Is Wlad the best all-time-heavyweight? NO OPINION, just PURE RECORD ANALYSIS

Hi, this is my first post, so please be kind :!:

After reading hundreds of times "Tyson beats Wladimir Klitschko within 1 minute" and "Ali beats Wlad with ease" and "Jack Dempsey is a great heavweight" I tried to find out the truth BY ACTUALLY ANALYZING THE RECORDS. Calculating is better than speculating.

So this is how I do it:

1. I keep only heavyweight bouts in the record (by NOWADAYS standard 200+ lbs). It doesn't matter that it was called heavyweight ONCE. I don't want anyone's cruiserweight record taint the heavyweight record. Joe Louis ( 198 ) vs Max Schmeling (193) was a CRUISERWEIGHT fight, no matter how it was called THEN.
2. I erase all WINS against questionable competition (= bums). I keep only non-bum bouts in the record to make careers more comparable. I define an opponent as a bum if he loses 25% or more of his bouts (whether heavyweight or not) (= to be a non-bum the win-loss ratio must be BETTER THAN 3:1). I think this is generous, some people would be more strict.
3. A (T)KO in round 13+ is not a TKO by nowadays standards. Merely a WIN but not a "Win by TKO".

---------------------------

OK, here is what comes out (and I know some people will not like it, especially those who think about the "great old times" and "the bad current times"):

Jack Dempsey had only 1 heavyweight fight, thus he cannot make it by any means into the top ranks. The same applies to Rocky Marciano (0 fights).


Joe Louis
8 non-bum heavyweight fights ( 8 WINS, against the same 6 guys)

Tyson
29 non-bum heavyweight fights (21 WINS, 4 by NON-KO).

Foreman
22 non-bum heavyweight fights (18 WINS, 4 by NON-KO). +1 loss against a bum (Jimmy Young 34-19) Considering that Foreman had 67 heavyweight fights it means that he was mainly fighting bums his entire career. This correlates with the diffused feeling that you think that "Foreman is somehow great", but you cannot actually point a finger on the many great things that is supposedly has done. Same applies to Larry Holmes.

Lennox Lewis
25 non-bum heavyweight fights (22 WINS, 8 by NON-KO). Lennox good fight/win ratio (88%) and his low bum/fight ratio (25 non-bums per 42 fights total) correlates with the feeling hat Lewis was so much dominating high quality competition.

Ali
26 non-bum heavyweight fights (22 WINS, 13 by NON-KO ... abysmal). +1 loss against a bum (Leon Spinks 26-17). Of Ali's 33 heavyweight fights 26 were non-bums. A very good ratio. This correlates with the same feeling we have regarding Lennox: That Ali was dominating the best that was out there.

Wladimir Klitschko
27 non-bum heavyweight fights (25 WINS, 4 by NON-KO). +1 loss against a bum (Ross Puritty 31-20)

Valuev
19 non-bum heavyweight fights (18 WINS, 8 by NON-KO abysmal). Valuev had 50 fights, his non-bum ratio is abysmal. Valuev beat no undefeated opponent. He is/was overprotected.

Larry Holmes
27 non-bum heavyweight fights (21 WINS, 10 by NON-KO). Abysmal bum ratio. And abysmal TKO ratio.

Evander Holyfield
32 non-bum heavyweight fights (21 WINS, 11 by NON-KO). Holyfield's amount of non-bum fights is really good and supports the general picture that Holyfield had no fear to fight anybody.

