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

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


Page 24 of 26
  1. drama

    drama Active Member Full Member

    506
    0
    Jan 21, 2008
    kill yourself.
     
    drama, Jul 2, 2008
    drama, Jul 2, 2008
    #346
  2. knn

    knn amanda Full Member

    1,088
    0
    Jun 21, 2008
    That's actually the problem with oldtime-lovers. No matter how WEAK (punchwise) a fighter was. As long as he had a good chin (= was involved in 12rounders, 15rounders) he is great.

    Maybe this is the basic difference between nowadays and formerdays:
    I prefer KOing boxers (judging by the critique Wlad got for not KOing Ibragimov it's probably safe to say that MOST of nowadays heavyweight fans prefer KOing boxers)
    WHILE the PASTTIME LOVERS prefer chins.

    So it's basically fists vs chins (now vs then). Which probably means that pasttime lovers prefer heavyweights to box like cruisers or even lower.
     
    knn, Jul 2, 2008
    knn, Jul 2, 2008
    #347
  3. Drexl

    Drexl Your Hero Full Member

    4,427
    1
    Jan 24, 2005

    Name them.
     
    Drexl, Jul 2, 2008
    Drexl, Jul 2, 2008
    #348
  4. darwoody

    darwoody New Member Full Member

    2
    1
    May 24, 2008
    You PREFER?? Doesn't that involve OPINION??
    The reason Wlad got a lot of stick for the Ibragimov fight was because he refused to engage him. I for one think he could have easily knocked him out but short changing the spectators wont win you many fans.
     
    darwoody, Jul 2, 2008
    darwoody, Jul 2, 2008
    #349
  5. ron u.k.

    ron u.k. Boxing Addict banned

    4,920
    12
    Feb 14, 2006
    you've obviously got a fixation with boxrec as well and the black and white of records.jimmy young for example was probably mismanaged.they put him in with shavers who'd had 40 odd fights after about 10 or 11 fights which was nonsense.however after that when he got his act together he could hang in there with any of them.for 3 or 4 years in the mid seventies nobody wanted him.he beat lyle twice,foreman,drew with shavers and in my opinion beat ali although they gave ali the decision and this opinion coming from an ali hugger! sure he lost fights and a big chunk of his losses are at the end of his time.handled properly he could have achieved much more.you just can't judge a fighter off the black and white print of a record.for example all the fighters who you qualify as "non bums" on wlads record how many of them do you think would have beat jimmy young?
     
    ron u.k., Jul 3, 2008
    ron u.k., Jul 3, 2008
    #350
  6. knn

    knn amanda Full Member

    1,088
    0
    Jun 21, 2008
    But this is an OPINION. I can always go around and EXPLAIN why a boxer lost this or lost that.

    Of course I can judge a fighter by his record.

    Look, Jimmy Young has 11 TKOs (total career, including all his fights).
    That's already bad, but it gets worse when you deduct all his below-200 opponents:

    What heavyweights (200+) has Jimmy Young KOed?

    Memphis Al Jones 11-35(KO23!!) chinachin
    Mike Boswell 15-24(KO13!!) chinachin
    Wendell Bailey 13-3
    Don Halpin 9-23(KO14!!) chinachin
    Gordon Racette 38-6(KO5) chinachin
    Frank Lux 17-22(KO17!!) chinachin

    Now TELL ME THAT THESE AREN'T CHINACHINNED journey men (except Bailey).

    So JIMMY YOUNG's 200+ record is:
    22 wins (KO6, see above) - 13 losses (KO 1)

    But wait, what is his record when we delete all bums (the same calculation like I did in my first post):

    Jimmy Young's 200+ non-bum record:
    10 wins (2 KOs vs Bailey, Racette) - 8 losses (1 KO)

    I don't see many nowadays heavies having problems with Jimmy Young. He poses no threat (since he KOs basically bums only) and loses against better opposition.

