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

That's why you have to delete the bums out of the record. Otherwise a hard puncher could line up 100 bums, KO them and become "the hardest KOing man on the planet".

Archie Moore by my calculations :
70 non-bum fights (that's a lot, but mind you I included all of his non-heavyweight fights, so don't compare this with Lennox or Klitschko)

non-bum:bum ratio 31% -> that's bad -> Archie was fighting most of his life bums.

Of the 70 fights Archie won 51 (19 by non-KO) +6 losses against bums

win/bout ratio is approx 65% (51 wins per 76 counted bouts) -> BAD to MEDIOCRE

His KO ratio is approx. 40% = FEATHERFIST. I know I can already hear people shouting "I stopped reading when he said that Archie Moore is a featherfist" BUT OPEN YOUR EYES AND READ HIS GODDAM RECORD: He is a KOer of BUMs. Like Sam Langford. Archie Moore FAILS TO KO AS SOON AS THE OPPOSITION GETS SLIGHLTY BETTER. Now I am a bit unfair here, since he is not a heavy and for a non-heavy the KO might be good.

Please also note that since some of you think that Muhammad Ali is partly so great because he beat Archie Moore then let me point out some maybe unknown facts:

• Archie Moore was 45 when Ali beat him
• Archie Moore started with 140+ lbs
• Archie Moore has a mediocre record (see above), or rather a pumped up (bummed up) record

So far, all of your sacred all-time greats crumble when analyzed under light.

 

Less fair or more fair. The future will tell wether Wlad increases or decreases his record. AND whether Wlad's opponents increase or decrease their records. Since Wlad's career and his opponents' career isn't over ALL resulting calculations are of course preliminary. But, come on, THAT'S OBVIOUS. With every bout the rankings change.

Yes, and someone else might have been utterly dominant in his 1 and only contest. That would be 100% and would be ridiculous.

I am not biased against ANY BOXER. I am biased against OVERHYPING "oldtimers" and downtalking "nowadayers".

Because more fights are more representative. A stat like 60-4 is of course more representative than 6-0. I mean come on, THAT's OBVIOUS. That's not a hideous plan to destroy Louis. I have nothing against Louis.

Disprove is a hard word, theoretically any boxer can beat any other. Rather my stats don't support it.

But weighing enough is the premise for beating nowadays heavies. If Marciano or Dempsey never weighed enough HOW CAN WE KNOW HOW THEY PERFORM WHEN HEAVIER?

Exactly, I have assumed it. And who has data to support the counter-thesis (= that Dempsey or Marciano when wheighing 200+ could beat modern heavies), since they have NEVER DONE SO IN THEIR ENTIRE CAREER? This is the same stuff as claiming "Cruiser XY could beat current heavies". "Oh yeah? He hasn't beaten any so far, so how come you claim he can?" You see, if YOU claim that Marciano could beat them, then YOU have to support this thesis with some data. My data supports that it's more UNLIKELY than likely.

I re-checked my post and I admit that I have stated something unclearly there: A heavyweightfight is a fight where BOTH fighters are 200+. Sorry, it's my mistake.

No, it's not. Otherwise 1-0 (1 win by KO) would be 100% and better than any other boxer. Come on, THAT'S OBVIOUS. It's less representative.
Also if you think it through then a guy with a record of 1-0 is also not a bum because his win-loss ratio is INFINITE. I simply take numbers less than 10 as not representative enough. That's again not a hideous plan to downgrade old boxers but simple math. My first post was already long enough, I didn't want to explain every single special case that can come up. For example I have a little bit of different way to calculate KO ratios, and I also didn't share that since all the given calculations are not the final word anyway, but a first look.

If Dempsey's ratio is 1:0 and Foreman's is 50:1 then Foreman's ratio is BETTER because it's more representative. I write the ratio as % because it's more readable, but COME ON, written as percentage it may turn INFINITE (for example 1/0) thus it's actually NOT the correct way to write it. The correct way to do it is simply to write 1/0 or 50/1. ADDITIONALLY % (per centum) IS WRONG since noone has made 100 non-bum fights, so mathematically you shouldn't call it "per hundred". I mean, simple math logic.

Anyone can beat anyone in heavyweights. But there is some _likability_ or "indication by prior performance"

Correct, there is no factual evidence.

What is domination? Consistency? Longevity? Sounds like "heart", "durability", "footwork" and "ring dominance". This cannot be statistified and my theory is that if someone had really such a great footwork and dominance then it will come out as KOs, UDs and little losses.

I set up simple rules and ran through the records of a handful of nowadays and oldtimers. The biggest problem of my calculation is that it's only 1 level deep (= quality of opposition isn't integrated in the final result). The second biggest is, that below-200 bouts get lost. The third biggest is that KO13+ doesn't count. (By the way the more levels deep you go the longer you have to wait for the final result, since all boxers and opponents must retire before a definite result).

As I already pointed out this is the major flaw of all sports comparisons (not only boxing): Do we compare Wlad (with nowadays training) vs Louis (with the then-training) or Wlad vs a hypothetical Louis who would have been trained with modern methods. This flaw is inherent and not typical for my calculation.

