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

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by knn, Jun 21, 2008.


  1. knn

    knn amanda Full Member

    1,088
    0
    Jun 21, 2008
    Ali's 20th fight. Not what I define as early days.
     
  2. dits

    dits Active Member Full Member

    1,011
    0
    Oct 7, 2007
    I'm sorry if someone mentioned this before but the non-bum definition is just flawed. How do you classify a non-bum who's basically a cherry picker from an honest to goodness fighter who faced great opposition or when a boxer fought a prime opponent to someone who's shot?

    And is this "statistical method" any more subjective than with using a method involving an evaluation of a boxer's talent & style, quality of opposition and number of belts won?
     
  3. Antsu

    Antsu Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,143
    367
    Mar 5, 2006
    1) No you didn’t. You are just unbiased record analyzer. :D

    2) I didn’t say I want him to proof how weak Klitchko is. Wlad is one of the best in division.

    Haye has already unified cruiser division him winning heavyweight title would be great accomplishment.

    And it would just be funny to see cruiserweight ending Wlads reign after all these years Wlad fans saying how superheavys could crush every fighter in past.

    If Haye would lose it would be impressive victory for Klitchko, but it wouldn’t make cruiserweight division weak in anyway.
    And after Toney he is my favorite active fighter so I naturally would want him to win.

    3) What I have hear David already annihilated Klitchko four times behind close doors in 10-rounders. Everyone of them ended inside two rounds.
    But that just what I have heard.:yep
     
  4. knn

    knn amanda Full Member

    1,088
    0
    Jun 21, 2008
    I answered this already several times.

    You mean like Ali beating a 45 year old Archie Moore? Or like Foreman facing only 7 non-bums in the 70ies (including half-blind Joe Frazier)? See my posts above where I pick apart the "stellar high opposition" of Ali.

    Talent and style MANIFEST THEMSELVES as wins and KO-wins. So no need to refer to subjective evaluations.

    Quality of opposition... was a topic of many of my posts in this thread. Please see above.

    "Number of belts won" (and "Number of belt defenses") IS BY ITSELF a very alluring statistic, BUT:
    • Is a world title of the 70ies less valuable than the world title of 2000ies? (Since the world is approx. twice as big now)
    • Is a world title of the 70ies less valuable than the world title of 2000ies? (Since it didn't include eastern-european boxers)
    • Is a world title of the 70ies as valuable as EBU 2000?
    • Is WBA as much worth as WBC?
    • Is WBA as much worth as "World title without the Alphabets"?
    • Is a world title with a 40-0 opponent (Ali vs Foreman) more worth than 58-40 (Louis vs Roper)?
    Because of these problems I decided that a world title is just a NAME for a bout. Thus it's counted like any other bout.
     
  5. knn

    knn amanda Full Member

    1,088
    0
    Jun 21, 2008
    Since I support the garbage by stats I prefer the term "fragrant garbage"
     
  6. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,519
    15,938
    Jul 19, 2004
    Anyone who ranks Wlad any HIGHER than 15-20 on an all-time list (and even that is being generous) should kindly share the drugs.

    :smoke
     
  7. knn

    knn amanda Full Member

    1,088
    0
    Jun 21, 2008
    1. The drugs are called REALITY ADJUSTMENTs.
    2. On my all-time list ONLY achievements in the ring (= end scores) count. If you add non-measurable attributes like "presence" or "ringmanship" then you might even get a list where Rumsfeld is #1 and Bush is #2.
    3. Since you disagree with my record analysis, could you tell why you put whom on YOUR top10?
     
  8. curmudgeon

    curmudgeon Active Member Full Member

    1,344
    0
    Jun 17, 2007
    Wlad beat Ibragimov who beat Briggs who beat Foreman who beat Frazier who Beat Ali.

    So Wlad beats Ali.

    As good reasoning as any.
     
  9. curmudgeon

    curmudgeon Active Member Full Member

    1,344
    0
    Jun 17, 2007
    Most of the sacred american ATGs are hype jobs of the american promoters.

    They do not hold a candle to modern athletes.
     
  10. curmudgeon

    curmudgeon Active Member Full Member

    1,344
    0
    Jun 17, 2007
    :deal

    American boxing in the 70s is a hype machine.
     
  11. knn

    knn amanda Full Member

    1,088
    0
    Jun 21, 2008
    Rather the other way around: "heavily tainted by subjective data".

    Cool random word generator you have there. I hope your ATG is not THAT random.
     
  12. knn

    knn amanda Full Member

    1,088
    0
    Jun 21, 2008
    Such logic actually works mostly within fans of good-old-times:
    "Wow! Ali beat Foreman!"
    "So? Does it mean anything?"
    "Yes, because Foreman was the guy who beat Frazier!"
    "So? Is Frazier any good?"
    "Yes, he is the one who beat Ali."
     
  13. PH|LLA

    PH|LLA VIP Member Full Member

    79,438
    2,646
    Feb 1, 2007
  14. ron u.k.

    ron u.k. Boxing Addict banned

    4,920
    12
    Feb 14, 2006
    what an absolute and utter bag of shite.:patsch
     
  15. liljp361

    liljp361 Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,676
    56
    Jan 6, 2007
    How dare you compare Wlad to Ali....