Wladimir or Holyfield?

Ibragimov and Byrd, who both beat Holyfield, were handled easily by Wlad ... if we are playing the losses game.

 

I'm not measuring "greatness". I'm assessing resumé.

Well - you haven't explained how you came up with your numbers, so no one has any idea how you rate resumé.

And, within the context of this conversation, how you came up with your numbers for each of the wins you listed is important, because your rating system draws a very thin line between the Tyson, Bowe and Mercer Wins of Holyfield and Povetkin, Haye and Pulev wins for Wlad.

Even if I entertain that idea for a moment, Peter is one of Wlad's Top-5 Wins, while Thomas and Dokes - both of a superior pedigree to Peter and Thompson - are not in Holyfield's 5.

I'll address Thompson further, a little later on...

Again, what we have here is you equating a couple of Wlad's best wins (Byrd/Chagaev) with what were very good/good but not the best victories for Holyfield (Moorer/Ruiz).

Referring to Moorer as a 'limited boxer' tells me you are lacking in knowledge and might need to study the fighters you have arbitrarily (it seems) assigned numbers to. Moorer might have run hot and cold - However, he was anything but limited. Two-weight world champions are generally not limited boxers.

Ruiz is the personification of "perseverance" and testament to how this, coupled with strong promotional connections, can lead to relative success. However, Holyfield was all but absolutely done by the time he met Ruiz. Yes he would go on beyond that with mixed results but he was nowhere near his prime when he and Ruiz fought their trilogy.

Foreman was not the same fighter he had been in the '70s, for sure - but he, in particular, represented a genuine threat to the Heavyweight Championship during the '90s, because he had the capability and the will to be so. He went on to demonstrate this by becoming the lineal World Champion, after his loss to Holyfield. In retrospect, Holyfield's victory over Foreman is exceptional.

Holmes had just outfoxed Mercer, which led to his getting a shot at Holyfield. It's a solid win for Holyfield, which doesn't come into Holyfield's top-5.


Re Rahman, I would just clarify that Holyfield was way past prime when he met a prime Rahman.

Conversely, Rahman was significantly past his prime when he met a prime Wlad.

There's no meaningful comparison to be made here.

Povetkin is a good fighter but not great.
Haye's heavyweight credentials are questionable.

I've already stated that the Wlad/Povetkin fight was a disgrace.
It is quite probably the worst heavyweight title fight in all of history.
Holding that victory up as an example of Wlad's heavyweight prowess is an act of blind and desperate fandom.

The number you assigned to the Haye win is to massively overrate both the fight and the victory. It's not just that Haye has next to nothing on his 8-3 heavyweight ledger, but also the eye-test to which you refer was conducted against his beating of guys like Bonin, a shot to **** Barrett, a shot to **** Ruiz and Audley Harrison. His best scalp is Valuev who was riddled with injury and against whom even Ruiz looked athletic. - (Ruiz, in his bouts against Valuev, outthrew Haye by roughly 3-1. Haye threw less than 200 punches over the course).

Haye's effort against Wlad is widely regarded as a bottle job, even by Wlad himself.

They were solid enough fighters of a certain level but they were nothing like world class, in my opinion.

When did Thompson ever prove himself to be a world class fighter?

He became a fringe contender owing to the sheer lack of heavyweight talent around in the late 2000's. His second shot at Wlad in 2012 was granted without merit.

I'd ask the same of Ibragimov. He got a ranking by beating a Holyfield, who was just days shy of his 45th birthday. He then participated in one of the most boring heavyweight contests of all time against Wlad (which had Manny Steward pulling his hair out) only to retire. This isn't all that impressive to me.

I have counted Evander's losses. The distinction I have made is that the losses he suffered in his prime were against Ring-rated contenders. Whereas, Wlad's prime saw him lose to three relative non-achievers, save for their respective victories over Wlad.

Holyfield was a great fighter and is in my Top-10 (but will never be in the Top-5). He has signature wins against both Bowe and Tyson and a good number of excellent and significant victories to complement these.

Wlad is in my Top-20, which is almost entirely based on the longevity of his reign but lightly supported by a handful of good wins. At the same time, he has participated in some of the worst showings I have ever seen from a heavyweight champion and his success occurred during a period in which there has been a dearth of talent in the division.

I find the correlation between the paucity of useful challengers and the sustained period of Wlad's Championship too glaring to ignore.

As alluded to before, when all is said and done, where do you think Povetkin, Haye and Pulev will sit on the all time Heavyweight ratings lists?

 

Wladimir never allowed Povetkin to be great. That's what Holyfield was unable to do in his era and you praise him for it.

