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

I know, I wrote it in my first post that Valuev has an abysmal bum ratio and is overprotected. That can be read from my calculations.

 

Did you just compare running with heavyweight boxing?

Yes, that's why we have TWO record lists. One for 100m and one for marathon.

BUT THIS IS NOT HOW BOXING FANS ARE VIEWING IT.

They _DO_ compare Ali's TKO14 with Wlad's UD12. They _DO_ think that Marciano was better heavyweight than nowadays heavyweights merely because is called "HEAVYWEIGHT".

To be fair you would have to make 1 record list for any regulation change.
Put Ali at #1 but don't include Lennox or Mike there.
Put Lennox #1 but don't include Ali or Frazier there.

But this is exactly HOW NOBODY WANTS TO HAVE IT.

They all want to see "A heavyweight ranking of all times".

So we must find UNIFIED RULES.

Did you just compare a 140+ vs 140+ fight with heavyweights?

Sorry, the plan for heavyweights definitely not to wait until round 15 to TKO someone.

Even if. You cannot claim that ANY heavy has a plan to NOT KO someone fast, instead to wait after the 12th round.

That is problematic, but for comparability reasons we have to find unified regulations.

I disagree, altough you used caps, boldness and underlining. I think my alternative of converting TKO13+ to UD12 is reasonable and acceptable.

Of course there is NO CLEAR indication.
By my own calculation Puritty is a bum and was very unlikely to beat Wladimir Klitschko. But Wlad gassed and a TKO loss is a TKO loss.

But this is a comparison of the career achievements not single fights or single clashes between two fighters.

Wrong. He _IS_ better against them since he usually KOs them.

 

Thank you for bringing up Brian Nielsen.

This is the same problem as with Sam Langford: Many fights but no outstanding wins. And these many fights simply add up.

It's time to re-calculate 2 levels deep = with quality of opposition.

 

I would not necessarily say that Wlad is the all-time-heavy, but if you look it objectively ANY of the past great names would have greatest difficulties with Wlad. And that fact is constantly denied or laughed away by old-time-fans (or by believers of the brainwashing repetition that the "heavies suck").

After a few years Wlad will retire and people will (as they alway do) bash the then-current heavyweight division and will want Wlad back who would "wipe the floor with any" of the then-current pitiful heavies.

I wanted to introduce a calculation THAT HELPS to OBJECTIVELY assess a fighter's value aside from hype or opinion or outside-of-ring-behavior. My calculation WILL ALWAYS have flaws but nevertheless can be a great help: First throw out the bum fights and then then check the KO-ratio.

What I want to say: It seems that boxing fans are maybe the most unthankful fans regarding a current sports scene and they dwell in pasttime memories of boxers (whom maybe they were impressed by as children).

When watching Wlad (or, heck, even Samuel Peter or Valuev) you could be watching history in the making (I don't claim it's history in the making BUT IT COULD BE). If Wlad KOs Valuev (or vice versa) then this could be exactly a DEFINING fight like Ali vs Foreman that in 10 years will put Wlad at #1 of ATG.

What I observed from the ESB comment box is that people BEFORE or SHORTLY AFTER a fight try to justify why an opponent LOST to Wlad (e.g. Brewster's eye) but already after a week or so the opinion changes and people accept Wlad's win and admit his domination. The same stuff with Ibragimov: You may complain about Wlad's terrible style, but after a year nobody cares anymore and simply books the fight as "UD win won with the left hand".

Look how nice people are to Lennox Lewis now.