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

Noone wants to go 15 rounds to KO someone. Sorry, but it's much more likely that you FAILED to TKO your opponent within 12 than that you PLANNED to not KO him within 12.

YOU ARE WRONG by saying I am punishing OLD-TIME heavyweights only. I delete all cruiserweight fights of Evander Holyfield, too as an example. And everybody nowadays agrees, that David Haye's below-200 record MEANS NOTHING at the heavies. And this is exactly what I am saying: Cruiserweight stays at cruiserweight.

I don't care (and nobody should care) HOW THE FIGHTS WERE CALLED.

I could call them "supa dupa killanigga heavyweight", but if it's 189 vs 188 (Marciano vs Moore) then it's... 189 vs 188 and not a heavyweight fight as we see it today.

If you claim, I penalize Ali, because Ali would have if he could have (= Ali boxed below-200 because there weren't enough heavyweights available at that time), then this is merely A SPECULATION of yours, because you don't know why Ali chose to box below-200 fighters. But even IF HE CHOSE THE BEST AVAILABLE: Fights below-200 look like cruiserweight then and now.

ON THE AVERAGE Ali's opponents are 30 lbs LIGHTER than Klitschkos, his lightest opponent is 30 lbs LIGHTER, and his heaviest opponent is 30 lbs LIGHTER. So by weight alone Ali would have had more difficulties today than he already had THEN.

Ali's average opponent is 204. Klitschkos 234. Klitschko has fought enough heavies to make him sit in the top rank (by my calculations) even after the next weight class increases.

No, David Haye voluntarily boxed against opponents he felt good with. He voluntarily CHOSE NOT TO BOX ANYONE 200+.

When Wladimir voluntarily chooses to go below-200 then I, too, would delete these fights off the heavyweight record.

I don't penalize old heavies, because THIS RULE APPLIES TO ALL.

But what do you want to do me? To include fights 130+ to the heavyweight record just because they could have been called "heavy" in medieval times?

This is a fact. He WAS the HEAVY champ. Now, he couldn't possibly be a heavy champ with being-always-below-190. As we see it now, cruiser Marciano was "what they THEN called a heavyweight".

It's not old vs new, but strict vs less strict.

If in future they will allow Samuel Peter to box against WOMEN, then I will delete it from the record, since Ali couldn't do so.

If they allowed in medieval fights to KO an opponent by low blows then I would change the result from KO to UD or even delete the fight off the record.

Moreover, imagine I had compared Ali vs Sam Langford, then I would have changed Langford's KO16 (Jim Barry) to a UD. So in that case it would favour Ali.

Let me also add 1 important thing:
I could leave all fights in (even below 140) and multiply the fight result with the weight (= the heavier the opponent the greater the win). This is an alternative (and on the average true, since fighting gets harder the heavier the opponent is). But I can guarantee you that the reaction to SUCH a calculation would be far worse than it has been now to my premise "to all below-200 fights cruiserweight". Can you imagine I calculate fat Buster Mathis 25% better than Frazier? Just because he was overweight? It would be a ridiculous calculation.

That's not true, imagine they would allow 15 rounders in the future. A KO15 then would have to be changed to UD, too. Has nothing to do with bias or old-era-hate.

This is true and IT IS A SERIOUS FLAW and I mentioned it already in several posts.

The reason why I didn't include this calculation is because so far I did all the calculations by hand. It took me hours for these few fighters. If I have to do it for their opponents first (= to calculate their quality), it would take ages. Just wait until I write my software. I am curious as anyone else who was winning over the most worthy competition. Maybe it's someone we never heard of.

Very good cruisers. Top 10 probably. Although maybe overrated by childhood memories.

1) I am not penalizing, merely stating that fights below-200 are cruiserfights, no matter time, place or designation.
2) I am "penalizing" David Haye as much as Holyfield as much Ali. I can live with that.

 

OK, but where is it written? The only thing I read in the regulations is the term "Weight limits". Limit is a limit both ways.

And stuff like "The weight determines the category. Should any of the contenders, either Champion or Challenger, fail in reaching the limit weight determined in the category, at the indicated date for the official weighing, each one or both of them, shall have two additional hours to meet the weight prescribed by the regulations." As I see it, it's both "weighing to much" and "weighing too little.

Wikipedia writes "In 1920, the minimum weight for a heavyweight was set at 175 pounds". So there ARE minumum weights.

I mean I am thankfully corrected if I am wrong, so can anyone find an URL where the absence of minimum weights is officially stated?