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

You can redeem yourself now by explaining how Tyson would knock the **** out of Wlad. I think everyone is ready for that one now if you don't mind.

 

How many rounds has Vitali Klitschko lost in his career?
How many has Evander Holyfield?

Now, who's got the better legacy and claim to greatness?

 

Interesting work you have done there, much appreciated, especially the effort that was put into it.

 

Because your comparison of records includes your opinion of what fighters were good and what fighters were bad. You don't even tell us WHICH fighters were "bums" and "non-bums". Therefore, someone with a pro Klitscho agenda could easily have counted fighters that most consider C level fighters at best as "non bums" and counted what are commonly considered B level fighters as "bums" for Lewis or Ali. That is how comparing records can be a weak argument. There has to be comprehensive comparison. You haven't done that. You have simply labeled certain fighters and discounted them without sharing who they were.

There are many other holes (massive ones) in your argument. A huge one is that you erased under 200lb fights from record. The majority, vast majority as a matter of fact, of boxing's history, HW was defined as 190 and above. You have automatically swayed your criteria in favor of modern HWs. You also erased Marciano from the record book.

 

Dont wink at me you cheeky little *******.
You're argument is too black and white. Objectivity is a part of boxing, whether it's scoring rounds, or determining which fighter is better than the other. And, as a boxing fan, are you really telling me you don't see the obvious greatness in Tyson and Ali? I would pick either over Wlad.

 

Idiot.

 

The fighters that lost 25% or more of their fights are the "bums", and that same criteria was used to tweak the records of all the HW's in the study. So, in that sense I would say it was a fair evaluation.

 

No its not. Because there are many fighters who build their records fighting guys who have lost 30% or more of their fights. Then as soon as they fight a contender level fighter, they get stopped and then retire. They wouldn't be counted as bums, but we have no clue how good they really are because they never fought a sustained amount of good caliber opposition. It also doesn't take into account age or WHEN the fight took place. Lastly, eras, as I said, are different. The observable skill level has dropped at the HW level.

On top of this, removing fighters over 190 but under 200 removes quite a few fights. Louis fought in an era where this was the norm, as did Marciano. It's slanted criteria.

 

Your analysis of the data base is not reliable because there have been some cultural changes within the sport of professional boxing. These days they fight less frequently and the number of easy opponents is usually a higher percentage of the total. Combine that with a general deterioration in boxing skills at the club level you get too may guys with clearly bloated records. The concept "non-bum," by your definition, is not a legitimate way of contrasting modern day boxers to their counterparts in the past. When a man fights better quality opposition and fights more frequently he is going to sustain loses. Losing in that instance does not make him a "bum."

The Klitschkos might look good on paper but when did they ever have a "Thrilla in Manilla? They didn't and never will.

 

I see your point, but I think that his way of evaluating lesser competition is more fair than personal opinion.
I agree with you that removing fighters under 200 is a mistake.

 

I am not so easily dissuaded. You just repeated yourself. You countered nothing I actually posted.

1) I saw what you called a bum. But that is not how to define a bum, as has been pointed out to you here 4-5 times now. It's not even objective, because it doesn't take into account the competition level a fighter fought to achieve his record. It also doesn't take into account age or time of the fight. Ray Mercer would be counted on Wladimir Klitscho record as equal to the Mercer that Lewis fought. They are not equal fighters. Klitscho will get credit for fighters like Cody Koch....the very definition of a C level or lower fighter with an inflated record.

2) The fighters were defined as HW's for a reason. The mere fact that you feel the need to change them shows a flaw in your criteria. Their weight doesn't indicate that their skill level or even physical attributes were diminished in comparison to larger HW's of today. I could just as easily point out that fighters of the past didn't have the opportunity to blow up their records against as many big, slow, and uncoordinated oafs. Marciano and Louis were great HW's. Not CW's. If you need to change history to make an objective analysis, you need to re-evaluate.

You are going to have to use criteria which takes into account other things besides sheer numbers.