-------------------------------
Summary
-------------------------------

Stat #1 Total number of KOs

How many non-bums has Wladimir Klitschko (T)KOed? Answer: Wlad has (T)KOed MORE non-bums (21) than Muhammad Ali (9) and Larry Holmes (11) COMBINED. Wlad has (T)KOed more non-bums (21) than Joe Louis ( 8 ), Tyson (17), Foreman (14), Lennox (14) or Holyfield (10).
​

Stat #2 Total number of WINS

Wladimir Klitschko has beaten more non-bum heavyweights (25) than any other of the above all-time greats. Second is Lennox Lewis (22).
​

Stat #3 KO-ratio

Wladimir Klitschko has the highest non-bum KO ratio of all all-time greats (except for Joe Louis, if you want to consider 8 KO wins in 8 fights).
​

Stat #4 WIN-LOSS Ratio

Valuev leads here with 95% (18 wins in 19 fights), but this is because he HAS HAD only 19 fights, so this WILL change in the future. Second comes Wladimir Klitschko (89%), then Lennox (88%), Ali (81%), Foreman (78%), Holmes (78%), Tyson (72%), Holyfield (65% = abysmal)
​

Stat #5 Total number of non-bum heavyweight fights

Holyfield leads here (32) (he fought 32 fights against 26 different opponents), but in a few years Wlad (27) will have fought an additional 6 fights to be #1 in this category, too.
​

-------------------------------

So the next time when someone starts to dream about how great Ali was, just tell them that Ali in his whole heavyweight career TKOed only 10 people (1 of which was a bum).

The only thing where Wlad fails it that he has been TKOed 3 times, whereas the others haven't (only 1 or 2 times). But then on the other hand a) the had more losses and b) they never faced such a heavy (weightwise!) competition like it exists nowadays.

I hope I could bring some ARGUMENTS and OBJECTIVITY to future debates.

If you want then my next thread will deal with the question "Tyson vs Wlad".

 

"Common sense" is a lot less effective because you can't agree on anything except that Ali was the greatest no matter what.

If analyzing a record isn't analysis then nothing is.

 

What the heck? Where did I state that any of these fighters is a bum?

I erase WINS against bums from the record = I don't count a win against a bum as a win. I treat it as if it never happened.

Example: Wladimir Klitschko's KO win against Fabia Meza (4-4) is DISREGARDED. And Lennox Lewis KO win against Mike Acey (13-11) is ALSO disregarded.

So when I compare career records of 2 fighters I ONLY COMPARE MEANINGFUL fights.

The main reason is that natural cruiserweights (like Ali or Holyfield) have their bumfights (like any fighter) at THE BEGINNING OF THEIR careers. But these bumfights are ALREADY EXCLUDED because they are below 200+. Thus the bumfights of natural Heavyweights (Wlad etc) would stay IN the record while the bumfights of natural cruiserweights would stay out. Thus the KO rate of natural heavyweights would be ILLEGITIMATELY upvalued.

 

I don't concentrate on all-time great BOXERS. Joe Louis is of course an all time great boxer, but not an all-time-great HEAVYWEIGHT. Thus the title of the thread.

Otherwise you would have to call Roy Jones Jr. also an all-time-heavyweight because of his 1 heavyweight fight. He is an all-time-great boxer, but not a heavyweight. Same applies obviously to Marciano, Dempsey, Joe Louis and Archie Moore. All cruiserweights.

 

Yes, it's true, but I wanted a catchy thread title.

Yes, I expect the heavyweight division to be redefined (e.g. 215+ lbs) thus expect Wlad to be even greater and Ali to be even worse.

 

I disagree. How can comparing records be a weak argument? In fact all the endless talks about the "obvious greatness" of Ali or Tyson are weak. And long.

But hey, good idea to change the thread title. "Is Wlad the best heavyweight ever?" Gotta do that to attract more posters :good

 

I am actually generous. Boxers with better records have been called bums. Moreover, I hope I clarified in my answer why INCLUDING bums would unnecessarily harm natural cruiserweights.

Are you actually worried about the term "bum" or about the fact that I exclude them? Because if it's just semantics then treat the word bum as "below useful margin" and we can move on.

If you want to include bums then Eric 'Butterbean' Esch is one of the greatest boxers of all times with approx 90 heavyweight fights (real heavyweight 200+ lbs!) and approx 80 wins (approx 60 KOs).