Biggest "forums darlings"

I would like to hear some other topic at this stage other than Wlad vs Foreman as well but somehow I don't see it happening.

 

You didn't state an incorporated level of opposition into your probabilities, though. (And, I might have to look into that math, as well, because you sure do like to pretend you have a handle on something).

You were simply complaining about "how hard it is to win fights in succession". Does your math also take into account the point at which a fighter was in their career?

Oh - and what I posted stands true. Foreman won 40 straight. Wlad never did that. Are you able to compare and contrast the mathematical probabilities in each case for clarity, please?

 

I read clearly what you wrote - “Wlad never put a win streak like that together”

but go ahead and make long winded defense of what you meant. your long diatribe of excuses only reveal your insecurities. Carry on.
Cheers

 

If you’re writing a post that sounds like you’re a lawyer defending a criminal in a court room, I think it tells us all we need to know.

When I mentioned the probability, I discounted that winning twenty straight fights (over a decade or so like Wlad) could be interrupted by things like career ending injuries, out of the ring circumstances, and simply declining.

Of course, Wlad’s streak incorporated much more difficult average opposition over a longer period, so idk why you brought that up.

 

No defense required.

 

Yes you didn't properly define you terms and that lead to confusion do so next time and maybe things would be easier k?

 

Aye glad we can agree

 

You said Wlad was seen as the best, but the majority of boxing fans think Vitali would have beaten him. Does Wladimir reigning for 3 more years bridge the fact that he was KO'd 3 times by mediocre opposition ? Neither were undisputed champion so It's a good question. Its quite hard to put him ahead of Holmes but as others have said there isn't much in it

 

I have Holmes ahead because he has better losses than Wlad's. I don't think there is much in it and I think if Wlad had beaten AJ that would have put him over Holmes but that didn't quite happen.

 

Holmes avoided unifications.

 

I get that. Wlad should and does get recognition for the length of his reign - I can see why people view longevity as a quality in its own right.

However, as has been pointed out by a couple of other posters in this part of the discussion, the quality of opposition cannot be entirely divorced from the attribute of longevity (or the length of a given win-streak) - a sentiment I agree with.

In addition, other critical aspects of rating championship runs have been discussed earlier in the thread (quite recently by McGrain), which highlight potential problems in weighing up Wlad's run, e.g., not facing the best in the world (barring himself) for quite some time. Added to this is his failure to achieve the status of 'Undisputed' (despite the time he had to do so).

So, the question becomes: To what extent should the quality of opposition (and other factors) affect how we value the longevity?

And this, I suspect (before we even look at other factors such as Wlad's critical losses), will remain a core part of the debate, where Wlad's rating is concerned. It's a reference point used by both camps, whichever side of the question one falls on.

 

You need a new lawyer...

(...and to do a course in Probability Theory)

 

Imo Wlad beat better fighters and was more dominant hence why i have him ahead but I can see it going either way

 

Yeah Wlad was more dominant in his wins that's true.