones, maybe even more

[Pureist]

Sorry cheppa but lomachenko has the best skill, is attacking, brilliant footwork, better angles, and exciting, watching rigo is like watching grass grow and for a boxer that doesn't take unnecessary risks he sure gets knocked down alot

[caldo2025]

prime muhammad ali has been knocked down also a couple of times, does that mean prime ali wasnt a good boxer.

down the line it comes down to beat your opponent, rigo beat everybody he ever faced.

also, why is it dumb to compare a 2 time olympic gold, arguably the best amateur boxer ever, who toys p4p boxers to floyd or jones? rigo is certainly as athletic and technicle well rounded as floyd and jones, maybe even more

I've actually enjoyed your opinions and posts on this site in the past but you really are way off the mark with this mess. Now you've managed to compare Rigo to Floyd, Roy and now Ali? Heck, I don't even think that Rigo is the best 122 pounder in the world right now. If you put him in there with Leo Santa Cruz and smart money is definitely on LSC.

Yes, Ali was knocked down by a guy names Joe Frazier. Rigo was knocked down twice by a guy named Amagasa. There's a big difference there.

What do you think would happen if Rigo went up to Featherweight? How badly would Loma and Walters destroy him? It's just a matter of time before Rigo moves up and out of 122. I'd say that Rigo is the 4th best fighter in the 122-126lb range.

1.Lomachenko
2.Walters
3.LSC
4.Rigo

[MP]

I hate to say it, Cheppaa, but your list is ridiculous. You don't even have Klitscho in there, even though he has dominated everyone for over 10 years??
You're probably a guy that didn't have Mayweather in the top 10 because he was defensive and boring. You may not like Mayweather and Klitscho, but don't riducule yourself by acting like they're not great.

[Chepppaaa]

prime muhammad ali has been knocked down also a couple of times, does that mean prime ali wasnt a good boxer.

down the line it comes down to beat your opponent, rigo beat everybody he ever faced.

also, why is it dumb to compare a 2 time olympic gold, arguably the best amateur boxer ever, who toys p4p boxers to floyd or jones? rigo is certainly as athletic and technicle well rounded as floyd and jones, maybe even more

I've actually enjoyed your opinions and posts on this site in the past but you really are way off the mark with this mess. Now you've managed to compare Rigo to Floyd, Roy and now Ali? Heck, I don't even think that Rigo is the best 122 pounder in the world right now. If you put him in there with Leo Santa Cruz and smart money is definitely on LSC.

Yes, Ali was knocked down by a guy names Joe Frazier. Rigo was knocked down twice by a guy named Amagasa. There's a big difference there.

What do you think would happen if Rigo went up to Featherweight? How badly would Loma and Walters destroy him? It's just a matter of time before Rigo moves up and out of 122. I'd say that Rigo is the 4th best fighter in the 122-126lb range.

1.Lomachenko
2.Walters
3.LSC
4.Rigo

prime ali was knocked down by a guy named henry cooper, who had a record of 33-11-1, rigo went down to a guy with a 28-4-2 who tkod his last 3 opponents, so had obvious some power. there is no difference, what you doesnt seem to understand is, that regardless if you are a journeyman or a atg p4p top 10, anything can happen, anybody can get knocked down or ko'd, even the best.

hopkins lost his first fight
prime jones went down against de valle
pacquiao got tkod 2 times by nobodys in his first 28 fights
ali went down against cooper

its simply boxing anything can happen. even atg get knocked down, ggg, if he faced some puncher at middleweight like trinidad or hagler, than there would be a great chance that he also went down.

i mean, sure it aint very good for rigos career that he goes down against c level guys like amagasa, but down the line, the most important thing is that he wins. look at kovalev, he went down against caparello, and now what, isnt he a p4p top 5 boxer, just because he went down ones.


rigo beats anybody.

