Klitschko statistics: Myth or Facts?

Wlad is not the champion either.
The others became champs by becoming undisputed.
They all fought the next best guy in the division to prove they were top dog. Wlad has not (for obvious reasons).

No matter what the reason, if you don't get all the belts, and you don't fight the other top guy who also has a belt, you are NOT the champ.

 

Please read my post again. If you have problems with comprehension its not my problem.

I said that if a contender loses in a title fight he should fight someone and win and maybe then get another shot. And im not talking about Klitschko fights only. Ex: there are two champs in ww, Pac and Floyd. Khan fights with Pac, loses; now to fight Floyd he needs to fight someone and win in order to fight for another title. Thats all. Whats so hard to understand??

And it has nothing to do with Klitschkos. Nobody talks about cooperation. If it was Haye who was a champ instead of one of the Klitschko I would say the same thing. This doesnt apply to Pov since he is just a contender, nothing more.

 

Tko6

 

I'm on my phone. So I'll do this 1 point at a time.

When Lennox Lewis fought Evander Holyfield, Holyfield had the WBA, IBF and ring belts. Lewis had the WBC.

Holy was considered #1. Lewis #2.
Lewis won. He won all the belts. He become undisputed Champ.

Or am I missing the fact you are rewriting history and now. Saying the WBO was worth a damn back then? Because if you are, I'll just stop now as its pointless carrying on.

I think he will too.
Thing is, the Ring belt isn't an actual belt. Its a magazine title.
And the WBO heavyweight belt really has only started to be recognized on a par with the others very recently. Prior to that it was very much a second class belt.
Do we count the IBO as well?

 

That's true. Sosnowski? HAHAHA! The guy was an unknown who had never beaten anyone good and yet Vitali chooses him to fight. And it still took 10 rounds!:yep

 

the Ring belt is THE ONLY real belt as long as it is merged with the lineal title which it is. It is very much a belt. Think about Sexy Sergio. They stripped him of the alphabets yet he still has the Ring and we all know he is the real MW champion.

 

You know i dont understand yo so times so posts are spot on like this one and others are compelety crap.

 

Wins is World Title Fights:
14 - Muhamad Ali

Myth

***

KO%
87% - Vitali Klitschko
84% - Wladimir Klitschko

This content is protected

76% - Mike Tyson
75% - Joe Louis
73% - Lennox Lewis
61% - Muhamad Ali
59% - Larry Holmes[/quote]

 

As I said in an earlier post, I was pulling these together originally to contrast Wladimir and Larry Holmes for some personal research.

I went ahead and pulled the most talked about HW's from ESB that I thought were in the same class because I thought it would be interesting to see.

I posted those stats in another thread and the OP here swiped them and reposted them.

I would have also broke out Vitali's retirement from his reign, but I wasn't concerned with it at the time and he was on of the last ones I put in. I just didn't care at the time.

Now that some descent conversation is going on around the stats, I will go pull the resumes of the the other guys and add them.

As for the WBO belt.. whatever. I don't think its worth a **** IMO, but the rest of the world considers it a requisite for unification. For what its worth, I think the IBF and Ring are the only belts that mean anything. WBC has too many bull**** titles and stupid rules. WBO is blah. WBA is a complete ****ing joke.

Wladimir is as much the champion as Lewis ever was. Like it or not.

Soon Wlad will pick up the WBC and will have surpassed Lennox in every area of these stats.

 

So basically it was Klitschko **** sucking list compilation and you stopped looking up the rest of the truth when you got the info YOU wanted.

Nice.

And people wonder why the Klitschko fan base is hated so much.

Keith

 

Klittards sure love double-standards and faked statistics

 

Whatever. I'm assuming you are from the UK. Am I right?

Like I said, it was for personal research and I thought it was interesting so I shared it.

The numbers are all correct. I'm not making this **** up. Its all documented.

If you don't like the truth, then you can refuse to accept it or spend some time doing the same research.

The only issues are that I didn't subtract the dates Vitali was retired from his reign, and I intentionally left them in because he didn't lose his title in the ring.

I did the same with Ali because he was stripped of his title and never lost it in the ring.

I chose the fighters listed because Louis and Holmes have the most title defenses. Wlad is likely going to surpass at least Holmes before he retires. That is what I was looking at initially.

I included Lennox because Wlad is so close to eclipsing all of his numbers.

I included Tyson because I thought it was interesting to see how low he rated against the others, although he was such a beast.

I included Vitali just out of curiosity, contrasting Vitali and Wlad.

I included Ali because he's the ****ing man.

Either you are ******ed or can't read.

1. I used the same counting rules for each fighter.

2. I respect every fighter on the list, some more than others, but they are all impressive.

3. Numbers don't lie. I pulled all the info from the same sources and by the same counting rules for each fighter.

 

The trick is, you put up a disclaimer stating that "The List is NOT Exhaustive"

You also indicated that there are others who have higher KO %'s that are NOT INCLUDED in the list.

Then people know it's not a complete list.

It's stats like these that end up being used for Fox News :S

 

Why would anyone with a brain assume that list with only 7 fighters on it is exhaustive? atsch

Again, with the same 7 fighters listed in each catagory it seems obvious that its a list about ONLY 7 FIGHTERS!

I know we don't have a lot of geniuses on ESB, but come on people... :roll:

 

Because the list implies that is is the TOP SEVEN.

The KO %'s are listed in descending order. Who on earth places a sample from Number 2 down to Number 8, skipping Number 1, and intermittedly skipping numbers inbetween?

Don't get me wrong, if you WANT to do that, then by all means do so. But SAY YOU'RE DOING THAT.

Yes, it is clearly not an exhaustive list. But saying so, also implies that the order mentioned isn't exhaustive. I.e. There are people above, and people in between.

Do you understand? Or are you going to continue being a Douche?