 

Povetkin is a very good technician with top levels skills and fight ending power. Yes he wasnt the best defenisvely and he wasnt quick footed. But he ended big men with one punch!!

Povetkin would have been number 1 without klitchko, he would have a force in many eras, he had more poise than Tua! And tua is rated here.

 

I find the fact that during his reign as King of the division, he made everybody look like bums, as a salient fact pointing to why Wlad > Holyfield.

Let's roll this back:

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

My ratings are based on two things
1. How good where the fighters when they beat them.
2. How dominant was that win
In my ratings I had Tyson and Bowe both higher then the other wins because they were objectively the best wins yet they were also both competitive fights whereas Wlad's wins were much more dominant (plus there's also the debate about how good the Tyson that Holyfield beat actually was)

I wouldn't even say he's one of Wlad's top wins, his best wins imo are Povetkin, Haye, Chagaev, Byrd and Pulev. And I would not say Thomas and Dokes are particularly better either.

Yes because in terms of wins they're comparable and those two are also not the best victories for Wlad but in very good/good range

While Moorer was a good fighter he had a glass chin and was also a pretty small for heavyweight and had a close win over Axel Schulz (who Wlad dominated) and lost to Tua (limited power puncher) and Castillo (another fighter Wlad dominated) good fighter but I wouldn't say better then Byrd or Chagaev

Ruiz was also limited and lost to two natural middleweights/lightheavy weights(Jones and Toney) I don't see him as anything special as a win even more so since he lost to Chagaev.

It was a good win but I don't see how struggling to beat a 40 year old slugger who by that point had the foot movement of a snail exceptional.

Holmes was also over 40 and not the same boxer he was in his prime but still gave Holyfield problems good win but not great. Also how is it not his top 5 I would say his top 5 are Tyson, Bowe, Holmes, Foreman and Moore what do you consider his top 5?

I don't think he was as part it as you make it out to be but fine.

I would say Povetkin was a great fighter who would be competitive in any era. He only lost to Wlad in his prime and was competitive with the next generation of fighters despite being past it. And while the fight itself wasn't the prettiest it was a dominant win over a great fighter. Plenty of fighters have had ugly fights yet we still give them credit for their victories i.e Ali, Hopkins, Ward etc. It's part of the game.

You forget his win over Chisora that came right afterwards he was pretty much the only boxer who ever dominated Chisora until Fury. If he kept fighting after the Wlad loss he could have showed his talents more but I think watching his fights is more then enough to get a sense that he was an outstanding athletic and explosive fighter who Wlad completely shut down in an impressive win.

If you actually watched their fights you would know they were both two tough southpaw who Wlad had some difficulty figuring out. You focus too much on resume and not enough on actually watching fights and seeing the level of fighters both were good fighters who didn't get a chance to shine because Wlad was just too much of a road block.

All of which came because Wlad was young and inexperienced. In his prime (which I consider from the first Peter's fight to around the Haye fight or so) he was undefeated and dominated everyone he fought whereas Holyfield lost to both Bowe and Moore in his prime.

It seems like the issue is you don't like Wlad as a fighter and so don't give him the credit he deserves. While top 5 might be generous he's at least in the 10 ten for his dominance top 20 is way too low imo and again it shows you underrate his opposition when I think that's unwarranted. Out of curiosity what is your top ten for heavyweight?

It doesn't matter where they sit it matters how good where they when they fought Wlad and I believe they were all good (and in the case of Povetkin great) fighters and Wlad deserves his credit for decisively beating them.

 

Wlad was so dominant he made a few seriously and schooled boxers look small and weak. He had the physical advantage and the stylistic advantage, and lets not forget Wlad had been stopped, and come back far stronger, where as most of these all time greats or top fighters did not.

 

Alexander Povetkin and Chris Byrd have better HW resumes than Michael Moorer.

Chagaev and Haye may not have better HW resumes than Moorer, but they were likely broadly as good.

Prime Holyfield went 1-1 vs Moorer.

During his decade of dominance, Wlad went 4-0 vs Povetkin, Byrd, Chageaev and Haye, in uncompetitve fights that were desperately boring, in part due to the extent of Wlad's dominance.

Holyfield's HW opposition shits all over Wlads.

Holyfield is way above Wlad p4p. H2h and resume.

At HW, Wlad was clearly the better, if far less storied and far more boring, imo.

 

Against former or current Linear Heavyweight Champions...

