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

No, 00s produced more than the 80s and 90s both. Lags behind 30s, 40s, and 50s? Most likely.

 

NO. Their average is no longer an eye raising discrepancy. It has been reduced to a fraction that can be balanced out with just a couple of fights that will likely get made. With your "numbers", Wlad had no chance of ever catching Tyson. This is a big difference.

You are free to cling to Tyson's disappearing .56 decmial advantage in that "system" but lots of luck arguing it proves anything. Both men's opponents are rounding out near a #4 ranking on average.

 

Never said I didn't like the contrast.

 

If you want to count every contender vs contender match up from 30s, 40s, and 50s be my guess. Knowing what I know, I will say they most likely surpass any other era that followed.

 

Tyson but a more important question is how relevant is a disappearing 4.25-4.8 gap to your argument? Does it prove anything? I don't think it does, too minimal a difference in such a flimsy system to begin with.

If you stick to this system and are going to cling to the numbers so literally, Wlad is possibly just two fights away from surpassing Tyson. If the difference is as significant as you claim, that shouldn't be a possibility but it is. So I hope you stick to your guns and man up when the time comes.

 

I'm curious about how the defending patterns of Champions have evolved over the years if at all, and will likely get to that in the near future in Classic as I said before.

 

Larry Holmes using "year before" ratings and JAB's outlined method of only counting matches when they themselves were ranked that year:

#6 Shavers
#1 Norton
#8 Evangelista
#9 Ocascio
#7 Zannon
#6 Jones
#10 LeDoux
#7 Berbick
#3 Spinks
#2 Cooney
#9 Cobb
#10 Spoon
#3 David Bey
LHW Champion Spinks
HW Champion Spinks
#2 McCall

AVG. 5.19

So JAB, we can now conclude 4.25 Tyson and 4.8 Wlad rank above Holmes using your method with "YEAR BEFORE" rankings. So please quit saying my variation of your method gets the same results as you, thank you.

I personally would rule this as all three hovering around the same level of opponent but you want to be so strict with Tyson and Wlad.

 

I don't consider Tyson's era to be bad so I can't agree. Tyson, Wlad, and now Holmes are all hovering around the same average of 4. If you are basing your value of the opponents on the standings of the opponents they fought when ranked, they all seem to be on the level.

 

Patterson is quick and easy: He had two reigns of two years.

57-59
top 5 defenses: 2 wins: Jackson, Harris 1 loss: Ingo
top 10 defenses: 1 win: London
Non top 10 defenses: 1: Rademacher

60-62
Lineal Title win: 1
top 5 defenses: 1 win: Ingo 1 loss: Liston
top 10 defenses: 0
Non top 10 defenses: McNeely

Patterson was not a very active Champion and he lost the title twice, though he won it back once. He managed only 4 successful defenses against RING rated fighters total. He is often regarded as one of the weaker modern lineal Champions in history. I personally feel he could have been more active and squeezed defenses against Foley or Machen at some point.