Wladimir Klitschko Vs. The ATG's: Their Opponent's Total Combined Wins and Losses.

It would be complex. It could be tried an alghoritm that weights a champion losses, wins, ko percentage, height of the opponents, weight of the opponents, age, total fights number, southpaw, orthodox, and whatnot.
It couldn't be totally reliable, but i think it could be done, and it could generate plausible results.
This at hws, because in the lower classes, with confined weights, it would lose a lot. Expecially considering the insane rehydration of nowadays.
Basically every boxer of today should be considered one or two weight classes above, in the past.

 

Well certainly they take the wind out of the sail of those claiming Wlad's opposition are handpicked bums while all HW ATGs just fought unbeaten elite opponents :deal

 

Interesting subject. But it's a real stretch for an unbiased fan of the sport to endorse.

Let's say.... Floyd Mayweather, for example... had victories over at least 10 guys who were "undefeated" or unbeaten. Surely, that could be used to prop him up in a discussion such as this one. However, let's say those 10 unbeaten guys he got wins over had padded their records with primarily bums, inexperienced guys, and/or washed up has-beens themselves, prior to Floyd giving them a contract and payday so he could pick off their "0's" at the right time. That kind of situation needs to be accounted for. Who a guy actually fought to get his record needs to actually be accounted for, otherwise this subject fails completely.

I think that the lack of depth in the HW division for over the past decade -- combined with guys taking the safest routes possible to a title shot/payday -- plays too big of a role here. Sure, the post-2000 HW scene isn't the only weak era in the division's history. But the HW's (and fighters in general) of yesteryear fought everyone with almost no regard for risk. The drama and careful matchmaking we see today was far less apparent "back then". A higher level of overall competition in the division + no one carefully matchmaking and cherrypicking their fights + a single, undisputed champion (there was only ONE road to a title shot back then) equates to the top fighters having more losses in past eras.

Therefore, this thread completely fails. A fighter being "unbeaten" means nothing on the surface when comparing greatness. If it did, you'd have to be ready to say that Deontay Wilder is greater than Wladimir Klitschko. And no boxing fan with any credibility would ever say or believe such a thing. There's more to it than simply comparing numbers, regardless of divisions.

EDIT: corrected some typos

 

Interesting stats there. It does show that champions from the past did fight a lot of opponents that even today would be regarded as only journeymen at least based on their records.

Though the numbers never really tell the full story they have to be taken into context. Fighters then defended more regularly so would fit in easier fights between the big fights. Ali defended the title 5 times in 66 and had 6 fights in 72. In 72 he also had 2 non title fights just to keep busy. Champions of the past would sometimes pad their records and take non title fights just to keep busy and that will always askew the validity of these figures when comparing the modern era to the older era's.

People need to also factor in the effect of TV in regards to boxers records. Fighters back then could fly under the radar for a while when coming up the ranks fighting on under cards, now most fights are filmed opponents records scrutinised via Boxrec, never has a 0 been as important to a fighters standing. This will results in more fighters having protected records like Wilder. So even though some fighters of the past may not have the best looking win loss records they were better than their records sometimes suggested.

The thing about these figures that has impressed me the most regarding Wlad is actually how many fights he's actually had. He has had a lot of fights and was particularly active early on in his career. 13 fights in 97 and 9 fights in 98 when he lost to Purrity. The fact he was so active when he lost that fight makes me understand how it could have happened. When a fighter is that active you can't be 100% all the time, this is why past champions who had 100 plus fights had plenty of losses when you fight that regularly you will lose at some point.

 

^Good points.

 

This is a nice example of how statistics (data/numbers) without context are meaningless.

They used to have ONE belt back then. Not 4+ belts, as they have today with 4 regular titles and additional super/interim shenanigans.
Anybody who ever wanted to get a title shot had to fight through a condensed list of opponents. There was NO DUCKING. There was no super-careful build up. **** like Povetkin's "career", who was an Olympic gold medalist but was build up as if he had never boxed before.

Also, it doesn't make much sense to look at the worst opponents someone faced. They all faced real bums at some point.

You only look at the best opponents. In that regard, Wlad has Haye. Wow. I mean, Haye is not bad. He's too chicken to ever be an ATG, but he's skilled, quick and powerful enough to give any ATG a great fight.
Then there's Povetkin, Chagaev, Ibragimov. Those are probably Wlads next best opponents. Tyson could fight them on one day. Back-to-back. And would still not need a full three minutes.

 

I think lots w. klitschko opponent will continue his carrier.
You created this list too soon.
Stupid klitatd propaganda.
Otherwise these numbers are total unimportant .
Purritty's record is **** but he destroyed the prime,unbeaten
young w. klitoris.
The chin is much more important than a **** record.

 

This a useless thread fighters fought more back then and were not protected like some of today's unbeaten fighters Wlad has a weak resume compared to all the ATGs

 

By heavyweight record Evander Holyfield was ****.
But he is an ATG.These lists are brutal time wastings for stupid guys.Just saying.