Wladimir Klitschkos Legacy

You can imagine I am whatever makes you feel better. I would add that is a strange conclusion given there is nothing childish about any of my posts.

It's true. In both instances a fight ending injury resulted from a legal punch. You are aware that ankle and leg injuries resulting from legal knockdowns are quite common and don't get special treatment. One of the most famous instances of this was Max Baer's title win over Primo Carnera.

Both Lewis and McCline scored legitimate TKOs over their opponents. Yet you want to argue one was a fluke accident and not the other.

You are quite right, the phrase that escaped me was "selection bias" I made a mistake there. See, that wasn't so hard.

 

Yeah, I got them on the level. You bring up the ratings but whose ratings are those?

Vitali has lost to Byrd and Lewis. Vitali's best wins were over Sanders, Peter, and Adamek. The rest of his wins are pretty solid. He has absolutely dominated a ton of fringe contenders.

Of the three, Byrd has the most losses but he also faced the tougher comp in Tua, Holyfield, Ike, Wlad x2, Vitali, McCline, Golota, Povetkin. I also think he has the best wins in Vitali and Holyfield. Now, I don't take the Vitali win with as much salt as others. And while I'm aware Holyfield was 40, Holyfield was coming off what should have been back to back wins over Ruiz and Rahman, I think behind Lewis he was still the #2 Heavy in the world when Byrd beat him. Byrd like Vitali also has a bunch of solid wins over 90s fringe contenders.

Regarding Povetkin, he has only lost to Wlad. He beat Chambers and Chageav, both top rated. I do believe he edged Huck in a bad performance. I think Takam, Wach, and Perez are tough customers that have been hanging around the ratings, he was first to stop all three. He beat out the last bit of fight remaining in Byrd. Povetkin also has lots of solid fringe wins.

 

Yeah, that's crazy. I'm not going to go through each fighter, but it goes without saying that, as underrated as Vitali's resume is, your opinion is still a huge outlier. Historians and even forum polls routinely rank Vitali as a top 20 ATG. Byrd and Povetkin are lucky to be in the top 50.

Peter and Sanders are better than any wins Byrd or Povetkin have, not including Vitali himself for Byrd, nor a mostly shot version of Holyfield. Vitali did lose to Byrd, and I actually think it was a closer fight than most give credit for, but it was nevertheless in a flukish manner that left little doubt Vitali was the better fighter who would have won any rematch.

 

You have a point in that respect. They never should have fought since they were brothers, but since they didn't, it simultaneously helps and hurts both of their careers. Both have an argument they were the best of the era, both have an argument they were second best.

 

Not certain it's that radical of an out liner. And lists always change, Vitali isn't a lock, like most that aren't locks, he'll dwindle in and out of popularity as times goes on.

So you don't believe Peter and Sanders are better than Byrd's two best wins. That's a start.

Regarding Povetkin. I don't see an argument for Sanders and Peter being decisively better than Chambers or Chageav. For starters, Chambers beat Peter just a few months after Vitali and arguably bested Adamek in a close fight while injured. Chambers also took apart Calvin Brock, Guin, and Dimitrenko. Chageav beat Valuev, Ruiz, and than rated Vrychys. Sanders is a tricky one to consider. He beat Wlad and had great ability but he also was erratic.

Who says that? Vitali's reputation got destroyed by that fight while Byrd flourished. It wasn't until Lewis that Vitali won his credibility back.

 

I would like to add that ATG rankings are subjective and there is no accurate scientific ways to gauge a fighters abilities against each other unless they fight.

So in other words ATG rankings are bull****.

 

Answers above. Choosing to make a stand on something as quixotic and irrational as this demeans your credibility on other topics. It would be nearly as bad as trying to make an argument that Jimmy Young was better than George Foreman, and talk about while Young had alot more losses, he faced better comp than George, and at least he had the pure win over Foreman. You really have to reach for such arguments and it reeks of an agenda.

Finally, you could also stand to be less condescending. It really comes across strongly in the posts I've read of yours. I've been accused of it myself on here, and it's something I've tried to work on. Just my advice.

 

No, the top 25 are most certainly not locked. As for recent listings, they will change, they always do. Opinions trend.

Whatever criteria you think you see, you are mistaken. I have never stated that results are the end all be all in a sport with so many controversial results. I saw Eddie Chambers use creative switch hitting to outbox Adamek with one hand and get denied a victory by hometown judging so by my criteria, Chambers is a better fighter.

So this would only be a selection bias if Chambers got a hometown decision against Peter, which he didn't.

A draw? Well you are the outliner with that one radical judge. Chambers won anywhere from 6-9 rounds in this one. Not a hard fight to score.

I don't see much evidence of Peter being mentally shot. He got back into great shape, ran up some wins and gave a good effort against Wlad in the rematch.

And Chambers beat him in a comparative time frame that Vitali did.

Are you saying Sanders nearly beat Vitali? I can't see any argument for that. He nearly beat Rahman. Meanwhile, Byrd actually beat Vitail.

No, Vitali got beat up heavily by the mainstream. I remember that well. Byrd's reputation would rise, especially after the Tua and Holyfield fights, while Vitali was still trying to rebuild in what I recall to be mostly un-televised fights. We weren't streaming fights, I recall still using dial up. Vitali got exiled from RING ratings for about 3 years and was off the radar.

