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

Ideally, you should also include the scorecards (perhaps the median score), but I don't know about the availability of those from the lesser fights :think

 

I have one question to all of you Wlad fans:

does he(wlad) train on you?? does he train punching on his fans instead on the boxing bag??

I mean you looked like you all have something with head??

just courius :yep

 

There is plenty of evidence. The fact that you are ignoring it doesn't make it disappear.

Two sets of his criteria ONLY affect and diminish old era HW's. They are being compared by the same criteria, but not EQUAL criteria, which is what he (and apparently you) are trying to pass it off as. Forget Klitscho, I don't care about him one way or the other.

If I get two people together and tell one that they both need to build a house in a particular time frame, but tell one he can use 2x4's and up for the walls, then tell the other he can use only 4x4, but when judging, I go back and penalize the guy who used 2x4's. I wouldn't be judging them by equal criteria. I would be judging them on the SAME criteria, their use of 4x4's and the house itself. But I would be discounting something that the other guy used which was perfectly legal by the standard of rules AND it something he cannot go back and change. That is not equal. Conversly, I couldn't judge the other guy on his use of 4x4's and let the other guy get away with using 2x4's because that too is unequal, even if I am still judging the HOUSE (same criteria) the criteria is not EQUAL.

The judgement cannot be made on either side.

 

It is not at all like your house building scenario, knn never set rules down for old era hw's for the purpose of disqualifying them from a future study. He/she simply set criteria for what he/she believes should determine a quality hw boxer and followed it objectively to the conclusion of the analysis. If you don't agree with the standards used, that's fine, but I don't believe it was at all skewed to make Wladimir Klitschko seem like the GOAT.
I appreciate the effort he/she put into the study and I think it is a refreshing change to the "Prime Mike Tyson would Decapitate Waldo with 1 punch" type threads.

 

It's exactly the same. It doesn't matter WHY I penalized the one builder. That is irrelevant. Forget motive.

I am disqualifying a portion of builder A because the other (builder B) wasn't allowed to use the same materials, even though at the time, builder A was allowed to use the materials he did. If I DON'T disqualify him, builder A now has a perceived advantage. The comparison cannot work on EITHER end.

And yes, he or she set the standards and is judging each fighter by those standards. But are the standards EQUAL? No. Because parts of the other fighters records are being disqualified even if it was within the rules. Neither side can change the rules and parameters they fought under. So it's not fair to say, well this sides has the advantage so I will disqualify them. Not when you are trying to put them on EQUAL footing and be objective. The decision itself is SUBJECTIVE. You have to penalize one side one way or the other, but you are deciding which one you are penalizing.

 

That just about sums it up.

 

This isn't about fanboyism. I don't care much about Wladimir - he bores me. But it is interesting to use a different method than subjective opinion on the merits of this or that fighter. Obviously, OBVIOUSLY, the method has its flaws, but it adds a different perspective on otherwise stale and futile debate.

Knn stated clearly that he/she was planning on refining the method. That you people refuse to seperate yourselves from your emotions, and discuss the issue in statistical terms - if only just hypothetically - makes it even clearer to me that Knn is the rational one.

As Irländsk pointed out; if you have methodological critiques, fine, but calling people names because they are trying to look at things differently is ******ed.

 

I haven't called him a single name. And my problem is with the method. However, I am compelled to wonder why when faced with a decision on which side he would penalize (because his method would penalize one or the other) he chose to penalize the old era boxers, not once, but twice (with weight AND rounds per fight). I question if this reveals a bias. And it's a legitimate question.

 

I was not referring to you. You have been one of the only sane voices on the other side of the fence, and the only one who actually put as much effort into posting as Knn did. You should be applauded as much as Knn - although I reckon that my word doesn't carry much weight around here.

 

ll _ goat

 

Fair enough.

I will say this. For all the flaws I feel I have found in his method, both objective and subjective, I don't feel it was a bad effort. I don't know that a high quality OBJECTIVE system can be found for comparing eras and fighters. Boxing is very subjective, due to the nature and structure of the sport. It defies objectivity because its stats aren't created whole and equal. This is due to seperate playing fields for different fighters based on a variety of factors. Popularity, titles (and we have many of them) and even nationality and cultural expectations. No one is on an even playing field unless they are in the ring together....and even then outside factors are influential (referees and judges, even commissions). So how can we ever have a truly objective (by the definition of the word) analysis when the very sport itself is decided and influenced by hugely subjective factors?

 

Good show.

 

I see this too much on here, people treating the weight divisions, all of which are defined by maximal limits, as being based on a minimum weight. In a middleweight fight, both fighters can weigh up to 160lbs. If someone wants to weigh 100lbs whilst fighting an opponent who is at liberty to weigh up to 160lbs, then you are welcome to do so (although possibly crazy). If the weight limit on a fight was no limit, then it's a heavyweight fight, whatever the parties weigh. If you had a high school tournament where heavyweight was defined as 180+ as a minimum then you'd be getting it a bit wrong, but if you had one where 180 was the maximum for not being a heavyweight then still anyone under 180 could be free to enter the heavyweight category and fight 250lb guys even if they weighed 170 themselves.

If Archie Moore fought no-weight-limit fights whilst weighing 170, then they were heavyweight fights, and he just wasn't a big guy in the division. Both fighters can choose to come in anywhere under the maximum, with that maximum defining the division; for heavyweight fights the maximum is moot: it's the no-limit division, so fighters can come in at any weight they choose. Archie Moore could have weighed 350lbs if he had wanted to, but decided that he was best to take his chances much lighter, even though his opponents could also choose to weigh 350lbs if they thought it made them more effective.

What the argument really comes down to saying is that a 220lb guy would pretty much always beat a 170lb guy, so wins against a 170lb are to be discounted, even though that fighter chose his most effective weight with no limit, against no-limit fighters.
I don't quite buy it.

 

I agree. Absolute objectivity is an unattainable goal, but the method could be - and has been to some extent in this thread - stimulating for the debate.

Also, people tend to forget that the consensus on the history of boxing isn't absolute truth either.

 

If you want the size of the fighters to be scientifically valid its easy.

Compare the average height and weight of the worlds population in the fighters era. Plot the fighters size and weight on a graph or chart and work out how many deviations above the median he or she stands.

You would need to define some paramaters as to how many deviations make you a heavyweight. But lets argue for a second that the average weight for a healthy adult has ballooned so significantly in the last 20 years that Wlad wouldnt fall as many deviations from median as someone like Rocky Marciano or Dempsey. You want to be as critical as possible.

In the 1920's the number of overweight people would have been so minimal compared to today that the average weight for an adult would have been well below what you see today.

Dempsey 187.5lbs and above the average height and weight of adult male at the time. WAS THE NORMAL HEAVYWEIGHT AT THE TIME.


Now having tried to give some scientific advice.

Mauler starches WLAD inside five rounds













kidding