breaking down this heavyweight era and others: Why today stinks!!

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by JAB5239, Dec 5, 2013.


Page 43 of 59
  1. JAB5239

    JAB5239 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,470
    58
    Feb 23, 2008
    This is why you're known as Aquamoron. No where did I ever state a ranking makes a fighter a better win. Its a tool used to show which top fighters had more of a willingness to fight other top fighters. This era was the worst. By my system and Mongoose this has been proved.
     
    JAB5239, Feb 7, 2014
    JAB5239, Feb 7, 2014
    #631
  2. JAB5239

    JAB5239 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,470
    58
    Feb 23, 2008
    It doesn't work because you're picking and choosing who you want to evaluate. Here an ideas, why don't we come to a consensus of the ten best contenders of every era and then go from there. I'll bet this era still falls short.

    By the way, its so nice to see you with those two minute responses. You just can't wait for me to reply, can you? Now take a deep breath, don't get to excited and tell me who you think the 10 best contenders of every era was and we'll start narrowing it down for the purpose of this exercise...OK Corky? :yep
     
    JAB5239, Feb 7, 2014
    JAB5239, Feb 7, 2014
    #632
  3. JAB5239

    JAB5239 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,470
    58
    Feb 23, 2008
    I'm pretty sure I did use Holyfield. I think he had 18 or 19 top ten wins.
     
    JAB5239, Feb 7, 2014
    JAB5239, Feb 7, 2014
    #633
  4. JAB5239

    JAB5239 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,470
    58
    Feb 23, 2008
    Why would I start a new thread when it has everything to do with this one? You're the one running off at the mouth. Let's figure out a top ten for every era and see if the numbers still support what they do at the moment. I already know they will because top 10 fighters fought each other more often in other era. If you don't think so than man up. :hi:
     
    JAB5239, Feb 7, 2014
    JAB5239, Feb 7, 2014
    #634
  5. JAB5239

    JAB5239 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,470
    58
    Feb 23, 2008
    I believe I explained already that I used eras people commonly call weak and this era still fell to the bottom using the numbers...that is whyvHolyfield was not used in the opening post.

    Please due hurry back though, I find you very entertaining.
     
    JAB5239, Feb 7, 2014
    JAB5239, Feb 7, 2014
    #635
  6. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    128
    Aug 13, 2009
    Please don't use my name like this anymore. I don't supporty anything you say, nor did the ideas I laid down. It was quite the opposite:

    Using the rankings before the fight in question happened was a big difference.


    Your results:

    This content is protected


    This content is protected


    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected


    This content is protected


    This content is protected


    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected


    This content is protected



    My results:

    Tyson: 12-4-1

    Berbick #7
    Smith #2
    Thomas #3
    Tucker #8
    Biggs #10
    Spinks Champion
    Williams #2
    Douglas #7
    Ruddock #3 x2
    Bruno #7
    Seldon #6
    Holyfield #5
    Holyfield #1
    Golota #8
    Lewis Champion

    JAB average: 4.24


    Wlad: 10-0

    McCline #8
    Byrd #1
    Brock #7
    Brewster #7
    Thompson #9
    Ibragimov #6
    Chageav #3
    Chambers #3
    Haye #2
    Povetkin #2

    JAB Average: 4.8

    As I said, doing it the more accurate way, the difference shrank to less than a point. HUGE difference between your 2.2 claim, which you cheated on anyway by crediting Spinks to Tyson(against your "Year of" rules) and manufacturing lower rankings for Sultan and Chambers.

    Tyson also has the advantage in your AVG system by challenging a lineal Champ twice, something Wlad couldn't do, this is why I wanted to narrow it down to just to title defenses while they were recognized as the top man since you are using the Champion as the standard of the division. A past prime Tyson challening and losing to Holyfield and Lewis in the late 90s and early 00s is hardly telling of the "era" he actually dominated. Also, Wlad's career is also incomplete and we will likely see the addition of more contenders before he retires, if he faces say Pulev or Adamek this year, he could overtake Tyson on the AVG scale.

    My conclusion: There doesn't appear to be a significant difference between the RING contenders Wlad and Tyson faced. The resumes of the all the time greats are always going to stand out in any era. That is what I stand by, don't use my name to further your own agenda again.
     
    The Mongoose, Feb 8, 2014
    The Mongoose, Feb 8, 2014
    #636
  7. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    128
    Aug 13, 2009
    An Era defined by its Top Champion?

    In 2006, Wlad became the RING's #1 HW with his IBF title victory over #1 Chris Byrd. In 1986, Mike Tyson became the RING's #1 HW with his win over WBC Champion than #1 ranked Trevor Berbick. While Spinks remained the lineal Champion, his voluntary exile left a void for Tyson to be considered the HW KING.

