Does Anyone Rate Wlad ahead of Lennox

There is a difference because Lewis got clocked by single shots where as Wladimir got dominated and beat up by Sanders. Plus Sanders was at the end of his career and Wladimir was in his physical prime we also never see a rematch so Wladimir's loss to Sanders is considerably worse.

How do you not see that losing to an unranked contender isn't objectively worse ? Of course its worse. How many so called great Heavyweight champions in their physical prime have been beaten up and dominated by an unranked contender ?

 

They're considerably different. Not just in level, but because they were both settled in rematches - emphatically.

Against Lewis, McCall was Ring-rated #4. Rahman was Ring-rated #8.

Against Wlad:
- Purrity was a journeyman.
- Sanders was an unproven 37 year-old borderline retiree.
- I like Brewster, but he was also unproven and became barely a fringe contender.

 

Ring ratings are often wrong and probably badly underrated both Brewster and Sanders.

Sanders quickly faded from contention following his loss to Vital so in terms of timing a rematch didn't make sense.

Lewis didn't go unbeaten for 11 years following his losses like Wlad

 

Ring Ratings are often a good indication who the notable contenders are.

The Ring Ratings didn't underestimate Sanders or Brewster at all Sanders had lost to Rahman which is why Rahman got ranked and Sanders fell down the rankings.

Brewster hadn't beaten anyone of note coming into Wladimir fight and had 2 losses to Eitenne, Shufford, which were convicing losses.

Both were rightly unranked at the time due to their form and lack of notable wins.

 

Lack of notable wins can be due to not landing big fights rather than lack of ability. Hard to have a good resume if the top guys won't fight you.

I expect if they were given more opportunities they would have better resumes.

 

You people focus too much on loses everyone loses especially when they're still developing as a boxer no reason to hold that against them no one takes Alis losses against him for good reason nor Louis loses yet Lewis and Klitschko get so much criticism for their loses seems like a bit of a double standard to me

 

Don't just make a sweeping statement. Explain why Brewster and Sanders belonged in The Ring ratings when they got offered their respective shots at Wlad?

I don't much care why there was no rematch. The simple 'fact' is there just wasn't one.

Unfortunately, not only does that fact fail to erase the three bad losses Wlad suffered but it also does nothing to explain, with all those years of demonstrable longevity, why Wlad has no marquee win/s, never became undisputed and could not improve on Lewis's ledger.

It also doesn't erase his performance against Povetkin, which was a disgrace.

 

Your first comment is irrelevant you suggested Brewster, Sanders, were underrated by the The Ring Ratings when that's simply false.

Sanders had a chance to step up into the top 10 vs Rahman and he lost hence he fell down the rankings and rightly so.

Brewster had 2 one sided decision losses to Eitenne and the unremarkable Shufford and had done nothing of note coming into Wladimir fight.

Whether you believe they were avoided or not is irrelevant they simply didn't warrant being in the top 10 at that time based on their form and lack of notable wins and The Ring Ratings rightly reflected that.

 

Ali lost to an ATG in Frazier and he lost to the good possibly very good Norton via decision. The other losses occurred when was considerably past his prime with early stages of parkinsons hence any reasonable boxing fan doesn't really hold those 3 out of the 5 losses against Ali.

Louis had a bad loss to Schmeling pre prime at age 22 after only be a pro for 2 years but he revenged that loss in stunning fashion and his other losses occurred past his prime after over 25 world title fights.

That's significantly different than getting dismantled in 2 rounds by 37 year old Sanders past his prime after being a well established professional for over 7 years with over 40 professional fights in your physical prime.

And losing to the unranked Brewster again in Wladimir's physical prime tiring himself out after only 4 rounds which you'd think someone with over 40 fights would know by then how to pace himself better especially after the Puritty loss.

 

I have Lewis in the 3-5 range and Wlad at 6-7. Wlad had a more dominant and consistent reign but Lewis beat much better competition and still had a decently long reign himself. Main thing holding Lewis back is the two 1 punch KO upsets in his prime, but even then Wlad suffered 3 upset KOs, only avenged 1 and didn't retire on top like Lewis.

 

This is how I see it, too.

I have Lewis at #4 and could just as easily see him at #3.

I have Wlad at #7 and could re-review my analysis on another day and have him at #6.

Not a huge number of positions separate them on my list, but nevertheless, there's clear daylight between them, imo.

 

Lewis ledger is overrated in my view. You can argue that guys like Byrd and Povetkin were on par with anyone Lewis beat given Holyfield was faded and Tyson totally shot.

What do you consider a marquee win and what if anything would have qualified as a marquee win for Wlad?

 

Frazier is only an ATG because of the Ali win so it's kinda circular reasoning (Ali lost to an ATG but the guy he lost to is only an ATG because he beat Ali) if you want to get technical but fair enough. Norton is weird besides the Ali win he really didn't do much so it's not clear how good he actually was and Ali never descively beat him so if you're counting loses that would be a decent detrimental against Ali. Whereas Lewis loses was because he got overconfident and got caught and Wlads was because he was still developing his style and 2 loses was because he gassed out rather then the fighters being better then him. Overall I don't count losses because I think it leads to a more consistent criteria for evaluating greatness but that's just my personal perspective.

 

Frazier had established himself as the number 1 Heavyweight during Ali's exile so he already had a good resume with the Ali win being the cherry on the top and possibly the best single win in Heavyweight history. So Ali losing a competitive fight against at that time a very good/great Heavyweight who was the number 1, is not even remotely in the same ball park as getting dominated and dismantled in 2 rounds to the unranked Sanders who past his prime.

Norton is a bit of a strange one I agree he was vulnerable against real big hitters but he excelled boxers it's s up to the invidual how they rank him. But I think the fact that he gave good versions of Holmes, Ali, razor thin close fights who are top 5 of all time Heavyweights means he is a quality fighter.

As the for losses it depends on the context of the losses for me and what stage a boxer was at in his career and how badly the actual loss was in question.

I do think Lewis's losses do hurt his legacy but I think Wladimir's losses overall are worse because he only revenged 1 of the losses. And 1 of the losses was a beatdown and you could say H2H that Wladimir would never be able to beat Sanders. Also the fact that Wladimir had his brother in his era that alot of people question whether he could beat him so that also puts in doubt that he was the best of his era.

Just certain things for me that bring Wladimir's rating down a notch or two for me but I'd still have him in the top 10 for his longevity and title defences.