Part 1 I looked at quantifiable dominance in title wins, now I'm looking at quantifiable quality of opposition in wins. Obviously there's always a subjective element in both. I'm looking at Ring ratings within a year of match, and I personally think that probably unfairly hurts modern fighters, as it was more relevant years ago and taken more seriously, and also catered to past champs choices more. Regardless, here are the champs rates: Ali: 19 of 22 Frazier: 6 of 10 Foreman: 3 of 7 Holmes: 16 of 21 Tyson: 10 of 12 Holyfield: 7 of 10 Lewis: 11 of 15 Vitali: 5 of 12 Wlad: 12 of 19 Wilder: 1 of 5(you can tell who doesn't belong in this group). I'll combine the numbers in a bit.
Dominance: Tyson and Vitali 1 Wlad 3 Frazier Lewis and Wilder 4 Ali 7 Holyfield and Holmes 8 Foreman 10 Quality: Ali 1 Tyson 2 Holmes 3 Lewis 4 Holyfield 5 Wlad 6 Frazier 7 Foreman 8 Vitali 9 Wilder 10 Total average result: Tyson 1(3) Ali 2(8) Lewis 3(8) Wlad 4(9) Vitali 5(10) Holmes and Frazier 6(11) Holyfield 8(13) Wilder 9(14) Foreman10(18). Honestly it's a fairly good ranking. The only clear anomaly is Wilder ranking above Foreman, but obviously the weakness of stats is usually finding context, and context is one of Foreman's strengths and Wilders weaknesses. Like I said, it doesn't try to show their overall ranking, it doesn't include losses etc. But I think this does go toward the legitimacy of the strength of each fighters title fight wins.
Not really. Why on earth would you try to compare the relatively new reign of someone like Wilder ... Who is still active and maybe hasn't even reached his prime yet (considering he's had two defenses put on hold due to his opponents drug use and also had to recover from two broken hands and a torn bicep) ... With essentially the completed careers of former champions who sometimes fought for and even won titles well into their 40s? How would Joe Frazier's career look if you compared him FOUR defenses in after he beat Mathis, like you have with Wilder? I'm sure the Dave Zyglewicz and Manuel Ramos defenses wouldn't have lifted him to elite status, either. Or where would Wlad rank after he won the WBO belt and made four defenses against guys like Charles Shufford and Derrick Jefferson? Looking at some names on your list, Wilder could win and lose the title and still be a top heavyweight or a titleholder a decade from now. Seems a little early to including someone like Wilder ... don't you think ... unless you're doing it just to try to insult him.
God, you really live and breath Wilder don't you? Sorry, not everything is about him. I included Wilder because the whole point was to include everyone with at least 5 successful title fights. Wilder is in rarefied air for having done such, regardless of how bad his defenses were. Per my post, it's a small list. And yes Frazier had about as bad a title resume as Wilder after four defenses. Who knows, maybe Wilder will clear out the division and surpass Frazier, though I highly doubt it. But the point isbt about Wilder, it's about a non or less subjective means to rate Champs title wins.
Wilder doesn't have five successful title defenses. I don't live and breathe Wilder. I was asking why the hell you included him. Apparently, according to your own guidelines, you shouldn't have.
