Career KO %: George Foreman - 83.95%. Wlad Klitschko - 83.64%; also, Lewis-Wlad stats

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by paulfv, Dec 14, 2008.


  1. paulfv

    paulfv Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,853
    0
    Jul 7, 2007
    George Foreman: 76-5 {68}. 83.95% KO's

    Wladimir Klitschko: 52-3 {46}. 83.64% KO's

    Any time you can be mentioned in the same breath as the legendary Foreman, particularly when the subject is knockout victories, you must be doing something right.

    Another amazing stat for the younger Klitschko:

    At just 32 years and 9 months old, Wladimir already has 11 more wins (and one more loss, and one fewer draw) than Lennox Lewis (who retired at age 37) ended his career with.

    Wlad is now 13-2 with 11 knockouts in 15 world title fights.

    Lewis was 15-2-1 with 10 knockouts in 18 world title fights.

    So if Wlad is able to fight in 4 more world title fights and win 3 more such fights, he will have both fought in, and won, more such bouts than did the highly-rated former British HW. In 3 less world title matches, Wladimir has already scored 1 more knockout victory than Lewis did in his 18 world title matchups.

    Despite his critics and detractors, Wladimir Klitschko is compiling a very impressive set of career statistics which put him in the company of a few of the more memorable performers in the history of the division.
     
  2. Quik

    Quik Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,845
    2
    Jul 29, 2007
  3. butler08

    butler08 Active Member Full Member

    1,091
    0
    Oct 18, 2008
    Klitschkos an ATG
     
  4. paulfv

    paulfv Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,853
    0
    Jul 7, 2007
    No, disabuser of idiots.

    It's all great for the anti-Klits until the statistics -- those darned facts -- begin to be brought up.

    Wlad is on course for more world title fights and wins than had Lewis. Of course, the Wlad haters will say he fought in a weak era and so on and so forth.

    The funny thing is, Lewis' detractors always said the same thing, with Lennox catching foes such as Tyson and Holyfield on the downsides of their respective careers, and with farces like Tommy Gun Morrison being elevated to legitimacy.
     
  5. paulfv

    paulfv Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,853
    0
    Jul 7, 2007
    Wlad clearly has his faults, and particularly so during that 20 month span in 2003 - 2004 when he lost to Sanders and Brewster, and looked awful against Williamson.

    However, if he continues at his current pace it will be hard to deny him all-time standing in the history of the division.

    I like the Klitschkos, but am no blind nuthugger of them or anyone else. But you have to have respect for the career statistics Wlad is building up relative to some of the other HOF's from the heavyweight ranks.
     
  6. Cobbler

    Cobbler Shoemaker To The Stars Full Member

    19,216
    2
    Dec 10, 2005
    Tye Fields: 41-2 {37}. 86.04%

    I think I spot a flaw...
     
  7. Beeston Brawler

    Beeston Brawler Comical Ali-egedly Full Member

    46,399
    15
    Jan 9, 2008
    Lewis faced a good level of opposition from the word go, pretty much. Wlad didn't.

    I would hazard a guess that Wlad will probably end up around the top 15-20 all time - Lennox top 6-10 (personally #2 but anyways......)
     
  8. Haye

    Haye Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,928
    2
    Oct 11, 2007
    Major ownage.

    :lol::lol::lol:
     
  9. cuchulain

    cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

    37,065
    12,008
    Jan 6, 2007
    He continues to improve.

    And history will record that, despite what a few on ESB have indicated, hie handling of Rahman was superior to Lennox's handling of same. (1-0) vs (1-1).



    However, i still have doubts that he'll catch up to Lennox's overall place in history. And I don't believe he would beat Lennox prime-for-prime.
     
  10. paulfv

    paulfv Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,853
    0
    Jul 7, 2007
    Lennox Lewis: 72.73%
     
  11. BazRandall

    BazRandall Member Full Member

    162
    0
    Nov 3, 2008
    Is the hw division really that bad or are the klits just that much better, how do we compare the current against the old ???

    Just a thought
     
  12. cuchulain

    cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

    37,065
    12,008
    Jan 6, 2007


    Not so.

    Both men faced their share of bums. Lewis overall level of competition was a bit better than Wlad's (so far).

    Lennox is 3 or 4 on my alltime top 10. Wlad is not on that list.
     
  13. Haye

    Haye Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,928
    2
    Oct 11, 2007
    These 'World title' fights you speak of....

    You realise Lewis was the Undisputed Champion don't you. Fighting good contenders, in the day when being a HW contender meant something. Not the holder of some worthless WBO trinket, defending against bums.

    In fact your argument is so naive and desperate, its pointless trying to pick it apart much longer, I mean, anyone who knows boxing will see how ignorant you are so thats all that matters.

    Lewis's resume puts Wlads to shame, it really does.

    Boxing has never been a sport that can be analysed by statistics. That's sorta crystal clear Paul, and always have been.
     
  14. Sakura

    Sakura Boxing Addict banned

    3,605
    7
    Nov 22, 2006
    Tye Fields is the boxing champ?
     
  15. paulfv

    paulfv Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,853
    0
    Jul 7, 2007
    I agree with this. The three performances will be compared, certainly. Rahman was never in the fight with Klitschko, whereas Hasim stopped Lewis with just one punch in South Africa.

    This is one of the hitches in Lewis' legacy: He didn't always take his training seriously, and it cost him against Rahman and could have cost him against Vitali.

    Whatever else you say about the Klitschkos, you can never question their commitment to keeping their bodies prepared for their matches.

    That's a strike against Lewis, and one which more astute historians will undoubtedly recall.