BoxRec

Horse wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:You still have Broner in your p4p?

What are you talking about?

I never had him in my P4P rankings.

watsupdoc87 wrote:eh i may be wrong here but so far not one mention of fury in the fukin top 10. cmon put the bs aside klit was top 5 in many(not all). this just frustrates me when i read this bias shite

So watching Wlad/Fury you thought you were watching two of the most skilled fighters on the planet?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Horse wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

I was fornicating with you, that's one thing we always agreed on. Wlad on the other hand..........

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I was effing with you, that's one thing we always agreed on. Wlad on the other hand..........

I take heavyweights being more ponderous than other fighters into account, I don't think that you do.

Wlad is an ATG.

Krusher
3G
Pac
SOGgy
Fury
Chocolatito
Hitman Jr.
Ramming Speed
Postol
GingerHead

Horse wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I was effing with you, that's one thing we always agreed on. Wlad on the other hand..........

I take heavyweights being more ponderous than other fighters into account, I don't think that you do.

Wlad is an ATG.

You can call him that, certainly the best of his era. That doesn't make him a p4p giant.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:You can call him that, certainly the best of his era. That doesn't make him a p4p giant.

He was P4P top 10.

He dominated his division for too long to be ignored.

Horse wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:You can call him that, certainly the best of his era. That doesn't make him a p4p giant.

He was P4P top 10.

He dominated his division for too long to be ignored.

No need for the same argument for the 1,000th time. We know where each other firmly stands.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:No need for the same argument for the 1,000th time. We know where each other firmly stands.

No, I forget the details, but fair enough.

Horse wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:No need for the same argument for the 1,000th time. We know where each other firmly stands.

No, I forget the details, but fair enough.

Ok, Wlad was never anywhere near my top 10. I doubt he ever would have made my top 25. Omar Narvaez wasn't either, being the best in your division is just that.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Ok, Wlad was never anywhere near my top 10. I doubt he ever would have made my top 25. Omar Narvaez wasn't either, being the best in your division is just that.

I'm pretty sure that we will argue about this again in the future.

Heavyweights can't be compared with flyweights or welterweights skill wise. They are just physically incapable of doing things small people do. Their position in p4p lists is defined exactly by how they dominate their division. If Wlad decisively beats Fury, he should be back in top 10.

ikorolev wrote:Heavyweights can't be compared with flyweights or welterweights skill wise. They are just physically incapable of doing things small people do. Their position in p4p lists is defined exactly by how they dominate their division. If Wlad decisively beats Fury, he should be back in top 10.

It's a mythical rating, but the premise of pound for pound certainly isn't about dominating your division. Obviously those type fighters will be in the discussion, but it's meant to be the best of the best, size being equal. If Wlad or Fury were 147 pounds, Errol Spence would behead either of them.

Yes, yes, they would likely be more athletic if they were smaller, but not at that level.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ikorolev wrote:Heavyweights can't be compared with flyweights or welterweights skill wise. They are just physically incapable of doing things small people do. Their position in p4p lists is defined exactly by how they dominate their division. If Wlad decisively beats Fury, he should be back in top 10.

It's a mythical rating, but the premise of pound for pound certainly isn't about dominating your division. Obviously those type fighters will be in the discussion, but it's meant to be the best of the best, size being equal. If Wlad or Fury were 147 pounds, Errol Spence would behead either of them.

Yes, yes, they would likely be more athletic if they were smaller, but not at that level.

"If Wlad or Fury were 147" sounds very mythical to me. If they were welterweights, then height and weight wouldn't be making them so awkward. If Spence was 6"6', 250 lb, he would become awkward.

ikorolev wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ikorolev wrote:Heavyweights can't be compared with flyweights or welterweights skill wise. They are just physically incapable of doing things small people do. Their position in p4p lists is defined exactly by how they dominate their division. If Wlad decisively beats Fury, he should be back in top 10.

