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

It's a valid point but

• it affects only little fights
• I doubt it that anyone plans to NOT KO an opponent within 12 rounds just to KO him in round 13.

This is not true like you state it

1. I also take off THE LOSSES off the heavyweight record. Joe Louis vs Max Schmeling was a cruiserweight fight and that loss stays off the record like his loss against Ezzard Charles and Rocky Marciano.
2. I do NOT TAKE AWAY FIGHTS OFF THE RECORD. I take away fights off the heavyweight record. You are completely free to ADD ALL OF MARCIANO's fights to his CRUISERWEIGHT record.

Why should they change it? It adds up to their cruiserweight record.

I didn't try to prove that. In fact since I have taken only A FEW of past fighters I couldn't possibly succeed. Maybe John Dino Denis is the greatest, maybe not. So far I calculated stuff by hand, so wait until the full calculator is ready and we also included QUALITY of opposition.

OK, then a clear Question:
Where DO YOU draw the line? I mean come on, you can't be serious in crediting Sam Langford (lbs 140) with a win over Joe Gans (137) to his so called heavyweight record. WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE?

 

Scorecards are hardly ever known in older fights.

But I will include UD,MD,SD so expect the old fighter be even worse than Klitschko & co.

 

But why? The weight is not defined by some "average population weight" number, but rather by some "average boxers weight": Since many boxers came from bad familiar circumstances (slums, poor families etc, the typical sreet career of boxers) it is to be expected that (because of malnutrition) they were actually smaller than the average.

But that is not the point. YOU CAN INCLUDE ALL FIGHTS AND ALL WEIGHTS in a record to compare 2 boxers. But NOT TO MAKE A COMPARABLE HEAVYWEIGHT ACHIEVEMENT RECORD: You can compare Roy Jones with Lennox Lewis. Title it "Who is the best boxing sportsman", but don't title it "Who is the best heavyweight?". But exactly this _IS_ done nowadays by comparing Marciano (who was always below 190 lbs) to Lennox Lewis. It's ridiculous.

I wonder why noone compares Marciano with Roy Jones. This is the same comparison as Marciano with Lennox Lewis.

Now regarding world population trends. You can state it even more pointed/ridiculous:
In Ali's times the world population was approx. half of now, so Klitschko & co are the world champions of a much bigger world.

Moreover Ali was not exposed to east-european fighters.

So Ali was the champ of smaller world AND a smaller boxing world (= no eastern-europeans).

In the 1920 the boxing world was even smaller and you have these terrible divisions where 1 guy fights 20 times another one. Now you have these wonderful mixed divisions where really any fighter could have been born anywhere in the world.

So where do you draw a line of a representative mix? Was the size of world population big enough in Ali's times to make Ali's wins representable? I think it was. Was the boxing world mixed enough? I think it wasn't. So actually Ali & co were even worse than in my calculation.

But that would still DECEIVE people into thinking that Sam Langford had any chances against Lennox Lewis, because it would still count all his wins as heavyweight win of comparable magnitude.

But Wlad and Lennox are not fat. That they are heavier is not because of fat. They are muscular, whereas Jou Louis, a THEN-heavyweight, looked like this:
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/joe-louis-photo-01.jpg

People are really deceived into thinking that Joe Louis had a chance against Lennox and Tyson & co, merely because he is CALLED A HEAVYWEIGHT and his wins are counted as HEAVYWEIGHT WINS. And then they watch a fight Max Schmeling vs Joe Louis (190+ vs 190+) and they think it would be representative of how Louis could beat Danny Williams. With my calculations I try to bring in some sense for comparability into the heavyweight division.

 

Ali would KO Sanders, Brewster and Puritty ON THE SAME NIGHT WITHOUT training, even

No, Wlad is in the bottom 15, because the top 15 is occupied already by Sam Langford.

Place 1-5 Sam Langford for fights 1-100
Place 6-10 Sam Langford for fights 101-200
and place 11-15 go to .... Sam Langford for his fights 201-314.

 

I read this statement several times and

1. Where is this coming from? I don't see any regulation supporting this view.
2. Although theoretically TRUE, the fact is that these margins are treated as maximum AND minimum margins. So you won't find anybody below-200 calling out Sam Peter, or Sam Peter calling out anyone below-200