    Wlad Title Defenses 06-13:

    Lineal/RING title Fights: 1
    Unification Fights: 2 Wins
    top 5 defenses: 2 Wins
    top 10 defenses: 4 Wins
    non top 10 defenses: 6 Wins

    Brock: RING top 10 defense
    Brewster: RING top 10 defense
    Austin: not ranked by RING
    Thompson: RING top 10 defense
    Ibragimov: WBO Champion Unification
    Rahman: not ranked by RING
    Chageav: RING Title (WBA stripped Chag before fight)
    Chambers: RING top 5 defense
    Peter: not ranked by RING
    Haye: WBA Champion Unification
    Mormek: not ranked by RING
    Thompson: RING top 10 defense
    Wach: not ranked by RING
    Pianta: not ranked by RING
    Povetkin: RING top 5

    Tyson Title Defenses 87-90

    Lineal/RING title Fights: 1
    Unification Fights: 2
    top 5 defense: 1
    top 10 defenses: 2 Wins 1 Loss
    Non top 10 defenses: 3 Wins

    Smith: WBA Champion Unification
    Thomas: RING top 10 defense
    Tucker: IBF Champion Unification
    Biggs: RING top 10 defense
    Holmes: not ranked by RING
    Tubbs: not ranked by RING
    Spinks: Lineal
    Bruno: not ranked by RING
    Williams: RING top 5 defense
    Douglas: RING top 10 defense

    Conclusion: Some Eras are longer than others? Wlad's reign is twice as long and amusingly...perfectly doubles Tyson's title defense stats. :lol:

    Doesn't get any more definitive than that. Save this one for the record, folks, this turned out even better than I expected. If you define an era by a Champion's actions, Tyson and Wlad are identical.
     
    The Mongoose, Feb 8, 2014
    The Mongoose, Feb 8, 2014
    #637
  8. JAB5239

    JAB5239 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,470
    58
    Feb 23, 2008
    So let me get this straight just for the record. Tyson's era is said to have been awful yet the numbers still favor that over Wlads using either system. Correct? And you keep going back to only Tyson's era to try and make a point. Why not the era's of Holmes and Patterson which are also claimed as terrible? If those era's were so bad yet have better number than this era than what would you call this era, good? And just stop with the whole "manufacturing" thing. I've point out several thing (mistakes you've made) in this thread so don't try to get all high and mighty, OK?

    As far as using you not supporting my aim and wanting me to stop using your name.......are you kidding? Your number are similar to my with the end result being the same. Why would I ignore this when it does in fact support everything I've posted? Should I stop because you don't like it? Maybe you should have thought of that before posing them. Seems to me you just can't let this thread go even though you've said several times that not only were you done with this thread but would no longer respond to me, as long as its not ending on your terms. So I'm sorry, but as long as guys like you and Aquamoron want to keep bumping this thread I will continue to use your name and the points YOU provided that support my position.
     
    JAB5239, Feb 8, 2014
    JAB5239, Feb 8, 2014
    #638
  9. JAB5239

    JAB5239 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,470
    58
    Feb 23, 2008
    Lmao....who said the era was defined by its top champion? Its the easiest way to outline an era, that should be a given. Delving deeper into the topic just supports everything I've said though. In fact you yourself even supported this by telling us how contender on contender match ups have been dwindling. So tell me...with contenders fighting each other less often and the numbers from both our methods supporting my original claim, where do you rank this era? What era's do you have ahead and behind it, and why?
     
    JAB5239, Feb 8, 2014
    JAB5239, Feb 8, 2014
    #639
  10. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    128
    Aug 13, 2009
    -NO.

    -NO.

    -Are you serious? I've just shown the results to be vastly different. Your significant 2 plus point discrepancy shrank to an irrelevant fraction that is one or two fights away from shrinking further. If you are going to use my name, get it right. Thank you.
     
    The Mongoose, Feb 8, 2014
    The Mongoose, Feb 8, 2014
    #640
  11. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    128
    Aug 13, 2009
    -In regards to the post, I've shown that as the top men of their era, Tyson and Wlad fought relatively identical competition in regards to their opponent's standing.

    -Well yes, but only in contrast to the 30s, 40s, and 50s. The 80s-00s looked balanced to me, in fact the 00s showed an increase in such match ups.
     
    The Mongoose, Feb 8, 2014
    The Mongoose, Feb 8, 2014
    #641
  12. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    128
    Aug 13, 2009
    I actually really like the Wlad vs Tyson contrast, I'm shocked they produced such a startling simliar pattern of defenses. Interesting to note both men inherited a similiar fragmented division.

    I'm curious how others stack up, I will likely continue this and start a thread in Classic at some point.
     
    The Mongoose, Feb 8, 2014
    The Mongoose, Feb 8, 2014
    #642
  13. JAB5239

    JAB5239 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,470
    58
    Feb 23, 2008
    I am getting it right, you just don't like the results. The fact is Tyson still has a better average per contender ranking ratio whether you use my format or yours. If this is not a lie than I'm using your name correctly.
     
    JAB5239, Feb 8, 2014
    JAB5239, Feb 8, 2014
    #643
  14. JAB5239

    JAB5239 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,470
    58
    Feb 23, 2008
    Showed an increase but still lags behind, right?
     
    JAB5239, Feb 8, 2014
    JAB5239, Feb 8, 2014
    #644
  15. JAB5239

    JAB5239 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,470
    58
    Feb 23, 2008
    I'm curious why you don't like the Wlad vs Holmes and Patterson contrast? They are afterall considered terrible era's, are they not?
     
    JAB5239, Feb 8, 2014
    JAB5239, Feb 8, 2014
    #645
Page 43 of 59