Are top ten rated Ring Magazine heavyweights with 10 or more losses...history?

Yeah, you´re right, it´s history. It´s simple, it´s because the elite fighters are protected, except Povetkin in that list, the others all have their first 20 fights or even more against tomato cans. In the past, it wasn´t that much, and they always fought the best...

 

Pretty much sums it up... although I consider the current HW "champs" tomato cans.

Losses meant more in earlier times than they do today.. basically because everythig is so damn orchestrated. Boxing is now the symphony of sport

 

:yep

:thumbsup

 

Question is, who gets "conducted" as the next "great", Luigi? I hate to say this, but boxing fans won't have anything to talk about 50 years from now. Why? Most of the real greats will have been forgotten by that time, so what is left is what is available today for them to ponder. Pro wrestling will be the topic of the boxing forum day 50 years from now.........

 

It´s really sad to think about the future in this area. :think But unfortunately (probably) true...

 

Mike Weaver was rated with more than 10 losses, but that's over 20 years ago now.

Of course fighters are more protected nowadays. The "fact" that they beat more fighters with "winning records" coming up just re-emphasizes the same thing.

Audley Harrison beat Tomasz Bonin, Richel Hersia and Rob Calloway - who all had "IMPRESSIVE" winning records - but we all know Harrison took no risks. Even the tomato cans themselves can go 25-0 with the right manager.
Some people are still in denial about this, they WANT TO BELIEVE professional boxing is a straightforward and measurable sport to some extent, and that records must mean something.

 

I did an exercise for inclusion in the IBRO journal recently, looking at the average FIRST defeat by decade of the top 20 HW's of each decade and the results were as follows;
1880-89 14.5
1890-99 16.7
1900-09 10
1910-19 8.5
1920-29 12.75
1930-39 13.25
1940-49 12
1950-59 19.25
1960-69 13.5
1970-79 14.7
1980-89 22.5
1990-99 23.5

 

Damn thing posted too quick on me-the coup de grace;
2000-08 25
Take from it what you will but have no doubt but the top current (1980>) contenders have on average a considerably longer unbeaten run from their debut that their predecessors-perhaps they are much better fighters? !!i

 

Maybe Evander will somehow pull it off. I doubt it though.

 

Those statistics are skewed by the fact that before the 1930s half of everybodys record is missing.

 

Janitor, I actually dont believe that records are as bad as that (remember I'm only using the top fighters) but there is some truth in your assertion. However from 1920 on the records are pretty well complete so the pattern still holds up.

 

OK

In 1900-1920 a fighter could hold the British championship and still be 0-0-0 on boxrec today.

Certailny records are more complete for well known fighters but there is still stuff missing.

Jim Jeffries (heavyweight champion) probably has unrecorded fights.