Is Vitali the only champion who has never lost more than 2 rounds in any fight?

Amen brother.

 

2 rounds? He lost min. 3 round to Byrd, some rounds against Chisora and 3 rounds to lennox lewis.

or do you mean some scorecards?

 

Are you serious about the Byrd fight? A draw?!atsch It was one-sided fight until the shoulder injury was too severe.

 

Klitschko landed 132 of 502 total punches (26%)
Byrd landed 124 of 284 total punches (44%)

 

Yes, a really remarkable achievement.

Shame he couldn't have beaten some more top competition. Switch out wins over Tyson for Williams (which would have probably happened had Tyson won), add in Rahman when he got injured, Valuev for Soswnoski (was supposed to be Valuev, but he turned down career high payday even though he no longer had a belt) and Haye for Charr (Haye had the chance but turned down the offer), and his resume goes from fringe top 10-15 to clear top 5 all time and above his brother.

If he came back in 5 years and got a belt while pushing 50, it could still put him back up there, but probably won't ever happen. Really the most frustratingly unfulfilled potential of any HW all time.

 

Statistics is not the best way to describe a boxing fight. It was one-sided fight. In the final 2-3 rounds Byrd had some success due to having one-armed person in front of him. Yet, Byrd did nothing impressive.

 

You're missing their point. Losing a fight by (t)ko is an entirely different metric to look at than rounds won. If you're judging an entire career and its overall worth, its entirely significant and relevant to look at tko losses. That is not the point of this thread, though. Its just about how many round you've won in round you've competed in. The rounds after a ko did not occur and thus do not count. If you can't appreciate there is a difference, then I just can't help you.

 

I can't appreciate the difference because it's completely meaningless.

You're scheduled to fight a 12 round fight, you win the first 4 rounds and get KTFO in the 5th and somehow the fact you won the first 4 rounds means something?

What does it mean?

That you were winning before you lost?

 

If you think its meaningless then you have some problems. It's like saying an iron chin is meaningless, or great power is meaningless. Its a valid portion of a fighter's career, just as chin and power are valid assets of a fighter. A great chin doesn't make them a great fighter, but its still worthy of discussion among boxing fans. By the same token, winning an insanely high proportion of rounds doesn't make you the greatest fighter of all time, but its still a remarkable achievement that is worthy of discussion among boxing fans. Again, if you don't understand that, not sure what to tell you.

 

Fair enough I suppose, but I've been in this site for 10 and I;ve been on other sites before than, to the best of my knowledge this is the first time, this particular topic has ever been discussed.

And I have yet to see a list of the top ten fighters who won the highest percentage of the rounds they've fought, have you?

And does that mean they're so much better than everyone else, or that their competition is just that much worse?

Certainly if Vitali was fighting 5-10 years earlier and fighting the prime Holyfield's, Bowe's, Tyson's and Lewis' and even Ike, and never avoided his brother, than his record in terms of the number of rounds he won, would be dramatically different.

 

Statistics without context are meaningless. Smoke and mirrors.
Klitschko fans in particular have a knack for using them, it seems.

I've read articles where people compare Wladimirs greatness to other champions by adding up all the wins and losses of his title defenses and doing the same for other champions. Since a lot of the guys he fights have super padded records it ends up being a ridiculously high win-loss ratio for Klitschkos opponents and they think it proves something.

 

Thanks for the reasonable comment. I've answered in bold above.

 

They're meaningful, like you said they just need context. Fighters in earlier era's were less concerned about padding their records, they could lose a couple fights and still get a title shot or be highly regarded(and our hater culture mentality is largely to blame for that change). Ergo, the title defense challengers of champs from yesteryear had worse records, but had usually beaten better fighters than the challengers of today. So, the statistic is still meaningful, because it counters the people who say the title defenses today are less meaningful because they "haven't beat anyone".

Its just a different era, same type of challengers, they've just swapped good wins for perfect records.

 

Agreed.

 

:good