KLITSCHKO FANS SHOULD STOP USING MEANINGLESS STATS AND KO RATIOS IN DEBATES

[Tuan_Jim]

Just a minor correction to your title: OBJECTIVE PEOPLE IN GENERAL, SHOULD AVOID USING SINGLE STATISTIC AND INSTEAD USE COMPLETE STATISTICS TO ARRIVE AT CONCLUSIONS.

What you've just done, is use a single statistic (KO ratio) to prove a point. I can't speak for others, but that's not what I do. I look at various different statistics. Including performances against not just one common opponent, but every common opponents two boxers being compared, have faced. I also analyze various other stats, such as knockouts against top 10 ranked opponents, average knockout time, knockouts in championship rounds and etc.

Your post doesn't at all disprove the importance of stats to arrive at conclusions. Rather, it only just disproves how unreliable single stats / cherry picked stats are.

When I look at Wladimir Klitschko as a whole statistically, he has the best heavyweight record of all time. That's not even in dispute! You can't OBJECTIVELY dispute that Wladimir Klitschko was indeed the best and number 1 heavyweight in the world for a decade. Since it's impossible because you'd just be arguing against reality. You could make an assumptive claim that Wlad faced weaker opponents than past heavyweight champions and therefore he ranks lower. But that claim would have 0 merit in an objective conversation as that's a purely speculative / subjective statement.

Listen to the dumb kid trying to sound smart.

I can easily prove that Wladimir Klitschko wasn't the best heavyweight in the world for 10 years. Watch me do it.

Here it comes.

Erm, was Vitali Klitschko boxing in those 10 years?

Yes he was. From 2008 to 2012.

So how could anyone claim that Wladimir was the best in the world, when Vitali would kick the crap out of him in an actual fight?

Better luck next time, current scene dummy!

Whether I'm 'dumb' or trying to sound (it's impossible to sound something in a text based discussion where there's no sound to begin with) 'smart' has no relevance to the topic of this thread being discussed. I simply deal with sound and valid logical arguments / reasoning.

Why Wladimir Klitschko is better than Vitali Klitschko:

1) Wladimir Klitschko has more wins against top opposition. Since he has over 20+ title defenses whilst Vitali Klitschko has less than that. And since the objective of boxing is to win, the boxer with most wins is superior. Therefore, Wladimir Klitschko is superior to Vitali Klitschko.

2) Wladimir Klitschko's best opponents are better than Vitali Klitschko's best opponents. Since to be the best, one has to beat the best.

Vitali Klitschko's best wins are:
- Manual Charr: Beaten by Wladimir Klitschko's leftover in Alexander Povetkin far more convincingly by brutal knockout!
- Dereck Chisora: Beaten by Wladimir Klitschko's leftover in Kubrat Pulev.
- Odlanier Solis: Beaten by Wladimir Klitschko's leftover in Tony Thompson.
- Shannon Briggs: Previously beaten by Wladimir Klitschko's leftover in Sultan Ibragimov.
- Kevin Johnson: Beaten by Wladimir Klitschko's leftover in Kubrat Pulev.
- Samuel Peter: Previously beaten by Wladimir Klitshcko himself and by his leftover Kubrat Pulev.

That's pretty much all the proof that is needed!

It's telling that you don't list Corrie Sanders as a 'best win' for Vitali. Corrie seems a decent scalp, given that he demolished Wladimir in 2 rounds. Yet you pretend it never happened?

The sheer mental gymnastics the Klitschko fan must enact to arrive at these conclusions of greatness never cease to amaze.

[Luis Fernando12]

Listen to the dumb kid trying to sound smart.

I can easily prove that Wladimir Klitschko wasn't the best heavyweight in the world for 10 years. Watch me do it.

Here it comes.

Erm, was Vitali Klitschko boxing in those 10 years?

Yes he was. From 2008 to 2012.

So how could anyone claim that Wladimir was the best in the world, when Vitali would kick the crap out of him in an actual fight?

Better luck next time, current scene dummy!

Whether I'm 'dumb' or trying to sound (it's impossible to sound something in a text based discussion where there's no sound to begin with) 'smart' has no relevance to the topic of this thread being discussed. I simply deal with sound and valid logical arguments / reasoning.