    I mean, COME ON, you can't be that biased. Read his record!
     
    knn, Jul 3, 2008
    knn, Jul 3, 2008
    #351
  7. knn

    knn amanda Full Member

    1,088
    0
    Jun 21, 2008
    Yes, I "prefer". My preferation in that post of mine has nothing to do with my calculations, but is some "philosophical speculation".

    I think, that the reception of this fight would be way different if Wlad had KOed Ibragimov. In other words: No matter how Wlads' STYLE was, as soon as there is a KO the people are happy.

    Ibragimov had luck that some heavy attacks were interupted by the break.
     
    knn, Jul 3, 2008
    knn, Jul 3, 2008
    #352
  8. knn

    knn amanda Full Member

    1,088
    0
    Jun 21, 2008
    All fights where he fights opponents with a better win:loss ratio than 3:1 (whole career record of the opponent). This is how a non-bum is defined.
     
    knn, Jul 3, 2008
    knn, Jul 3, 2008
    #353
  9. Drexl

    Drexl Your Hero Full Member

    4,427
    1
    Jan 24, 2005
    Surely you aren't dumb enough to believe that your OPINIONS on who is a bum and who isn't is anything more than OPINION?

    Sure, you have posted an arbitrary rule in order to qualify, if you have ANY boxing knowledge at al, you surely know that there is more to a fighter than stats. Say if Wlad fought Vitali 50 times and lost 15 of them by razor-thin decision, then Wlad is a bum in your opinion? Even if he won the remaining 45 times by KO?


    This thread will go down in ESB folklore as one of the most pathetic and contrived spin-jobs ever conceived.

    You're on the path to being a legend. Any time a nuthugger uses twisted stats and no intelligence to back up a laughable claim, then it will be known as "doing a knn". :yep
     
    Drexl, Jul 3, 2008
    Drexl, Jul 3, 2008
    #354
  10. Drexl

    Drexl Your Hero Full Member

    4,427
    1
    Jan 24, 2005
    No, NAME THEM.

    Hopefully the process of typing out some of thse names will make you realize what a ****ed up pathetic criteria this is that you have dreamed up.

    If a fighter is 30-9 against opponents with losing records, then he is NOT a bum?
    If a fighter is 30-11 against all top-10 opponents, then he IS a bum?



    Sorry chief, it simply doesn't work like that no matter how much you want it to.
     
    Drexl, Jul 3, 2008
    Drexl, Jul 3, 2008
    #355
  11. Samurai

    Samurai I lost an avatar bet Full Member

    3,634
    4
    Mar 30, 2008
    :rofl
     
    Samurai, Jul 3, 2008
    Samurai, Jul 3, 2008
    #356
  12. icemax

    icemax Indian Red Full Member

    27,158
    2
    Apr 24, 2008
    I stopped taking the initial post seriously when I read: "Jack Dempsey had only 1 heavyweight fight, thus he cannot make it by any means into the top ranks. "

    What about, Firpo, Willard, Fulton and Morris X3, all over 200 pounds, and non-bums by your criteria. The time and effort that Wlad butt snorkelers will go to big up their man is ****ing lame.
     
    icemax, Jul 3, 2008
    icemax, Jul 3, 2008
    #357
  13. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,948
    17,329
    Jul 19, 2004
    Lame.
     
    Rumsfeld, Jul 3, 2008
    Rumsfeld, Jul 3, 2008
    #358
  14. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,948
    17,329
    Jul 19, 2004
    No, it's falwed because Wladimir has never really beaten anyone that good, aside from Sam Peter and Chris Byrd, and Wlad represented a stylistic nightmare for Byrd.

    :smoke
     
    Rumsfeld, Jul 3, 2008
    Rumsfeld, Jul 3, 2008
    #359
  15. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,948
    17,329
    Jul 19, 2004
    Total crap!

    :smoke
     
    Rumsfeld, Jul 3, 2008
    Rumsfeld, Jul 3, 2008
    #360
Page 24 of 26