Rating of the Heavyweights of New Millenium decade

There is no clear edge, and particulary not one that's in favor of Lewis. He defeated a ring worn Tyson, defeated Vitali in contraversial fashion, and was Ko'd by Rahman before coming back to beat him. The Tua win was very good, but not anything to get carried away over. Klitschko has won 11 title fights in the millenium, which is more than the total number of matches that Lewis even fought in post 1999. He has beaten a number of undefeated fighters in their primes and avenged a loss a against a very tough foe.

Rating opponents based on who YOU FEEL would win in a fantasy machup is a horribly flawed way to establish ratings. You have no idea what would actually happen if two men met in the ring, and should the underdog beat your favorite, then the whole argument collapses on itself.

OK, so Lewis showed will in bouncing back from adversity to beat Rahman, but Wlad didn't show the same thing in beating Bewster, or for that matter picking himself up off the canvas to beat Peter?

I've already addressed this for the most part.

Surviving Byrd or not, Holyfield lost that fight, was knocked out by James Toney, outboxed by Sultan Ibragimov, and beaten by John Ruiz. Hoyfield's record from 2000-2008 is 6-5-1-2. Does this meet your criteria for head to head ability as well, or does it all of a sudden not apply in this case?

I'm noticing a clear pattern here. You're giving an aweful lot of decisions away to fighters who either lost or drew in some of their matches, and in so doing, giving them higher ratings. This is not a valid way to rate fighters, given that:

A. It is largely opinion based, and not necessarily fact.

B. The wins you're giving these men, were still not enough to elevate them into the list you've constructed.

A good feat yes, and one that earns him a place in the top 10, perhaps even top five, but #2 is getting a tad carried away.

Yet, he KO'd your #2 two guy twice.

Well he certainly deserves to be rated above James Toney who you have in that top 10 list, given that he beat him twice. Peter is a world champion with only a competitive decision loss to Wlad. From 2001-2008, he has compiled his whole career consisting of 30-1-0-23, which far better than Toney's abismal 4-2-1, let alone the two losses to Peter.

Wlad is not a glass jawed fighter, Sander's resume is far better than you're crediting him with.

 

Well i'm just wondering why you give Holyfield a pass for losing terribly one-sided to Donald (unranked, though also a bit underrated), Byrd, Ibragimov and a knockout loss to feather fisted Toney, but Brewster loses all credibility for that one loss, despite having much better wins?

Same with Toney.

You say he's knocked out Holyfield and lost to Peter when he was shot. Yeah, ok.

The first night it was a very close fight, then the second fight, Peter comes in good shape (compared to the first), made adaptations like throwing combinations, going to the body, throwing double jabs, etc. He not only beats Toney but takes pretty much every round. But then all of a sudden Toney is shot? Maybe Peter's improvement had a thing or two to do with it as well.

Whatever way you look at it, Toney was a top contender going into the fight and Peter dominated him. Great win. After that, Toney barely got by, as you say, D level Batchelder. Why doesn't that loss set him back like it did Brewster? Yeah he was past his best, but we're not evaluating careers here, we're evaluating what one fighter has done compared to the other in a specific era.

If Holmes comes out of retirement right now and loses to everyone, is he still on the same level as Rahman when talking about achievements post-2000, because Larry is old so he should be excused?

You need to think about this and seperate historic ranking of a fighter and achievement within one era.

The former has all to do with how young and well conditioned a boxer is, the latter has nothing to do with it at all.

Does it take anything away from Lewis' career that he retired in 2003? Absolutely not. Does that mean he has to compete against other guys who have 5 years more of accomplishements than him in this era? Yes, it does.

It's great that this he is a former middleweight, but that means **** all when talking about heavyweight lists. It's not a pound for pound list. Size doesn't matter.

Really?

Well it's a pity that he had that great h2h ability but only used it when stuffing donuts down his throat and not in the ring. Because in the ring, all of that magic h2h ability you grant him, suddenly disappeared and he has been one gigant disappointment in the 2000's. Sorry but i don't rank on speculation: the facts clearly state that he does not or barely belongs. He barely got past journeyman Robert Hawkins too, in looking awful. But i guess that only counts against you when your name is Lamon.

 

I don't see how in the hell anyone can have James Toney as a top 10 heavyweight over the last decade, and not have Sam Peter on the same list who beat him twice, plus had a much better record. There's a lot of bull**** around here these days,...

 

Peter won both those fights, as unimpressive as they may have been. He also compiled a record of 30-1 over the last 8 years, as opposed to Toney's heavyweight record of 4-2-1. Even if the series had been split, I don't see how in the hell the man could be rated higher than Peter.

 

I would say that he arguably deserves to be rated above Max Baer or closely on par, therefore Sanders' win over Wlad is as good or better than Braddock's over Baer. Or Spinks' win over a shot Ali.

Brewster did, yes. But, Purity beat an under developed Klitschko who was still a work in progress. Many great fighters have lost early matches in their careers, and some have lost quite a few more than Wlad early on, so I don't think that this loss should way to heavily against him. That is of course, if you're still willing to judge Wlad by the same standards that you would judge, say Walcott, Charles, Dempsey, Moore and several others.

 

I am only rating these men based on the standards that YOU PROVIDED, which were, what they did from 2000 onward. Now you're coming up with all this **** about Toney being higher on historical significance. If we include Toney's wins during the 90's, and his title fights at middle weight, lightheavweight, etc, then yes he deserves to be rated higher. But, is this not a heavyweight list running in the new millenium, or are we now changing the criteria as the debate goes on?

 

On second thought,

I give up suzie. If you want to rate Toney, Rahman, and all those other guys where they are, then fine. Nothing I say is going to convince you anyway, so there's no point in debating any further.......