Holyfield wins (alphabetical): 1-Bowe, 2-Douglas, 3-Holmes, 4-Foreman, 5-Moorer, 6-Rahman, 7+8-Tyson.
Holyfield Draws: 1-Lewis.
Holyfield Losses (alphabetical): 1+2-Bowe, 3-Lewis, 4- Moorer.
Holyfield Totals: Won 8, Lost 4, Drawed 1. (13 Total)

W. Klitschko wins (alphabetical): 1-Rahman.
W. Klitschko Draws: 0
W. Klitschko Losses (alphabetical): 1- Fury.
W.Klitschko Totals: Won 1, Lost 1, Drawed 0. (2 Total)

 

Haye, povetkin and chag can beat Moorer, as could Ibragimov.

 

So, the numbers you assign are just made up. Got it.

Reasons have already been given for why four of the five wins you cite above need not be rated so highly. But, in truth, it doesn't really matter because most of Wlad's opposition was much of a muchness. It was either ordinary or less than ordinary.

You literally just cited Byrd and Chagaev as two of Wlad's best wins.

You earlier asserted that Moorer was a 'limited boxer' - Now you're stating he was a good boxer.

The fact is, Moorer was a two-time Heavyweight Champion - once as Lineal, and the other as a Titlist. He is more than capable of beating Byrd and Chagaev.

You also seem to have gone off-topic and boxrec'd your way to a direct comparison between Moorer and Wlad, which was never a part of the discussion.

I'm starting to wonder about you now.

What has the above got to do with anything I posted about Ruiz? (This is beginning to feel negatively familiar)

You must have missed the bit about Foreman going on to regain the Lineal Championship at age 45.

Yep - Didn't I just state it was a solid win? I certainly did not use the word "great" to describe it.

Just at Heavyweight:

1-Bowe
2-Tyson
3-Tyson
4-Foreman
5-Mercer/Douglas/Rahman


If you include his Cruiserweight fights, then Qawi I would be in there at around No. 3 and Qawi II would be a consideration for the No. 5 spot.

6 to 7 years is a long time in boxing. And, it certainly was for Rahman, at that stage of his career.

Povetkin would be competitive in any era, but that doesn't make him great.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Wlad was dominant at hugging, leaning, pushing down on and throwing down his opponent for all 12 rounds. His ability to use feints to set up the clinches is unparalleled, though.

Wlad was a disgrace; the fight was a disgrace and it bordered on unwatchable.

I didn't forget Chisora. I just didn't think that was worth mentioning. Chisora is a solid domestic level fighter, but has failed at European and World level. He does not boost Haye's credentials in the context of world class competition.

"If" - But Haye didn't actually prove much at Heavyweight and it seems your high opinion of the win is based on pure speculation about what might have been, which is never a firm basis for a rating.

Here's the OP's question again: "Who had the better resume?"

Resumé matters when you're trying to big up fighters, who were essentially unproven, both prior to and after fighting Wlad.

The fights are nothing to write home about either - particularly, the Ibragimov bout, which made watching paint dry feel like a roller coaster ride.

I can wear that excuse for his loss to Puritty - but a young, inexperienced World Titlist in his athletic prime at aged 26 and again at age 28? Sorry - but I'd have to call BS on that. He was beaten in his prime against unrated Sanders and unrated Brewster.

Dominating mediocrity is unimpressive to me.

There is no like or dislike. There are fights, the quality of those fights and the quality of opposition in those fights.

Holyfield competed in more quality fights, by far, against much better opposition.

It really is that simple.

It does matter, because it speaks to their own impact on the division and their achievements and status amongst other heavyweights in history.

Wlad does get credit for beating his opposition. He also gets credit for his dominance and naturally so since this aspect of Wlad's ledger is the most prominent.

However, both of these factors are tempered by the fact that his resumé is, in the main, mediocre at best.

 

But also Holy got spanked by Chris Byrd, Wlad crucified Byrd twice. Holy needs to stop fighting, in a few years, if not already he's going to have a head full of Cornflakes, from all these beatings he took.

 

Wait, fer real?

 

They're subjective yes as all rankings inherently are but they work for me.

And I showed why you were wrong to say so and why he beat plenty of good fighters.

Some of his best but not his best Haye and Povetkin are his best.

You can be a limited boxer and still be good the two are not mutually exclusive. Also I wouldnt be so confident in that assertion considering Moore lost to two fighters Byrd beat (Tua and Holyfield).

You said he was one of Holyfield best wins I pointed out he wasn't anything special and definitely shouldn't be considered better then any of Wlads best wins.

Against Moore who was the perfect opponent for Foreman someone with a glass jaw and stood in front of him. Foreman limitations were shown in other fights (Morrison and Shultz)

Just heavyweight. I don't see how you have Foreman above Holmes when Holmes was much more competitive in their fight. Also how do you have Mercer above Holmes when Holmes beat Mercer. Also having Douglas and Rahman as his top wins while saying all of Wlad's wins were mediocre is kinda funny when I would say his best wins are all on par and honestly probably better (Peter's who I wouldn't even say is his top 5 destroyed the boxer who knocked out prime Rahman twice)

Completely dominating a boxer who would be competitive in any era is a great win.