[Pureist]

Caparello was standing on his foot when he hit him, that was the only reason he went down

[caldo2025]

prime ali was knocked down by a guy named henry cooper, who had a record of 33-11-1, rigo went down to a guy with a 28-4-2 who tkod his last 3 opponents, so had obvious some power. there is no difference, what you doesnt seem to understand is, that regardless if you are a journeyman or a atg p4p top 10, anything can happen, anybody can get knocked down or ko'd, even the best.

hopkins lost his first fight
prime jones went down against de valle
pacquiao got tkod 2 times by nobodys in his first 28 fights
ali went down against cooper

its simply boxing anything can happen. even atg get knocked down, ggg, if he faced some puncher at middleweight like trinidad or hagler, than there would be a great chance that he also went down.

i mean, sure it aint very good for rigos career that he goes down against c level guys like amagasa, but down the line, the most important thing is that he wins. look at kovalev, he went down against caparello, and now what, isnt he a p4p top 5 boxer, just because he went down ones.


rigo beats anybody.

Though i still disagree with this Rigo craze, you site some pretty good examples. Especially Kovalev. Ok...you put the knockdowns in a little better company but 4 in 15 fights is excessive to me and belies a big flaw that will eventually cost him. Similar to the best running back in the world not being able to hold onto to the ball. But i'll wait it out and submit the first few rounds to you hoping to get you towards the middle and late rounds of Rigo's career.

[Chepppaaa]

prime ali was knocked down by a guy named henry cooper, who had a record of 33-11-1, rigo went down to a guy with a 28-4-2 who tkod his last 3 opponents, so had obvious some power. there is no difference, what you doesnt seem to understand is, that regardless if you are a journeyman or a atg p4p top 10, anything can happen, anybody can get knocked down or ko'd, even the best.

hopkins lost his first fight
prime jones went down against de valle
pacquiao got tkod 2 times by nobodys in his first 28 fights
ali went down against cooper

its simply boxing anything can happen. even atg get knocked down, ggg, if he faced some puncher at middleweight like trinidad or hagler, than there would be a great chance that he also went down.

i mean, sure it aint very good for rigos career that he goes down against c level guys like amagasa, but down the line, the most important thing is that he wins. look at kovalev, he went down against caparello, and now what, isnt he a p4p top 5 boxer, just because he went down ones.


rigo beats anybody.

Though i still disagree with this Rigo craze, you site some pretty good examples. Especially Kovalev. Ok...you put the knockdowns in a little better company but 4 in 15 fights is excessive to me and belies a big flaw that will eventually cost him. Similar to the best running back in the world not being able to hold onto to the ball. But i'll wait it out and submit the first few rounds to you hoping to get you towards the middle and late rounds of Rigo's career.

i aggree, 4 times is to much. but no, he does not have an wolrd class chin. but still, he is the best. in the areas, athletic, speed, boxing iq, footwork, balance...in all those areas he is world class. to me the #1 boxer in the world. mares, santa cruz and vasyl would lose to his technicle semy defensive, semy offensive style. his reflexes are to quick, he is just to well rounded. i am not saying he beats them easily, santa and vasyl are world class themselves and p4p top 20 easily, but down the line i say he beats them.

[caldo2025]

i aggree, 4 times is to much. but no, he does not have an wolrd class chin. but still, he is the best. in the areas, athletic, speed, boxing iq, footwork, balance...in all those areas he is world class. to me the #1 boxer in the world. mares, santa cruz and vasyl would lose to his technicle semy defensive, semy offensive style. his reflexes are to quick, he is just to well rounded. i am not saying he beats them easily, santa and vasyl are world class themselves and p4p top 20 easily, but down the line i say he beats them.

You may be right with LSC because I'm still not sold on his elite status but Loma is the real deal and I find him to be spectacular. Not so much in his last fight but the beating that he put on Gary Russell Jr was beyond impressive to me. The footwork, the angles, the constant pressure...he beats anyone he fights when he's on like that. But Loma has proved to be inconsistent so far to me. He was flat in the Salido fight and the last was not really impressive...he hurt his hand in the fight but he should have gotten that guy out of there early.

