Does Anyone Rate Wlad ahead of Lennox

Why don't you first provide the explanation for why Brewster and Sanders should have been rated by The Ring, before sending the discussion in a different direction.

 

Sure, but if you're being consistent it should take away something from Ali's resume maybe not as much since we can agree Frazier is better then Sanders but still should be some sort of negative

I think it was more of a styles make fight type of thing while Norton was good I don't think he was great since besides the fights against Ali and Holmes he really didn't do much (and even the Holmes fight while competitive I thought Holmes won it pretty clearly) so I think not having one clear win against him would be a mark against Ali according to your criteria if I understand it correctly while Lewis did avenge all his losses decisively

That's fair I guess I would also have Lewis ahead of Wlad just because he had better wins but I can see where you're coming from

 

I don't feel it's a compelling argument to begin with because if nobody will fight you it's hard to rise in the rankings in the first place.
That would only be a compelling argument if top fighters were forced to fight them and didn't have the option of ducking.

Brewster didn't get fights pre Wlad that would have propelled him up the ratings.

 

Do you realize how ridiculous this^ reads?

 

Brewster fought poor opposition pre Wlad. That might account for not rating highly but it doesn't seem like a reflection of his ability. During the course of Corrie Sanders career you had the following guys crack the top 10
Alex Garcia
Phil Jackson
Derrick Jefferson
Herbie Hide

Do you believe these guys were better than Brewster and Sanders?

Presumably your main criticism is that neither Brewster or Sanders did much aside from beating Wlad. Had they gone in a great run post Wlad beating 5 plus contenders you wouldn't have as much of an issue correct?

 

Your arguments suffer from two fundamental flaws:

1. Inconsistent Position:
You have shifted focus repeatedly---from critiquing The Ring rankings to hypothesizing that Brewster and Sanders were avoided, then to dismissing Lewis’s wins while speculating about hypothetical achievements for Brewster and Sanders. None of this addresses the core issue: Wlad’s losses to unranked opponents reflect poorly on his legacy. Speculative narratives, however creative, do not alter that fact.

2. Misunderstanding Sporting 'Form':
Rankings and legacy are built on demonstrable performance, not potential or hypotheticals. Brewster and Sanders did not face or defeat credible opposition pre-Wlad, which explains their respective lack of ranking. Form reflects consistent results against quality opponents, and neither fighter showed this level of performance before or after their wins over Wlad. These facts make Wlad’s losses to them particularly damaging.


In addition to these points, whether one believes Brewster and Sanders were better than the fighters you listed (e.g., Alex Garcia, Phil Jackson, Derrick Jefferson, Herbie Hide) is irrelevant. The fact remains that Brewster and Sanders did not establish themselves as contenders by beating fighters demonstrating credible form relative to the field at the time, prior to facing Wlad.

For example:

- Corrie Sanders had the opportunity to move up the rankings but was stopped by Hasim Rahman, a ranked contender. This loss effectively pushed Sanders out of contention. By the time Wlad faced him, Sanders was languishing in obscurity and was handpicked by Team Klitschko, likely perceived as an easy opponent.

- Lamon Brewster was similarly unproven. The notion that he was widely avoided lacks evidence. His bout against Joe Lenart in 2003 - a 300-pound journeyman with a record of 10-16-3 - hardly suggests that Brewster was actively pursuing competitive fights or demonstrating ambition to rise through the ranks.

Consider the extensive list of heavyweights active from 2000 to 2003:
Joe Mesi, Juan Carlos Gomez, James Toney, Hasim Rahman, David Tua, Jameel McCline, Fres Oquendo, Kirk Johnson, John Ruiz, Sinan Samil Sam, Danny Williams, Evander Holyfield, Oliver McCall, Oleg Maskaev, Michael Grant, Chris Byrd, Andrew Golota, and many others.

It defies credibility to suggest Brewster’s management couldn’t secure a bout with any of these fighters over three years. This lack of competitive form is precisely why he wasn’t ranked, and it further underscores the damaging impact of Wlad’s loss to him.

Your arguments rely heavily on speculation and fail to engage with the concrete evidence available. If you have substantive data to back your claims, feel free to provide it; otherwise, these points stand unchallenged.

 

He asked you a question.

 

Yeah but to be fair Cojimar has shifted the goalposts he originally stated Brewster, Sanders, were underrated by Ring Magazine that's why they weren't ranked. And now he's saying they weren't given the fights but that's also not true and that's a different argument.

As you know Brewster had an unremarkable record prior to facing Wladimir he got beaten comprehensively by Eitenne and Shufford the latter which was a bad loss so there's no reason for him to be ranked at that stage in his career.

Sanders actually did get an opportunity vs Rahman which contradicts what Cojimar is implying. And had Sanders won that fight he could've made a good case for himself getting a title shot down the road. But he failed against Rahman dropped out of the top 10 and then Rahman ended up getting his shot.

 

Surely.not.

 

I feel that Wlad's achievements are less, and that's where the best case can be made, and I'm not on board with it, and I feel that his ability is less, that his loss column is worse and that his win column is worse. So, there's no angle in which I would take to rate him over Lennox.

 

Assuming Ali and Louis are your one and 2?

 

Yes, in that order.

 

Nope, but a fight between both of them would've been something to see.

 

Reads fair AF. If you want to box a man in with logical fallacy use better logic.

 

Fair? Not even close.

Accusing me of employing a logical fallacy without substantiating the claim is, quite ironically, a weak rhetorical tactic. And, this isn't about "boxing anyone in" - it's about holding the argument to a basic standard of logic and evidence.

My argument is simple: rankings reflect performance and results, not hypothetical scenarios or perceived victimhood. Brewster and Sanders weren't ranked because they hadn't defeated notable opponents - that's a verifiable fact.

The suggestion that they were held back by avoidance or lack of opportunity is speculative and irrelevant to the discussion at hand (and, in the case of Sanders, demonstrably inaccurate). Introducing barriers or 'ducking' as an excuse for their lack of wins over notable opponents is conjecture, not evidence. Rankings are based on tangible achievements, not imagined narratives. If you believe there's a fallacy in pointing out that rankings reflect actual results, feel free to explain it with specifics rather than resorting to vague accusations.

If you have evidence to show that Brewster or Sanders deserved rankings based on their actual form and results at the time, present it. Otherwise, your interjection does little to advance the discussion and leaves the point I was responding to exactly as ridiculous as it reads.