What is a 'mathematical bum' then? What criteria do you use and why? How can you bring 'Mathematics' into boxing and have a credible theory? What 'Mathematics' (statistics) have you left out and why? What is your bias (agenda)?
First of all... most wins by a HW Champ is Ezzard Charles with 96. Most defenses is still Louis with 25... Louis went 26-1 in HW world title fights. On a side note... Ali went 22-3 and Holmes went 21-5. What hurts Wlad is the 3 brutal KO losses... he did avenge one of them. I like Wlad and he has been dominate for a long time... It's not his fault that his level of competition has not been the best ever. I think his big brother would kick his ass. Durability is an underrated quality and Vitali has plenty of it... he has never been down despite facing big punchers like Lewis, Sanders, Peter, Hide, and others.
Carnera, Foreman, Holmes, and Dempsey all had more than 60 wins at HW. Charles fought at MW and LHW before moving up to HW.
You dont get extra credit because an opponent was undefeated or perceived as a big threat when you fought them. Gary Mason was nothing special. Michael Grant barely survived Golota prior to facing Lewis. Grant did nothing after Lewis. Do we consider Mac Lewis or Lamar Clark anything other than average?
I meant Mac Foster lol Mac Lewis was a trainer from Baltimore. He once trained Vincent Pettway, Hasim Rahman, and others.
Light heavyweight today bulk up to 210lbs to fight at heavyweight because they can, while back in the day it simply wasn't an option. Even so, if Holyfield and Spinks had not had the option like the fighters of the past, it is unlikley that they would simply have been destroyed.
Tommo, size does matter... but size isnt everything. Strength isnt everything, power isnt everything, speed isnt everything... you get the point. Dont be a size queen. Guys like Ali, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, and Holyfield are big enough for anybody. They have the right combination of size, strength, durability, and skill to take on any HW. Holyfield was past prime vs. Tyson, so was Tyson. They were still both very good. Holyfield could have always beat Tysons ass IMO, a few extra pounds didnt make a difference
Ok, so ignore any victory over fighters under 200 lbs? Well, that changes everything. I must say, I'd pick Dempsey and Marciano over Ruiz anyday though. So, beating a big fighter gains more respect than beating a more talented smaller HW. Chris Byrd was better than Michael Grant, David Tua, and plenty of other big Heavyweights. Yeah, Byrd was over 200 but only because he ate his way up to that weight. He could have easily made CW and could have even made LHW.... but LHW would have been a struggle. Look, I do agree with you that way too much respect is given to some of these small HWs from the past... but Ali, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, and Holyfield are true HW greats who could do well vs. any HW.
Joe Frazier was never in shape? See the Triller in Manilla. In his career Frazier never stopped swinging for 15 rounds if needed all the while taking whatever punishment his opponent had to offer. Even against Foreman, Frazier kept getting up and readying him self for the fight. Frazier is one of the model in boxing history for stamina and endurance. Wladimir Klitschko was kayoed three times. Ross Purity KO11, Corrie Sanders TKO2, and Lamon Brewster TKO5. Ken Norton was four. Jose Luis Garcia KO8, George Foreman KO2, Rico Brooks KO1, and Gerry Cooney TKO1. The Cooney bout was his last bout. 3 Kayo's to 4 is obviously not a big difference. The biggest difference I see if the quality of opposition between the two fighter. But, I have been reading so I know what you think about that. Lets see how Wladimir holds up at the end of his career fighting a contender like Cooney. Joe Louis was from the 30's and no one in boxing had better timing and balance than him. The giant sloths exist today. Only Galento was out of shape when he fought Louis. Every other fight I have seen of his opponents look in great shape. I just needed to speak on that. Thanks and I'm out.