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

First of all I consider George Foreman the best in your list. I think he is one of the seldom boxers who had the physique and power comparable to the nowadays boxers. HOWEVER even his record is not outstanding: Before facing Ali Foreman had ONLY 5 non-bums of which 4 were small (Peralta 6'0'', Chuvalo 6'0'', Kirkman 6'1', Frazier 5'11.5'', Ken Norton 6'3''). So Ali was MUCH MORE experienced than Foreman.

• I already wrote about Liston. In the first fight he quit on his stool. In the second fight he admitted he made a dive.
• Frazier was blind on 1 eye his whole life. Frazier belongs there where Foreman put him.
• The same applies to Ken Norton. Foreman TKO2. This is what would happen if nowadays boxers would box Ken Norton. I see not much in Norton's record that would impress me. THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE: He has lost basically TO EVERY BETTER opponent he has faced. In fact here is the typical "magic mind trick" of old-time-fans at work: "Norton must be good, since Ali had so much trouble with him". Yawn.
• The win against Foreman should probably be discounted from Ali's record, since Ali's OWN trainer (assistent trainer) stated that they paid to poison Foreman before the Rumble. If you choose to keep that win then, yes, gassing Foreman by rope-a-dope (including clinching 44 seconds per round) is Ali's second greatest achievement. The greatest achievement is that Ali managed to have no re-match against Foreman (I am not implying that Ali WANTED to have no rematch).
• Floyd Patterson. Cool guy. BUT 6'0'' AND STARTED WITH 160+. He fought at 200+ lbs ONE TIME IN HIS LIFE. This is the opponent you compare Wlad's opponents to? FEATHERFIST Patterson has lost to (and was floored by) basically EVERY GOOD OPPONENT he has faced. What is he doing on your list?
• Ron Lyle is a better opponent, but with ONLY 9 non-bum wins and with a featherfisted record (35% non-bum KO ratio) he is not necessarily overrated, but a complete AVERAGE STANDARD opponent. Foreman TKO5, by the way, so this is approximately where he belongs. Ron Lyle is comparable to Monte Barrett probably, with some noticable wins and noticable losses. Or comparable to Tony Thompson, except that Thompson is taller.
• Jerry Quarry (6'0'') started with 180+ and had in his whole career 20 non-bum fights (that's quite good... until you read on). Of those 20 he won 5 (FIVE) by KO and didn't win 11 (ELEVEN). Wooooow! Wlad should hide an run.

So, yes, these are OK boxers, but far from better than nowadays fighters or nowadays opponents of Wlad.

 

Where the heck did I conclude he is ATG? I couldn't have concluded this because I ran the stats with only a handful of boxers. I simply threw in a bunch of famous boxers to compare their records. It's better than endless threads with opinion wars.

Maybe Lennox will come out to be the best. Maybe Vitali Klitschko. Maybe Alberto Santiago Lovell. But so far Wlad does pretty good and is definitely material for Top 10. I just wanted to point out that the oldtimers ARE OVERRATED, while the "newtimers" are UNDERRATED. And that oldtimers and newtimers ARE COMPARABLE.

And I am not arguing for Wlad. I am just defending my calculations. If Lennox Lewis would be #1 in my stats then I would defend my stats against anyone who claims that Lennox' opponents were so much worse than Ali's.

 

I have no idea. I am completely open to any boxer being #1 who survives my strict inspection. And I am not willing to put ANYONE at #1 who OBJECTIVELY fails a simple record check, like Marciano (who is probably the most overrated heavy of all times).

As much as I doubt Ali can make it to #1 (since he was featherfisted and had a lot of trouble against mediocre opposition) I must admit that he fought the best opposition available. And no this is no contradiction.

And as much as I like George Foreman, I doubt it that he can make it #1 since he fought MOSTLY BUMS his entire life.

I doubt that any featherfist can make it to #1 (Ali, Archie Moore, Tunney, Chris Byrd, Larry Holmes, Peralta etc) since they are not doing the thing that defines heavyweight.

And as much as I like Vitali Klitschko's style, he won't make it to #1 because he didn't fight enough fights so far.

And as much as I HATE RUIZ, he has a somewhat good record. (Maybe I should include clinching statistics, but that would put Ali even more down than Ruiz.)

Tyson fought the best there was but he KOed bums and small opponents only (and he feared featherfisted Foreman. Yes, Foreman II was slow and featherfisted).

Tua is really strange since he KOed all non-bums but had trouble with bums.

If you would force me to choose an ATG right now at the spot, I would probably choose (since it's supported already by my record analysis and his physique) Lennox Lewis. But then again he had only 41 wins and a somewhat low KO ratio. Argh!

I am completely OPEN to put ANYONE to #1 as long as it is OBJECTIVELY supported by a good record, meaning that the boxer was doing what a top heavy is supposed to do:

• Fighting good + hardpunching opposition
• Winning + KOing that opposition

Good opposition = Good win-loss ratio of the opponent
Hardpunching opposition = Good KO-ratio of the opponent
KOing that opposition = Many of these opponents KOed

Very simple.

 

By YOUR logic Muhammad Ali was great so anyone who gives Ali trouble can not be a bum.

By my logic Jimmy Young was a featherfisted bum with a good defense/chin: 34 (KO 11)-19(2) speaks a clear language.

I know that he has big name, was even considered a top fighter once, but get over it: his record won't change.

Sorry I prefer to check a guy's REAL record and not opinionate about a single (or two single fights).

Walcott: I answered 176 posts ago.

Joey Maxim and Bennie Briscoe are not heavyweights, so I won't go into their records. Any of my statements regarding "featherfistedness", "KO ratios" etc are related to heavyweights. I have not analyzed the records of light heavyweights to know what should be considered bummish or featherfisted.

 

A very favourable OPINION about Jimmy Young you have. Unfortunately it collides with the reality (his record).

 

The rules are simple. The calculation is tiresome.

 

Yes, it is flawed because my calculation sees it black and white:
Bum or Not. Whereas it should be a gliding scale.

 

Aaah, so now that the "oh so great opposition of Ali" looks far smaller under the light of record scrutiny you have to revert to insults. But thank you, that you at least didn't use an excess of smilies.