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

Un-record-wise, Wlad is **** though. Have you taken that into consideration? Lewis, Vitali Klitschko, Holmes, Foreman, the young Tyson, early 90s Holyfield, Ali, Frazier, Ken Norton, probably Riddick Bowe would all have sparked him, and thats only names off the top of my head going back only to the 70s. By your logic, Calzaghe is the P4P#1 in the world then, and we all know he isn't. So, what exactly is the point of this game?

 

For it to be a heavyweight fight, only the opponent has to have been a heavyweight. Thus, Dempsey had far more than one heavyweight fight (including Willard, Morris, Firpo, Fulton, a number of other cupcakes, and an unknowable number of other fights where weight wasn't properly kept).

 

Probably not

 

There is an appalling amount of blind hatred directed at Knn in this thread. I don't agree that Wlad is the GOAT, but the argument is well thought out. Obviously, statistics cannot give us any final answer, but it CAN make up for some subjective perceptions.

Either way, I think that Knn should be applauded for the effort that he/she puts into this thread, rather than shunned because you disagree with the findings. This surely beats the average "PACMAN/CALZAGHE/MAYWEATHER IS THE GREATEST HUMAN BEING WHO EVER LIVED, LOL!!!!!!11!1"-bull**** that roams these forums.

More variables must be accounted for in your calculations, but I appreciate your effort, and for not letting yourself be drawn into a verbal slugfest. I look forwad to reading your next thread :good :good

 

I agree with knn on this one. So many bitter posters are coming into this thread acting like their personal opinions are more objective than the survey in question, where every fighter is subjected to the same criteria. It is what it is.

 

They are subjected to the same criteria which is BIASED towards the fighter he is trying to uplift. To create the "same criteria" he drew a line that affected only fighters from the past, automatically diminishing their standing. It is that simple.

 

No and not even close. atsch

 

+1

 

There is no evidence to support your claim that the criteria used was biased towards one specific fighter. It just so happened that a fighter many people have hatred for (Klitschko) achieved good results in this particular analysis and many people cannot accept it for what it is.

 

Not even near it. I started off as a big Wlad fan, but I'm growing more and more sour on him and the way he "boxes".

 

I am going to simplify this for you. Your decision to "draw the line somewhere" was influenced by your opinion.

You set out to compare past HW's with present HW's. You wanted them on equal footing and to compare something statistical and factual. You wanted no subjectivity. I will lay out for you WHY you have failed in this endeavor.

To do this experiment or any, you need a control. Something that is the same across the board. Depending on what you're trying to prove, the control can sometimes work for or against the things being compared, or work for one and against another. You laid out the premise that you wanted them on equal footing, therefore you wanted BOTH sides to be affected equaly. Therein lies your problem.

You had 3 set criteria.

This standard has problems, but they are subjective. Either way, it affects both parties equally, so you have accomplished your goal.

This is a problem. It only affects fighters of the past giving modern fighters an advantage. It is a fact that strategy is used in fights based on the point of the fight and how it's going. A longer fight means different strategy. You are penalizing the older fighters in comparison because of this flaw. It's not subjective at all. You have removed parts of one set of fighters records which then gives the other side an advantage. Your control is already off.

This is your biggest problem. You have once again taken something away from old fighters and nothing away from modern fighters. This again, upsets your control.

Now to address the last part fully. You say it is unfair to include those fights at 190-200 because Modern HW's cannot fight fighters below 200 to pad their records. So it is fair to take those fights away. However, you fail to realize (or do realize it and did it anyway....get to that in a bit) that the fighters of the past cannot go back and change the fact that a HW was considered from 190 up, and therefore fought who was available to them. They were sanctioned HW bouts and these were the fighters available to them. They cannot change the past or the rules of their time anymore than the Modern HW's can change the modern rules to allow them to fight 190+ fighters. They fought within the parameters available to them, just as the HW's do now. So in taking those fights away from them, you are taking the control and making it lopsided in favor of the Modern HW's. And your reasoning is that the fighters now can't don't have the opportunity to do the same things the old ones did. But on the opposite end, the old fighters don't have the ability to change their rules either.

This would be akin to telling someone who score a 1600 on their SAT in the 90's that their score is no longer valid because of the new 2400 margin. You may seperate them and call them both perfect, but you cannot compare them and then penalize the 1600 score in your comparison because they don't have the opportunity to score 2400 (just as old fighters don't have the option to ONLY fight 200+ pound fighters).

Now, once confronted with this, your response and fallback has been the same. Even if left in, these fighters that were 190 (sometimes 185) couldn't be competitive with the big HW's of today and therefore it shouldn't matter if they are discounted. That's an opinion. Not a fact and therefore shouldn't be part of your reasoning or a requisite for this comparison. Especially since it's obvious you are trying to prove that the modern HW is better than the past HW's.

So basically it looks to me (and most others here) that you have come up with your opinion on the matter, then created criteria which would support your theory. It's a fact that if you want to put these fighters on EQUAL footing, you cannot have controls that only affect (and diminish) one side of the equation. It's unbalanced and your conclusions would be invalid based on the premise of you trying to compare them EQUALLY. You need to draw the line somewhere else.