 

What the heck? I pointed that out already at post #49 of this thread and repeated it since. My calculation (since it's by hand) distinguishes only between bums and non-bums, but not between non-bums and beaters-of-bums (= non-obvious bums).

But it WOULD hurt Ali. I don't understand what you mean. Assumed that it was 200+ then in my calculation (= the calculation in my first post) Ali would be credited with a win over a bum-beater. Had I calculated it 2 levels deep like Rumsfeld suggested then Ali would be hurt, because this WIN is DELETED then.

I think more will agree to a calculated list than to the hundreds of speculated and opinionated lists. Especially if they are not from the USA where every expert is patting every other expert as long as they agree that Muhammad is a god above all others.

 

I answered that already in several posts.

 

There are 6 billion opinions on earth regarding any subject.

OK, let's see HOW (as you claim) OBVIOUS your example is:

You are doing some magical mind trick here:
Joe Frazier is a superb boxer because he beat Ali who is a superb boxer because he beat Foreman who is a superb boxer because he beat Frazier.

My, god did you know that Frazier WAS BLIND ON ONE EYE? A half-blind small (5'11.5'') boxer is given as an example of the OBVIOUS dominance of ALI?

Brewster's eye operation is mentioned in forums (after which actually the retina can sit more firm than naturally) WHILE COMPLETELY IGNORING that Ali HAD THE HARDEST FIGHT OF HIS LIFE against a small half-blind opponent.

Joe Frazier has only 12 non-bum 200+ fights (against the same 7 guys): 8 wins (4 by non-KO), 4 losses (3 by KO). The number of fights is too low to make a somewhat valid assessment whether Frazier was actually good. He was put on his seat in such a dominant fashion by Foreman, that I have to assume that Frazier was mediocre at best: I mean, look at his record: 4 KO wins (featherfist) + 4 losses. Yawn.

Now to Foreman and Sonny Liston: YES, THEY WERE GOOD.

Foreman was Ali's greatest win. But: What do we have to think about Ali's OWN trainer Drew Brown (assistent trainer more exact) bragging that Foreman's cook was bribed to put poison into the food of Foreman before the Rumble? Why would anyone say something like that?

Now to Sonny Liston:
14 non-bum (heavyweight and cruiserweight) (with the same 10 boxers):
11 WINS (3 by non-KO), lost 3 +1 loss by 1 bum (Marty Marshall)
6 non-bum 200+ fights:, 4 wins (all by KO), 2 losses
Again, it's too early (with only 4 KO wins) to asses that Liston was good or not.

In their first fight Liston quit on his stool after 6 rounds and (because that fight ended so controversial) a second fight was ordered. Ali threw his "phantom punch" (round 1) and Liston later admitted in an interview that he used this first opportunity to go down because of fear of retaliation from Ali's Islamic sect (Nation of Islam). So until this very day the results of Liston vs Ali ARE questioned. HOWEVER, since I have the strict rule of only considering official scores I CREDIT ALI WITH 2 KOs against a supposedly good opponent.

So, yes, his win against (drugged or not-drugged) Foreman and Liston (quitter and/or diver) are probably his greatest achievements.

If this is why you think Ali is #1 and the division was great then you are free to feel so. It doesn't impress me however.

And it definitely doesn't make any of modern heavyweights look weaker.

But you are comparing heavyweight fighters nowadays with a non-existing heavyweight division at Ali's times. At Ali's times a lot of so called heavyweights were below 200 (so you are comparing 200+ with 200-) or were simply pumped up cruiserweights. So you are comparing pears with apples, just because pears have been called "apples" once.

I can imagine current heavies going 15 rounds. Are you claiming that in ALL the heavyweight fights you saw recently the heavies are sitting completely devastated on their stools unable to breathe after 12 rounds? It's not true.

Moreover I have been critisized for converting TKO13+ to UD12. But in your example you do exactly the same: If you convert the

This content is protected

of a 12-rounder (which is faster than a 15-rounder, if we can believe Marciano Frazier) then of course fighters who fight 12 rounds are as finished as then-fighters fighting 15 rounds: BECAUSE THEY ADJUSTED THEIR PACE. Moreover THEY ARE FIGHTING HEAVIER OPPONENTS. (As I mentioned Klitschkos average opponent is 30 lbs heavier than Ali's average opponent. The Frazier of "Frazier vs Ali I" would be Klitschko's LIGHTEST (205 lbs) opponent. Ali lost against that Frazier).

Opinion.

And not by boxing records?

I didn't make a comparison to the other current heavies. I made a comparison to Ali, Lennox etc and so far Wlad is pretty good, not only compared to the current bunch, but to the pasttimers, too.

 

Obviously you didn't read my first post of what makes a boxer fall below the usable margin (b-u-m). I realize that names like Jimmy Young and Archie Moore ARE BIG NAMES, but I also see that it's "bigness by hype" and not "by achievements".

This is exactly what I mean: YOU start to mention Wlad's record again.
Why the heck does anyone think here that I even LIKE Klitschko? It just so happens that after my calculations he is better than any of the so called ATGs. If you have ideas for an objective calculation that could make Wlad look worse and Ali better THEN YOU ARE FREE TO SHARE WITH ME.