I look forward to seeing a Rig/Loma fight. I think that would do great things for the lighter weight purses and bring a bigger spotlight to the lighter guys that traditionally fight for peanuts compared to the WW, MW and Heavy's.

[Chepppaaa]

i aggree, 4 times is to much. but no, he does not have an wolrd class chin. but still, he is the best. in the areas, athletic, speed, boxing iq, footwork, balance...in all those areas he is world class. to me the #1 boxer in the world. mares, santa cruz and vasyl would lose to his technicle semy defensive, semy offensive style. his reflexes are to quick, he is just to well rounded. i am not saying he beats them easily, santa and vasyl are world class themselves and p4p top 20 easily, but down the line i say he beats them.

You may be right with LSC because I'm still not sold on his elite status but Loma is the real deal and I find him to be spectacular. Not so much in his last fight but the beating that he put on Gary Russell Jr was beyond impressive to me. The footwork, the angles, the constant pressure...he beats anyone he fights when he's on like that. But Loma has proved to be inconsistent so far to me. He was flat in the Salido fight and the last was not really impressive...he hurt his hand in the fight but he should have gotten that guy out of there early.

I look forward to seeing a Rig/Loma fight. I think that would do great things for the lighter weight purses and bring a bigger spotlight to the lighter guys that traditionally fight for peanuts compared to the WW, MW and Heavy's.

in terms of ability, that is to me the best fight you can make in boxing.

there is no match up in boxing right now, where both are so athletic and technicly well rounded. both olympic gold back ground and both p4p elite boxers. this fight would 100 % determin who #1 in boxing is whoever wins.

[man]

p4p number one cannot be wladimir, because
p4p by definition means you take the physical
dominance out of the equation. there is just
no way he can be so physically dominant in
any other weight class. and his success seems
very much dependent on this physical advantage.

in my view the obviously dominant boxer right
now is golovkin. followed by kovalev and rigondeux.
to me stevenson is up there right now too and so
is, like him or not, canelo. thurman and brook are
top ten material as well.

IMHO.

[BAD INTENTIONS]

Can someone please explain to me how GGG could be ranked above Kovalev?

[Chepppaaa]

Can someone please explain to me how GGG could be ranked above Kovalev?

there is no big difference. both elite power, both elite ko ratio, both top of the top.

i think p4p ggg has a litle bit more power than kovalev and i found ggg's balance and punch variation slidly better. but its close, record wise its obvious that kovalev is over ggg, since he beat guys like hopkins or pascal and ggg never fought that kind of level, i realy hope he fights the canelo-cotto winner, so he finaly can fight an a level opponent.

[BAD INTENTIONS]

Can someone please explain to me how GGG could be ranked above Kovalev?

there is no big difference. both elite power, both elite ko ratio, both top of the top.

i think p4p ggg has a litle bit more power than kovalev and i found ggg's balance and punch variation slidly better. but its close, record wise its obvious that kovalev is over ggg, since he beat guys like hopkins or pascal and ggg never fought that kind of level, i realy hope he fights the canelo-cotto winner, so he finaly can fight an a level opponent.

Sorry, still can't see it.

Both are equally dominant.
Kovalev is dominating better opponents.
Thus, Kovalev should always be ranked above GGG ... until whatever.

[jamesmcdonnell]

p4p number one cannot be wladimir, because
p4p by definition means you take the physical
dominance out of the equation. there is just
no way he can be so physically dominant in
any other weight class. and his success seems
very much dependent on this physical advantage.

in my view the obviously dominant boxer right
now is golovkin. followed by kovalev and rigondeux.
to me stevenson is up there right now too and so
is, like him or not, canelo. thurman and brook are
top ten material as well.

IMHO.

You could argue that Wlad's utter dominance of opponents is way more to do with Size. He has developed a style which is very economical, and makes him extremely hard to hit, and totally executes his own game plan. That takes serious concentration, discipline and ring intelligence.

