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

As its your first post I'll be kind.

If you actually beleive what you wrote is useful analysis please **** off and find a diferent sport to follow.

 

it's pretty clear. perhaps i was mistaken....

 

Wlad is the All-Time Best HW named Wlad.

 

Your statistics are faulty for a number of reasons. First off, you can't retroactively pretend a 15-round fight was a 12-round fight and anything after 12 didn't happen- boxers are not computerized robots that just do the same thing regardless of circumstance. If the fighters know they are fighting a 15-rounder, they will adjust their strategy accordingly, as they will if they are fighting a 12-rounder. A fighter will obviously react differently if the 12th round is the final round of the fight than he will if there are still three rounds remaining once it's over. If a man knocked another man out within the scheduled limit they both knew they were going to fight, that's what he did; it is ridiculous to go back decades later and pretend the championship rounds didn't happen or that anything which happened in them doesn't count. If one day the longest scheduled route in a boxing match is 10 rounds, will you go back, revise Wladimir Klitschko's record and say that he really won a UD over Ross Purrity?

Second, it is also highly unreasonable to go back and retroactively transform fights that were heavyweight at the time they were fought into non-heavyweight fights by applying standards used in an entirely different era. If the standard at the time they were fighting had been that one had to weigh 200 pounds or more to fight at heavyweight, I expect Marciano or Dempsey or Louis (in his sub-200-pound fights) would have come in at 200 pounds or more. You can't reasonably penalize them for not following guidelines which did not exist.

Third, your standard for "bum" is far too vague and subjective for these numbers to be taken seriously as some kind of objective assessment, especially because you seem to be going entirely off their numerical records, which can be very deceptive and do not translate from era to era due to differences in rules and management standards. In, say, the 1920s, it was normal for boxers to fight once a month or more, and face their best contemporaries a half-dozen times or more; look at Sam Langford or Harry Greb's record! You can't possibly reasonably expect the numerical values of their records to stack up on a one-to-one scale when the records were compiled in such a starkly different fashion. Any given fighter in the top, say, 100 of this era is likely to have a better win-loss average than his counterpart from 80 years ago, but that does not necessarily indicate that he is better than that counterpart, given that their records are only compiled against their contemporaries and under the rules, standards and circumstances of their own times and individual careers. To give an example taken directly from your post, in George Foreman's loss column, you call Jimmy Young a "bum" because his total career record is an unimpressive 34-19-3, but Young was one of the five best heavyweights in the world at the time of this fight, and also arguably defeated Ali and Norton in prior and subsequent fights, as well as beating several of the other elite fighters of that era, guys who you yourself do not classify as "bums" (Ron Lyle, Earnie Shavers, etc.). Young's mediocre win-loss average is a result of poor management early in his career, unfavorable judging and his carrying on long past his prime; no boxing expert would tell you a prime Young was a "bum."

 

Statistically very good work, but objectively if you consider the non bum opposition Wladimir didn't face any really great figheter so far and beat him in his prime .... Peter and Ibragimov are the best scraps so far.

In you analysis then Wladimir have a best record fighting AVERAGE level of non bums. So beside bum/no bum you should distinguish another level of fighters who were superior to the rest of non bums. For example Ali fights with Smoking Joe and Foreman alone should count like half of Wladimir victories.

Wladimir had very limited experience fighting such opposition comparing to other mentioned greats.

 

Is the author of this post the inventor of the boxrec rating system?

Wlad isn't a top 30 HW in history...

 

"non-bum" fights

Who decides this?

 

The numbers decide, you can't argue with the numbers.

 

What number?

 

No one is the best HW, yet many are =
Alot of posters on here let their personal feelings cloud their judgement

 

First, you cannot possibly compare fighters to each other -- current boxers or fighters from a different eras on an all-time basis -- just by assessing their records. You need to look deeper than that, because the paper records are often misleading.

Second, if you're asking if Vlad's dominance of the division these past years makes him better -- on paper -- than past champions, the answer is no. That's not to say that Vlad is bad...far from it. It's just that many past heavyweight champions had better records than Vlad.

Vlad's prime is basically broken into three periods, as I see it. They are:

1. 2000 - 2002: during this period, Vlad was the world's second best heavyweight, eclipsed only by the great Lennox Lewis.

2. 2002 - 2005: during this period, Vlad's reputation and rating suffered because of a couple of fluke losses to inferior fighters.

3. 2005 - present: during this period, which began with the victory over Sam Peter in 2005, Vlad proved himself to be the best heavyweight in the world in the wake of Lewis's retirement.

Overall, these past nine years have proven Vlad to be a pretty good fighter on an all-time basis, but in no way is his record on paper superior to that of the great champions of the past. Not even close.

 

I stopped reading when he called Jimmy young a bum.

 

Wlad is a top 20 HW all-time if he retired tomorrow. He can break the top 10-15 if he can unify and keep all the belts without another loss. That's a pretty tall order but I think he's up to it.

 

So what do you conclude here?


Klitshcko IS the greatest HW of all time?


Why not repeat that slowly, and carefully, and see what the outcome is in your mind?


Obviously your criteria is full of holes, but what about the fact that a win against Ali is equal to a win over Timur Ibragimov, by your expert statistical analysis.