Why Wladimir Klitschko is better than Vitali Klitschko:

1) Wladimir Klitschko has more wins against top opposition. Since he has over 20+ title defenses whilst Vitali Klitschko has less than that. And since the objective of boxing is to win, the boxer with most wins is superior. Therefore, Wladimir Klitschko is superior to Vitali Klitschko.

2) Wladimir Klitschko's best opponents are better than Vitali Klitschko's best opponents. Since to be the best, one has to beat the best.

Vitali Klitschko's best wins are:
- Manual Charr: Beaten by Wladimir Klitschko's leftover in Alexander Povetkin far more convincingly by brutal knockout!
- Dereck Chisora: Beaten by Wladimir Klitschko's leftover in Kubrat Pulev.
- Odlanier Solis: Beaten by Wladimir Klitschko's leftover in Tony Thompson.
- Shannon Briggs: Previously beaten by Wladimir Klitschko's leftover in Sultan Ibragimov.
- Kevin Johnson: Beaten by Wladimir Klitschko's leftover in Kubrat Pulev.
- Samuel Peter: Previously beaten by Wladimir Klitshcko himself and by his leftover Kubrat Pulev.

That's pretty much all the proof that is needed!

It's telling that you don't list Corrie Sanders as a 'best win' for Vitali. Corrie seems a decent scalp, given that he demolished Wladimir in 2 rounds. Yet you pretend it never happened?

The sheer mental gymnastics the Klitschko fan must enact to arrive at these conclusions of greatness never cease to amaze.

I could, but I didn't because one fight doesn't prove anything conclusive. Since it's too small a sample size and since it'd be a hasty generalization logical fallacy. Of course, someone who is in need of logic courses would most likely not understand this.

Entire career records and multiple fights conclusively prove things about boxers. Not single fights! I could also list Chris Byrd in response to Corrie Sanders. The same Chris Byrd that totally embarrassed, humiliated and injured Vitali Klitscko whilst making him quit after figuring him out in just a few rounds. Whereas Wladimir Klitschko didn't lose a single round and systematically gave the same Byrd a one sided beat down and stoppage whilst dropping him multiple times.

So Wladimir Klitschko's win over Chris Byrd cancels out Vitali Klitschko's win over Corrie Sanders.

Furthermore, Wladimir Klitschko beat Hasim Rahman, who had beaten Corrie Sanders already before. Therefore, Corrie Sander's single win over Wladimir Klitschko is meaningless, since he didn't accomplish anything else after that. And since Wladimir Klitschko defeated multiple boxers far better than Sanders afterwards.

Fact remains, Wladimir Klitschko beat more than one opponent who is better than any single opponent Vitali Klitschko ever beat at heavyweight. Fact also remains that most of Wladimir Klitschko's best opponents that Wlad beat, are better than most of Vitali Klitschko's best opponents that Vitali beat.

Ergo, it's an indisputable FACT that Wladimir Klitschko was better than Vitali Klitschko from 2005 - 2015 and was the number 1 heavyweight in the world.

[Luis Fernando12]

Listen to the dumb kid trying to sound smart.

I can easily prove that Wladimir Klitschko wasn't the best heavyweight in the world for 10 years. Watch me do it.

Here it comes.

Erm, was Vitali Klitschko boxing in those 10 years?

Yes he was. From 2008 to 2012.

So how could anyone claim that Wladimir was the best in the world, when Vitali would kick the crap out of him in an actual fight?

Better luck next time, current scene dummy!

Whether I'm 'dumb' or trying to sound (it's impossible to sound something in a text based discussion where there's no sound to begin with) 'smart' has no relevance to the topic of this thread being discussed. I simply deal with sound and valid logical arguments / reasoning.

Why Wladimir Klitschko is better than Vitali Klitschko:

1) Wladimir Klitschko has more wins against top opposition. Since he has over 20+ title defenses whilst Vitali Klitschko has less than that. And since the objective of boxing is to win, the boxer with most wins is superior. Therefore, Wladimir Klitschko is superior to Vitali Klitschko.

2) Wladimir Klitschko's best opponents are better than Vitali Klitschko's best opponents. Since to be the best, one has to beat the best.

