lennox's resume is hardly better than wlad's

[Box84]

Originally Posted by MattMattMatt

It would be more informative to see the results presented graphically. It's pretty easy to do, just select all and copy and paste into excel. A couple of mins cleaning up, then sort them in descending order and plot both fighters stats on the same chart. You can see at a glance if one fighter has a consistently better record, if they have only a couple of better wins, or if they have a dozens of meaningless record padding victories.

Obviously there are cases where the ratings don't reflect the strength of the opposition very well, since scores are reduced by lay-offs (which don't affect everyone equally), questionable decisions are still scored against the losing fighter (e.g. Pac), questionable victories are still credited to the winner (e.g. Bradley), DQ wins in fights that you were losing are still credited too highly (Bowe against Golota), beating a fighter that has significantly declined but has yet to have that 'exposed', or is fighting too far from their natural weight results in too much credit to the victor (which is then propagated throughout the whole system).

All of that evens out better than many biased human assessments. Boxrec is a reasonable starting point if you know and understand it's limitations.

A good example from that list is DaVarryl Williamson being rated higher than David Tua. There is no way that any sane boxing expert would ever say that Williamson is a better victory for Wlad than Tua is for Lennox. In fact, if Wlad had that win over Tua I think many people would rate that as one of, if not the, best wins for Wlad. The Rahman/McCall victories are a strange situation, I don't feel that it is appropriate to give Lennox more credit for beating someone that only has a high rating because he beat you by upset KO in the previous fight. In reality we have to take losses into account as well then to even those cases out.

Nice post. The part I highlighted about Rahman is what jumped out at me while viewing the list. It is definitely a strange situation. But the more I think about it, it actually seems OK.

Lewis still ended up being down 193 points, even after he KO'd him quicker in the very next fight.

In terms of comparing it to Wlads wins and giving Lewis credit. The fact is Lewis KO'd a guy in 4 rounds who was good enough to KO him in 5 rounds. Sounds really strange but it's true.

To try and change it would belittle Rahmans achievement in beating the top guy in Lennox Lewis. And/or belittle Lewis's achievement of destroying a guy who previously bested him.

On another matter Wlad has Byrd, Peter and Thompson all on the list twice which is also strange. I'm not sure what to think of that, except to say I'd prefer fighters not to be repeated. It instinctively seems better to have 15 different guys, but it may make no difference?

To clarify I believe Byrd, Peter and Thompson should be on the list twice, I just wish they wasn't.

[KidDynamite]

The Rahman that beat Lewis is better than any of Wlad's opponents

[DamonD]

What, slow news day is it?

[madballster]

Originally Posted by KidDynamite

The Rahman that beat Lewis is better than any of Wlad's opponents

No he's not.

[Asterion]

Originally Posted by KidDynamite

The Rahman that beat Lewis is better than any of Wlad's opponents

No. Lewis should've never lost against Rahman. But shit happens.

[thesandman]

Originally Posted by Asterion

No. Lewis should've never lost against Rahman. But shit happens.

Yes. Agreed. Poor loss, down to a total lack of dedication.

That Rahman was good enough to beat a serious Corrie Sanders, and be competitive (was gipped really) against a half decent Tua as well.

So he was no scrub like some would have you believe.

[PIRA]

Originally Posted by theboss

The day LL retired there was suddenly no more good fighters . We got it .

There was - after all Vitali dragged Briggs up twelve years after Lewis sparked him and managed to go the distance. And of course Wlad ducked the awesomeness of the deadly dreadlocks which are like poison to Ukranians.

War Shannon "Asthma" Briggs.

And you seriously try and say this current crop is good as Lewis level of competition. When you dig up a contender that got sparked twelve years earlier then take your pick - either the division is crap or Vit is a cherry picker.

[Rock0052]

Originally Posted by MrMagic

Wladimirs record is hardly deeper than Vitali, let alone Lennox.

Lennox's resume is mainly comprised of slower, orthodox sluggers and a couple all-arounders like old Holyfield.

Wlad's fought faster fighters, sluggers, slick defensive fighters, spoilers, and counterpunchers. He also fights southpaws, which Lennox didn't do. And, he's got nearly 20 more wins than Lennox.

more wins + wider range of styles defeated = deeper resume.

If you want to argue that Lennox has a better resume on the top end and is therefore better overall, that's a different argument. But Wlad's got him on depth.

[tezel8764]

Manny Steward: "Wladimir is more talented but Lennox has beaten the better fighters therefore he is more proven."

[SuzieQ49]

Originally Posted by KidDynamite

The Rahman that beat Lewis is better than any of Wlad's opponents

[BadDog]

Originally Posted by PIRA

There was - after all Vitali dragged Briggs up twelve years after Lewis sparked him and managed to go the distance. And of course Wlad ducked the awesomeness of the deadly dreadlocks which are like poison to Ukranians.

War Shannon "Asthma" Briggs.

And you seriously try and say this current crop is good as Lewis level of competition. When you dig up a contender that got sparked twelve years earlier then take your pick - either the division is crap or Vit is a cherry picker.

umm.. Vitaly was in his 40s when he fought Briggs. You're talking like he was prime and Briggs was old. Vitaly is older then him.

[BadDog]

Originally Posted by JAB5239

Fair statement. What would you consider him 13 years after that and with only 1 win over a top 10 fighter during that time?

in 90s when he was in his 20s he was a lineal champ and in 2000s when he was in his 30s he had a paper belt.

[JAB5239]

Originally Posted by BadDog

in 90s when he was in his 20s he was a lineal champ and in 2000s when he was in his 30s he had a paper belt.

That wasn't what I asked you, was it? Boy, you guys have a talent for avoiding questions!

[PIRA]

Originally Posted by BadDog

umm.. Vitaly was in his 40s when he fought Briggs. You're talking like he was prime and Briggs was old. Vitaly is older then him.

And your entirely missing the point. Tell me - how was Briggs better twelve years after Lewis sparked his arse in five rounds? What does fighting Briggs twelve years after getting sparked by Lewis say for the depth of the division?

[Asterion]

Originally Posted by PIRA

And your entirely missing the point. Tell me - how was Briggs better twelve years after Lewis sparked his arse in five rounds? What does fighting Briggs twelve years after getting sparked by Lewis say for the depth of the division?

The fight against Briggs has not much to do with the depth of the division. He was chosen because he was/is a marketeable slugger with some name behind, nothing more. That fight was about money, not talent.