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

I don't know whether I made myself clear. This is exactly how one SHOULD NOT COMPARE.

You have to make 2 records COMPARABLE FIRST.

1) Exclude bums to not favour natural heavyweights
2) Exclude fights below 200+ to not punish nowadays heavyweights

Holyfield's cruiserweight+heavyweight record might be 42-9, but it's not his heavyweight record.

The comparable HEAVYWEIGHT records are:
Holyfield: 21 non-bum WINS, 11 by NON-KO, 9 LOSSES
Sanders: 10 non-bum WINS, 3 by NON-KO, 4 LOSSES

So by making the records COMPARABLE you actually see a much clearer picture: Corrie has achieved much less than Holyfield, although he is a harder puncher.

 

That's exactly what I mentioned. It is a flaw, but one that favours old-time heavyweight fighters.

But this is EXACTLY what people do nowadays: Haye moves up to heavyweight: His achievements in cruiser mean nothing.

It favours fighters like Ali, because I might count in bums as non-bums.

But how deep do you want to go? Is an opponent better because he beat a guy who beat a guy who beat a REALLY GOOD guy?

In my calculations there are no opinions. I just compare the non-bum heavyweight records.

Actually expect Ali to get even worse onece I calculate 2-levels deep since just as the records of the old fighters (Foreman, Ali) were worse than Wlad's or Lennox' so were their opponents' worse, too. So expect a downgrading of Ali & co even MORE.

 

How come you think I even LIKE Wladimir? It just happens that his record is better than Ali's and Larry Holmes COMBINED.

I actually could hate Wlad, but noone could tell either way because my calculations are completely objective: What happens at cruiserweight STAYS at cruiserweight. What happens at Olympia stays there, too.

It just so happens that OBJECTIVELY Ali & co are worse than many suspected.

 

As I wrote before, I find this opinion valuable, but this is a thread about whole-career-heavyweight ACHIEVEMENTS, not single stinkers.

 

Well put. Actually one of the reason people probably don't like Wlad is because they perceive that when Wlad falls he doesn't fall like a man.

 

If I would calculate in the ROUNDS that Wladimir wins then Wladimir would lead ALL AND ANY ranking by far. Wladimir not only wins most of his fights but he usually DOMINATES EACH round.

Something you definitely cannot say about Ali.

 

1) Who is to say Mercer was better when younger? He was less experienced and maybe had a worse chin when younger?
2) If a fighter fights it's COUNTED. If he feels he can fight and fights it's COUNTED. I cannot take into consideration that someone else's friend died and that's why he lost. Or that he was fatter or not. Maybe it's better to be fatter in the heavyweights. Maybe not.
3) All fighters have fights against younger and older opponents. Thus on the average it's fair.

Cody Koch's record is as inflated as the records of opponent's of Foreman & co. Thus it doesn't really play a big role.

Sure, and in the medieval ages heavyweight may have been defined as 150+. That's fine, call it "The medieval heavyweights", but then don't include Klitschko & Lennox there.

And a weight of 160 lbs also doesn't indicate that physical attributes are diminished in comparison to larger HW's of today? Sorry. It does.

Moreover Klitschko has no chance to upvalue his record by beating a 190+ guy.

Great THEN-Heavyweight. Great cruiserweights now. Mozart was composing Pop THEN. Classic now.

If you need to change history to make an objective analysis, you need to re-evaluate.

 

That's what I wrote. Expect in the future the heavyweight starting from, say 215+, thus making Ali's record IN COMPARISON WITH THE FIGHTERS TO COME even less.

Imagine in 100 years all fighters look like Valuev (ugh!). When you ask yourself "How good was Wlad compared to these fighters" then you OF COURSE have to compare fights that took place 215+ (or whatever the limit will be).