It's a mythical rating, but the premise of pound for pound certainly isn't about dominating your division. Obviously those type fighters will be in the discussion, but it's meant to be the best of the best, size being equal. If Wlad or Fury were 147 pounds, Errol Spence would behead either of them.

Yes, yes, they would likely be more athletic if they were smaller, but not at that level.

"If Wlad or Fury were 147" sounds very mythical to me. If they were welterweights, then height and weight wouldn't be making them so awkward. If Spence was 6"6', 250 lb, he would become awkward.

LOL, that's the whole situation with "pound for pound". It means size being equal who is more skilled. Spence wouldn't be Fury awkward if he was 7 foot, 400.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

watsupdoc87 wrote:eh i may be wrong here but so far not one mention of fury in the fukin top 10. cmon put the bs aside klit was top 5 in many(not all). this just frustrates me when i read this bias shite

So watching Wlad/Fury you thought you were watching two of the most skilled fighters on the planet?

big fights dnt always go as we like or even entertain, if you never watched may and pac before their fight would you have thought you were watching the two most skilled fighters on the planet?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Spence wouldn't be Fury awkward if he was 7 foot, 400.

... and your proof of that is ?

ikorolev wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Spence wouldn't be Fury awkward if he was 7 foot, 400.

... and your proof of that is ?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ikorolev wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Spence wouldn't be Fury awkward if he was 7 foot, 400.

... and your proof of that is ?

Exactly. No proof, just your imagination. That's what most p4p lists are based on -- one's imagination.

There is no proof in any boxing rankings, especially p4p. You went back and forth to drop that? Lmao, you need a hobby.

1. Kovalev
2. GGG
3. Ward
4. Chocolatito
5. Fury
6. Crawford
7. Canelo
8. Garcia
9. Yamanaka
10. Rigondeaux

p4p doesn't mean height for height.

If Wlad was a 6'4" welterweight with the exact same style, he'd still be effective. If you are lowering his size, then you would have to adjust his speed accordingly. He wouldn't be Floyd-fast, but Wlad had quicker feet than most of his competition, so he'd have to be among the fastest welterweights. He'd still have great power coupled perfectly with a style that is punishing to shorter opponents.

I think p4p tends to favor smaller fighters. They have more skills, so for example, we think of a 230 pound Floyd ... not so. If you just think of a 147 pound Wlad, it seems like a shitty fighter. But if you are willing to shrink someone, you'd have to factor in the relative change in other areas that would make them more competitive. Just like if increase someone's size, their speed and other factors would decrease.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:p4p doesn't mean height for height.

If Wlad was a 6'4" welterweight with the exact same style, he'd still be effective. If you are lowering his size, then you would have to adjust his speed accordingly. He wouldn't be Floyd-fast, but Wlad had quicker feet than most of his competition, so he'd have to be among the fastest welterweights. He'd still have great power coupled perfectly with a style that is punishing to shorter opponents.

I think p4p tends to favor smaller fighters. They have more skills, so for example, we think of a 230 pound Floyd ... not so. If you just think of a 147 pound Wlad, it seems like a shitty fighter. But if you are willing to shrink someone, you'd have to factor in the relative change in other areas that would make them more competitive. Just like if increase someone's size, their speed and other factors would decrease.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:p4p doesn't mean height for height.

If Wlad was a 6'4" welterweight with the exact same style, he'd still be effective. If you are lowering his size, then you would have to adjust his speed accordingly. He wouldn't be Floyd-fast, but Wlad had quicker feet than most of his competition, so he'd have to be among the fastest welterweights. He'd still have great power coupled perfectly with a style that is punishing to shorter opponents.

I think p4p tends to favor smaller fighters. They have more skills, so for example, we think of a 230 pound Floyd ... not so. If you just think of a 147 pound Wlad, it seems like a shitty fighter. But if you are willing to shrink someone, you'd have to factor in the relative change in other areas that would make them more competitive. Just like if increase someone's size, their speed and other factors would decrease.

I don't think Wlad fares well against Heavyweights without the size advantage. Just not a particularly skilled fighter, tremendous power and size. That's it.