[Chepppaaa]

p4p number one cannot be wladimir, because
p4p by definition means you take the physical
dominance out of the equation. there is just
no way he can be so physically dominant in
any other weight class. and his success seems
very much dependent on this physical advantage.

in my view the obviously dominant boxer right
now is golovkin. followed by kovalev and rigondeux.
to me stevenson is up there right now too and so
is, like him or not, canelo. thurman and brook are
top ten material as well.

IMHO.

You could argue that Wlad's utter dominance of opponents is way more to do with Size. He has developed a style which is very economical, and makes him extremely hard to hit, and totally executes his own game plan. That takes serious concentration, discipline and ring intelligence.

he uses illegal tactics since 2005. holding, clinching, leaning, often more than 15 times per round and more than 100 times in some 12 round fights - even when the opposition was much smaller than himself like Povetkin, Mormeck, Haye, Chambers and others who were held illegally.





like i said, i dont rate wlad into my top 10 p4p because i am a hater, for example i am a hater of ward or i was a hater on floyd, but i always had those guys high on my p4p list, simply because they are excellent, without illegal tactics (okay, ward does some head butting, floyd does some hugging too, but overall it is not like you could say, they are winning cause of illegal tactics, they win, because they simply better than their opponents. i dont rate wlad into my top 10, simply cause he lost around 6 fights in the last couple of years due too DQ. eff official record, official record is full with bad descisions and robberys, i go by my record and when i do feel somebody is the winner, than he is the winner, simple as that. i go by what i see, not what some paid judges see. and judges and ref are 100 % paid by wlad, if not, why would a ref let go wlad hugging povetkin 10000 times in a 1 fight.


excessive holding is illegal by the rules of boxing - wlad does that, so he losses fight, simple as that

[man]

p4p number one cannot be wladimir, because
p4p by definition means you take the physical
dominance out of the equation. there is just
no way he can be so physically dominant in
any other weight class. and his success seems
very much dependent on this physical advantage.

in my view the obviously dominant boxer right
now is golovkin. followed by kovalev and rigondeux.
to me stevenson is up there right now too and so
is, like him or not, canelo. thurman and brook are
top ten material as well.

IMHO.

You could argue that Wlad's utter dominance of opponents is way more to do with Size. He has developed a style which is very economical, and makes him extremely hard to hit, and totally executes his own game plan. That takes serious concentration, discipline and ring intelligence.

wlad's tactics are not clean. his size allows
him to grab in and let go immediately while
keep on leaning. this is IMO why he gets
away with it so often. yet he should be much
more sanctioned for that.

he basically manages to not get hit by unfair
means, that is what it boils down to. i like
him, always did, but except for the pulev
fight he time and time again disappointed me.

[jamesmcdonnell]

p4p number one cannot be wladimir, because
p4p by definition means you take the physical
dominance out of the equation. there is just
no way he can be so physically dominant in
any other weight class. and his success seems
very much dependent on this physical advantage.

in my view the obviously dominant boxer right
now is golovkin. followed by kovalev and rigondeux.
to me stevenson is up there right now too and so
is, like him or not, canelo. thurman and brook are
top ten material as well.

IMHO.

You could argue that Wlad's utter dominance of opponents is way more to do with Size. He has developed a style which is very economical, and makes him extremely hard to hit, and totally executes his own game plan. That takes serious concentration, discipline and ring intelligence.

woad's tactics are to clean. his size allows
him to grab in and let go immediately while
keep on leaning. this is IMO why he gets
away with it so often. yet he should be much
more sanctioned for that.

he basically manages to not get hit by unfair
means, that is what it boils down to. i like
him, always did, but except for the pulev
fight he time and time again disappointed me.

Well, to play devils Advocate, ali got away with cheating for much of his later career, by pulling down on the back of the head of his opponents in the clinches. I can't say I recall him being even docked a single point for use of this tactic, which was blatantly illegal.