That's part of the game should we not give credit to Ali, Ward, Mayweather and Hopkins? They all relied on the same tactics. Or hell watch any old fight and they clinched about as much as they boxed should we not give them credit because of that?

Chisora was a solid contender who gave plenty of good fighters tough fights even when past his best. Completely dominating him and knocking him out is impressive and shows Haye was very good he just didn't fight enough to really cement his place. But he passes the eye test pretty clearly.

It matters when you're ranking fighters sure but it doesn't matter as much as looking how good a fighter was when they fought. Plenty of fighters might not have the best resumé for whatever reason but they were still very good fighters who never had a chance to cement themselves.

Different fighters come into their own at different times and it's clear if you actually watched his fights Wlad developed the style that allowed him to dominate only after those losses(two of which were literally because he gassed himself out going for the finish in fights he was completely dominating)

That's flawed logic because quality of a fight is based on how competitive it is. So basically your logic is having competitive fights is more impressive then completely dominating your opponent. Don't you see how maybe that's not the best measure of how good a win is?

And I have shown you over and over again why it's not even by using your own logic and rankings. I would like to see your heavyweight top ten just to see who you would consider better then Wlad I'm sure you'll have Holmes and Marcaino ahead even though their resume is about as bad as Wlad arguably worse since he beat more fighters then they did.

 

Fine. One can only guess how you arrive at your numbers then - as I thought.

That's just it, though... ...You really haven't shown me anything other than sweeping statements about how good you think the likes of Haye and Pulev were, or attempts at drawing parallels between common opponents that fought both Holyfield and Wlad but at very different stages of their respective careers, rendering those comparisons quite ineffective...

...and here are a couple of examples. This^ kinda sums up the level of thought you put into your ratings and it's making me realize that you're on a quite different plane of analysis and interpretation of history than I.

...and, again. I didn't state any such thing.

Just accept the facts. Foreman regained the Lineal Championship at age 45.

Given you have given slim to little explanation for any of your ratings, I am strangely unconcerned by what you do or do not see in mine.

Yeah, if only Sam Peter had beaten an undefeated Mike Tyson or a Lennox Lewis and become a Lineal Champ...

Have you even watched Peter vs Maskaev? It's garbage.

This is another example of you failing to take levels of competition, chronology, stage of career and context into consideration.

There's a pattern forming here - though, I don't expect you to see it any time soon.

Until one watches the fight and observes just how little actual boxing there was in it.

LOL - It wasn't a tactic. For the Povetkin bout, it was Wlad's entire fight strategy.

Like I said before, Wlad even developed feints to set up the clinches. He got so reliant on manhandling his typically smaller opponents (and getting away with it in Europe) that he eventually forgot how to box and ended up getting mugged by Fury.

Show me just one Heavyweight fight in history that compares to the goat**** that was Wlad/Povetkin.

Chisora has been beaten countless times, whenever stepping up to even the fringes of world level. I get that you need to buoy up Haye's thin Heavyweight record, but you're trying too hard here.

The "eye test" doesn't mean a lot. It's just another concise phrase that has come to mean speculative potential that was never realized (and, therefore, is not on record).

An unproven fighter is an unproven fighter.

Boxer's who achieve very little throughout their careers should not get reputationally boosted just because they got given a shot at the title - unless they do something half-decent to extraordinary with that shot, of course. But neither Thompson nor Ibragimov did.

I don't care about his style development. Wlad got beat by unrated fighters in his prime. These are worse defeats than those suffered by Holyfield in his prime. Period.

So, your strawman argument begins with: "That's flawed logic because..."

Please do not use the word "logic" again if you can help it - at least, not until you understand what it is, as well as when and when not to apply a critique of the same.

I don't know what discussion you think you have been having, but the only thing you have shown me in this exchange is a bit of a daft system of numbers used to reflect your opinion on wins; a whole lot of subjectivity; a good number of contradictions; several inflated opinions about Pulev, Haye, Thompson and Ibragimov etc, stated repeatedly, despite there being little to no evidence in support of those opinions - just your "eye test" technique; and a clear indication that you don't really have a grasp of logic.

This thread is about resumé, not Heavyweight ratings but, in any event, it has run its course for me. I know who you are now and, in turn, what you are about.

You just keep inventing what good and great looks like to you, via your eye test and scant else evidence, and then make up some numbers to somehow but not really give your opinions some authority. I'm sure it will turn out just fine.