Championship reigns v H2H

I think heavyweight is a bit of an odd one because the sizes have gone up. I generally don't buy the whole athletes have gotten better line, but the size increase of heavyweights does probably mean the more recent ones would generally do better head to head.

I think Tommy Burns was a hell of a lot better than remembered, but he was too small, only really a big middleweight. And while a lot of defences were bad, really for the time he held the title he faced enough good opposition. P4P I think he was very decent.

 

With the heavy s size difference is always going to be a advantage for some. Its true ,its a lot harder to put heavy s from different eras head 2 head because of the reasons u mentioned. Like Bob Fitz who was a talented , skillful heavy fighting for example a Danny William s .Fitz is the more skillful fighter but he's at a huge weight disadvantage .It doesn't really affect the other division s but heavyweight s have grown alarmingly .

 

I value both, but I factor in h2h more on this forum, because often times we're talking about fantasy fights and how they would go. Both are important, but h2h is the ultimate deciding factor.

 

A fighter can rank higher in legacy, but lower H2H and many get it confused. There are some cases where a non ATG can be expected to give an ATG a hell of a fight or even beat them. For example, I think George Foreman ranks higher than Razor Ruddock in legacy, but H2H, both in or near their best, I'd say Ruddock is a dangerous opponent for Foreman and could cause an upset. Doesn't mean I rank him higher on the legacy scale.

 

The comment would be correct but he did take on all comers and the best he basically could as well. Part of everything you have to factor in overall.

 

Yeah I've always said that if boxing skills have advanced tremendously, then it should be seen in all weight classes, not just heavyweight. But it's not like Kovalev or Ward or Tarver went back to the 1940's light heavyweight scene, they'd just be holding the division hostage in utter terror. I'm sure a 1949 Archie Moore wouldn't have had a panic attack at the thought of fighting Kovalev.

Heavyweights have gotten bigger though. The only reason most would pick a 1996 Evander Holyfield to beat a 1960 Floyd Patterson isn't because Holyfield had some sort of modern, boxing skill that Patterson didn't have, but because of Holyfield's physicality. Basically because of the fact that Holyfield was a physically powerful 215 pounder and Patterson would be 190 pounds. So Holyfield would win off size and strength, not vastly superior skill.

Many would pick a young Mike Tyson to stop Jersey Joe Walcott early, but not because Tyson had vastly superior, modern skills, but because of Tyson's physicality + his skill level. But if you gave a 1947 Jersey Joe the same secret sauce that Holyfield had, made him a solid 215-225 pounder whilst keeping approximately the same skill and reflexes and was able to proportionately increase his punching power and chin to match his new found size, a more modern, up to date Walcott would have as much chance of beating a 1988 Mike Tyson as a 1947 Walcott would've had of beating a prime Patterson. It's just the fact that heavies are bigger, which for the most part make them more formidable.

 

H2H all day long. A succession of wins at flea bottom isn't better than a single great win at high level. You can beat flea bottomer's year in year out but then fail every time you step up against the elite.

Example . Wilder has a reign. Shaver never had a regin. Shaver would pop Wilders bonk off.

Sanders never won a title (prime). He beats Wladimir who had 20 defenses of multiple titles 9x outa 10 .

How you perform at the highest level of the sport is the true test of greatness.

 

I was talking about this on another forum recently. People talk about modern skills, but how many current boxers have high level athleticism and very solid boxing skills and intelligence? Pretty much just P4P guys.

The current heavyweights all have really gaping holes in their game IMO. Joshua is in straight lines, and doesn't seem able to pace, Fury can't punch properly (though before anyone says it, I'm sure he could KO me, just with the jab), Wilder is all over the place, Ortiz is just far too unathletic (at his current age), and Parker just edges people with workrate.

Hell from what I've seen of them, which admittedly isn't enough, I thought Jimmy Wilde looked a lot more skilled than Roman Gonzalez. I'd be interested if others think the same.

 

A high quality title reign is a good measure of dominance, but there are others that you can look at.

I often look at a fighter's record vs top ten ranked opposition (Ring Magazine only).

Although the rankings are not perfect, they give you a general idea of the fighters performance relative to the era.

If I am comparing two fighters with short title reigns, I sometimes find it instructive to look how they would stack up as contenders, if they had never held the title.