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

You will have to prove that the fighters below 200lbs and over 190 that they fought were lesser fighters than the fighters OVER 200lbs of today. Your analysis is based off of competition. If the fighters less than 200lbs but over 190 were better than the 240lbs fighters that are around now, you are again, slanting the criteria.

This is why Boxrec rankings don't work. This is why your system is flawed.

 

you referring to any pro boxers as 'bum' is what i was talking about. :-(

 

:rofl :rofl :good

 

:rofl

it's a chick? now everything makes sense (joyce carol oates and women fighters please excuse me but you would all probably agree that this is the type of chick who gives sporty types like yourselves a bad name).

do you have wlad and vitali posters with coochie juice all over them, KNN?

 

Yeah, or the chances that a bum like Vlad standing 6'6" would have against a crusher like the 7'0" Valuev.

Pity some folks don't know that size dicates fight results.

 

now, if i have read right you are also a female. you would be the exact opposite of this knn groupie. if i am wrong then sorry. :good

 

By your criteria, if Butterbean fought Klitscho, Butterbean would NOT be counted as a bum and be a quality win.

 

As soon as I read you disqualified Dempsey and Marciano because they had zero heavyweight fights I stopped reading.

 

Comparing two records doesn't compare their achievments. All records are not created equal. Or are you going to argue that Corrie Sanders record of 41-4 is better than Holyfield's 42-9?

There are too many flaws my friend. I applaud the effort, if it was made in good faith. But after re-reading your original post, it is clear that it was not. You seem to be doing your best to uplift the Klitscho name by downgrading other fighters. You also discount their KO's or TKO's past the 12th, when it is arguably harder to go for a KO in the 13th than to coast to a UD in 12.

 

Who said I wanted to upvalue the old time HW's? It's a flaw no matter who it helps. A significant one. If a fighter beats a ton of bums and inflates his record, you count him as a good win. This is not fair to anyone.

And in reality, that math you just did only works if all the fighters losses came at above 200 even using your own criteria. For all you know, the fighter is 20-5 and he has 10 fights below 200 but lost 3 of them. So he is 8-2 against 200lb + fighters. So it may not upvalue those fighters at all. On top of this, as we have just proven, the record doesn't make the fighter. Therefore, is beating a 200lb C Level fighter with an inflated record better than beating a 190lb champion?

Even your hypotheticals are steered towards your original assertion. I simply don't think you're being objective.

This is my last post on the matter, but I tell you again. There are many flaws here. Records and accomplishments are numbers that need context.