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

Yeah great retort. You joined a forum to post, so that is a fail...

Moreover let's look at how long I have been here and how many posts per day I average...oh yes 10.91 a day.

Since you joined you have averaged 31.73 posts per day.

What was your point again?

 

Your "PURE RECORD ANALYSIS" is based entirely upon "OPINION", you dumb ****.

The initial post is just so poor, I can't be bothered going through it. Terrible thread.

 

record analysis? that would be valuev and marciano

 

Statistics are like mini skirts. They give you good ideas, but hide the essentials...

 

Knn, you made a rough debut on this forum :yep

 

No, I mean it is both lame and hypocritical to join a forum in order to post and then try and mock someone by saying "Look how much you post".

10 posts per day is clearly not a huge amount, it is not so vast a number that it could anyway imply that this is all I do. But a continued presence on the boards over many years just shows that I like to contribute to a boxing message board. What was you plan? Arrive, post 30 times per day for 2 months and then **** off because posting on message boards is sad or for losers?

Your retort was as weak and foolish as your first post.

By your rationale Jersey Joe Walcott, Jack Johnson and Ezzard Charles are all worse fighters than John Ruiz and Sugar Ray Robinson wouldn't make a top 10 of ATG.

 

Also your list is based entirely on your bias, subjective opinion of what constitutes a bum.
Considering that you have suggested this is a scientific approach that bypasses opinion, I would say it is a tad flawed.

 

Exactly!

The guys "analysis" and "no opinion" is based purely on his own opinon

 

Have you ever seen Walcott fight? If so, can you honestly tell me he wasn't a fantastic fighter?

Anyway, he knocked out Ezzard Charles and beat him on points. Two two wins alone are better than anything Wlad has done, and, as some will know, that is coming from a huge Klitschko fan.Aside from those two wins, Walcott beat Harold Johnson, Elmer Ray, Joey Maxim, Jimmy Bivins and Lee Q. Murray. Many more solid fighters on resume too. Plus a few of his losses are credible too.

Saying that, I would expect Klitschko to knock Walcott out wthin 7. But there is simply no denying his great achievements.

 

Please don't play semantics with me. It removes validity from the argument.

1) it doesn't matter how many fights it removes. Some of the points made in your original point were a difference of only 1 or 2 fights. And your point on KO's isn't sensible at all. If you know you have 15 rounds to win a fight, then 15 rounds is what you train for and what you plan for. No one plans to KO a certain fighter in a certain round. But as the fight progresses, strategies change. That was not a strong effort on your part.

2) This is EXACTLY true as I state. You are only removing fights from the Old era HW's record. I will not repeat the entire post, since you didn't counter it at all, but simply used different wording. We are discussing the HW record, and you are removing fights from the HW record of old era HW's that were sanctioned as HW fights. Regardless, the HW record IS part of the overall record (if we must play semantics). You were going to have to penalize one or the other for the rules of their era, and you chose to penalize the old era. Your reasoning isn't logical since neither era can fight outside of the rules set for their respective era. Claiming it benefits one and not the other is subjective.

3) I won't address the premise of it being a CW record. It's faulty from jump. Marciano was the HW champion. This is a fact.

4) You are trying to prove the Modern era HW's, seeming Wladimir Klitscho since most of you original points address in a specific manner, is better at least statistically than old era HW's. If you are not, then why when faced with 2 seperate issues where the rules were different for each era, did you decide to penalize the Old era and not the Modern one? And no more pretending like you didn't penalize them. Its a fact for the purposes of your comparison that you only removed sanctioned HW fights and recorded KO's for the Old era that were within the rules of their era. You cannot get around it without being dishonest. And you also didn't include quality of opposition. You included record analysis without looking at how that fighter gained that record. Jimmy Young counts less than Butterbean in your analysis. It's flawed in it's premise and it's execution. You don't include certain fighters right off the bat due to weight (no credit for beating Ezzard Charles, but credit for beating Michael Grant?) and then give credit for beating fighters with blown up records and none for beating tough contenders who fought everyone and had more losses. That is not quality of opposition.

Lastly, do not point out extreme cases to me to make your point. These are not the fights that people are up in arms about. (Though they too should be counted for OBJECTIVE analysis). We are talking about fighters like Joe Louis and Marciano. Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore. 190+ guys. The rules change hasn't even been in effect a decade. I have already answered the question on drawn lines elsewhere (you can't objectively do so without subjective reasoning and come up with valid analysis. You may have responded, but I have not read that far in the thread).

Your system is not equal. No matter how you try to turn it, you are penalizing one side (a little or a lot doesn't matter) and not the other. It is a fact. There is no way around that.

 

It's just a fact, the weight divisions are defined my maximum weights. There are no minimum weights in boxing.

Of course it's easier to put on weight than to lose it, and fighters dehydrate to fit under the maximum of a lower division in the hopes that they'll find opponents there easier to beat given the restriction of the maximum weight, than those with freedom to weigh more.

Most of the time then fighters will push towards the weight-limit in all the weight classes except for the no-limit class- heavyweight, but they don't have to weigh the maximum and it's not so rare that they find themselves more effective when they're lighter.

Floyd Mayweather Junior fought Oscar De La Hoya with a 154lb maximum and chose to weigh just 150lbs, because he was more effective like that; DLH preferred to weigh 154lbs for the fight. They both could've weighed whatever they liked so long as they didn't exceed 154lbs.

In Ali's early fight against Duke Sabedong, Ali preferred to weigh 194.5 against a 225lb opponent, because he was most effective like that when there was no minimum or maximum weight imposed on him.

One Stanley Ketchley fought a 205.5lbs Jack Johnson for the heavyweight title and chose to weigh only 170.25lbs. SK obviously thought himself most effective at that weight, even with no limits on him.

Nowadays Wlad chooses to come in around 240lbs for his no-limit fights. He could weigh 340lbs if he fancied, or 140lbs, but 240lbs is his most effective weight so that's what he chooses to weigh.

I respect that you've done some analysis of records to try to approach this question, but the results depend on the assumptions as ever, and one of the suppressed premises of your argument is that being heavier is always better, which simply isn't true. We'd often expect a 240lbs guy to beat a 140lbs guy, but we don't know that he will, and less so when it's 220 'v' 190. Many fighters take both cruiser and heavyweight fights, and might stay sub-200lbs for both, because that's their best fighting weight. They know that it gives them the best chance of beating sub-200 and 200+ guys.
It is then a thorny issue, what to do about adjusting for likely weight disadvantage, but eliminating fights where the opponent was sub-200, and claiming that such no-limit fights weren't heavyweight fights just isn't the right answer! The opinions are incorporated into the assumptions used as the rules of the analysis, and many of us disagree with them!