I don't form my opinions based on assumed credibility. I give my take on it as I see it. I don't dispute I have an opinion that could be described as an "outliner" if you feel that damages me, that's up to you.

If you are going with this analogy, Peter has more losses and less wins than Chambers.

 

Inflicting damage, directly caused by a punch, e.g. facial cuts, swollen/closed eyes, facial fractures and fractures in the torso region, is not the same thing as suffering indirect damage, e.g. fractures, breaks and sprains resulting from a fall. Boxing isn’t MMA.

Whilst fractures, breaks and sprains of toes, feet, ankles and knees are not uncommon in Boxing, they are not typical; not the damage intended through the act of punching your opponent and nowhere near as common as facial and torso injuries. Thus, I do not consider the TKO of Grant, due to a broken ankle, and the TKO of Vitali, due to multiple facial lacerations inflicted by sustained punches to the face, as comparable.

If you think that is unreasonable then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Incidentally, Carnera was not stopped due to his alleged broken ankle, which held up fairly well, given the fight was stopped in the 11th round. The fight was stopped because Baer was Battering Carnera from pillar to post.

The underlying point, all along, has been the implied elevation of a Boxer’s stock with the use of minimal information, e.g. using a win over a recognizable name to indicate a level. However, the quality of a win is not based on name alone. The circumstances of a win; the manner of victory are as, if not more, important. If one’s ‘achievement’ is brought about by an atypical outcome, to which an element of luck can be attributed, then I should consider this less noteworthy than a win achieved by, say, a one-punch, ten-count KO.

It’s not dissimilar to Byrd’s win over Vitali, which was not as a result of damage inflicted by Byrd’s punches. In fact, Vitali was beating Byrd quite handily before pulling out. Nonetheless, mention that Wlad’s opposition have amongst them a win over Vitali Klitschko and it looks very good; much better than if the full story is known.

The same principle can be applied to Rahman’s victory over Lewis. Simply stating that, amongst Wlad’s collective opposition there were pro wins over X, Y, Z and Lewis, appears very good on paper and elevates the overall impression of Wlad’s opposition. Only when this has been qualified by Rahman’s summary poleaxing by Lewis in their return; the fact Rahman fought Wlad 7 years after said poleaxing and his significant career was over, does this win become one within its proper context.

Both Byrd’s and Ibragimov’s wins over Holyfield give a better impression than is really warranted. Holyfield was, by 2001, clearly finding winning form difficult to muster, as evidenced by his fiascos with Ruiz; himself, a middling Heavyweight. By the end of 2002, he was pretty much done and, following Byrd, Holyfield lost his next two in similarly poor outings. The version Ibragimov got to is not worth a mention.

Golota lost to both Brewster and Austin. Again, a 37 year old Golota was at the end of his worthwhile career, against a Brewster at his peak. Austin/Golota was a senior’s circuit farce, 3 and a half years later. Golota would only have two more fights after this and lose them both.

So, it's about putting a win into a context, which contributes towards building a more accurate picture, from which a reasonable assessment can be made. It is not necessarily a matter of discounting a win.

One can make a statement and that statement could be true but, without context, it might not provide meaningful, useful information.

By the way, for me to have been guilty of Selection Bias, I would have needed to be the one to introduce the both of the cases being compared. As it is, I introduced neither - you made the comparison; I simply disputed the comparison.

 

Answers above.

 

I don't think he really understands what selection bias is. He's been baiting and switching with it as he pleases with different posters. Im guessing he looked it up without thinking much about it. I don't really agree with either of you, but you're not a condescending ***** like him, so count me an ally here.

 

Lol!! The Kentucky Cobra embarrasses Dumbovelvet nonstop in this forum. You'd think the Plague Rat would get sick of it.

It really is true... some bitches love to be abused

 

Wlad's combination of title defenses /dominace /skills and character of a different breed of intelligence for me puts him in top 5 ATG. Which is SUBJECTIVE. He finally showed me the klitchko ive been waiting for for 20 years which i also predicted would show up bc he HAD to....... I rate Joshua a bit higher than most,saying that Wlad showed he could have defeated anyone in HW history and at any given day. He fought to win in a style he knew he could.When the time came to throw it all together he did.You cant fault the guy for trying to remain on top in some fights the way he did.


I posted the below 2 days before the fight bc i know how good Wlad is and how it would take something special to defeat Joshua even in 18 fights experience.


"Wlad looked great but he still has to actually fight a certain style that will press him.I expect a war maybe world war 3. Wow......i have a feeling this is ending in a k.o before 7th rnd,just two massive punchers ones bound to have their lights put out."

World War 3 is exactly what we got and no one can really say i had Wlad rated to high all this time ppl seem to forget that skills don't lie and that's what we have now with Joshua its right there for you to see...don't make the same mistakes and not think hes not that good like most did with Wlad! Klitchko who gave us arguably the best HW fight of all time if not one of the best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

For my opinion see post #181

Ah, a "balloon is red, no you said the balloon is blue" argument. I'll pass.

From here on out I will now refer this argument to post #151. This one time only I will copy and paste the relevant text to guide you:

" These men were called tomato cans, I pointed out their accomplishments, something tomato cans do no not have."

"I stress I was defending these men as fighters with no regards to how they place on Wlad's resume, because "tomato can" is a pretty hefty insult for men that gave a ton and achieved in this sport we all supposed to love."

Which you disputed with your own comparison.