Vitali Klitschko's best wins are:
- Manual Charr: Beaten by Wladimir Klitschko's leftover in Alexander Povetkin far more convincingly by brutal knockout!
- Dereck Chisora: Beaten by Wladimir Klitschko's leftover in Kubrat Pulev.
- Odlanier Solis: Beaten by Wladimir Klitschko's leftover in Tony Thompson.
- Shannon Briggs: Previously beaten by Wladimir Klitschko's leftover in Sultan Ibragimov.
- Kevin Johnson: Beaten by Wladimir Klitschko's leftover in Kubrat Pulev.
- Samuel Peter: Previously beaten by Wladimir Klitshcko himself and by his leftover Kubrat Pulev.

That's pretty much all the proof that is needed!

His victories over Corrie Sanders, Tomasz Adamek and Chris Arreola are better than a few of those you mentioned. Particularly the first two I mentioned.

Wladimir Klitschko beat Hasim Rahman, who beat Corrie Sanders. Therefore, beating Hasim Rahman > beating Corrie Sanders.

Wladimir Klitschko's wins over Alexander Povetkin and Kubrat Pulev > Vitali Klitschko's wins over Chris Arreola and Tomasz Adamek.

What's Adamek's best wins? Andrew Golota? Who was previously already stopped in 1 round by Wlad's leftover in Lamon Brewster? Eddie Chambers? Who was already previously beaten whilst undefeated by Wlad's leftover in Povetkin? Or is it Kevin McBride? Who was knocked out cold by Wlad's leftover in Mariusz Wach?

What's Chris Arreola's best wins? Eric Molina? Who's own best wins were against DaVarryl Williamson, the guy who was beaten by Wlad's leftover in Chris Byrd? And against Chris Arreola, who has been proven to be inferior to Wlad's best opponents like Povetkin and Pulev?

[Enlightened-One]

KLITSCHKO FANS SHOULD STOP USING MEANINGLESS STATS AND KO RATIOS IN DEBATES


A lot of Klit fans when discussing their idols cite statistics (which "don't lie") and avoid detail. The oldest of the old chestnuts is Vitali's reputed punch power, proven by his awesome KO ratio...

Vitali Klitschko's crazy KO ratio illustrates how meaningless KO ratios are...

I’m not sure exactly what your argument is…

Are you saying the Vitali Klitschko can’t punch, despite his obviously high KO ratio?

Or are you suggesting that he isn’t one of the biggest punchers in heavyweight history?

Alternatively, are you claiming that real-world facts and statistics are utterly irrelevant and should not be considered as one of the pieces of the proverbial jigsaw puzzle to help understand, explain or illustrate historical real-world events?

The approach you’ve used to debate this topic is obviously flawed, because anyone can “pretend” that boxer 'A' is a bigger puncher than boxer 'B', simply by comparing performance levels against common opponents.

For example:

Amir Khan stopped Phil Lo Greco in 39 seconds, but it took 7 minutes and 50 seconds for Errol Spence Jr. to achieve the same feat.

If we’re supposed to assume the same logic that you’re applying in your argument, it seems that the Brit is a bigger puncher than the Texan, which clearly isn’t the case.

You also have to consider context, because a fighter that feels vulnerable and doesn’t believe that they are capable of winning a fight often goes into their defensive shell and adopts a “survive-at-all-cost” mentality. And it’s incredibly difficult to stop negatively-minded guys that are only interested in lasting the difference.

In stark contrast, it’s usually easier to stop an ambitious opponent if they’re taking risks and doing their upmost to beat you.

There are a lot of other factors that comprise the “context” counter-argument that renders many of your claims redundant.

For instance: Was Mike Tyson a better fighter than Muhammad Ali, based solely on a comparison of their performances against Trevor Berbick? I feel I don’t need to elaborate on the obvious point I’m making when asking this question.

Finally, what cannot be refuted is Viltali’s legacy, his effectiveness and success rate, because regardless of anyone’s thoughts about him, he deserves to be a Hall-of-Famer, he nearly always got the job done… and as far as I’m concerned, he only ever lost because of injury.

[Tuan_Jim]

Wladimir Klitschko beat Hasim Rahman, who beat Corrie Sanders. Therefore, beating Hasim Rahman > beating Corrie Sanders.

Your posts are a tour de force of level 1 remedial debunked boxing arguments. You flood your posts with such a thick stream of gibberish it's nigh on impossible to wade through them. But the above really tickled me.

George Foreman beat Ken Norton and Joe Frazier, who beat Muhammad Ali. Therefore, Foreman will be beating Muhammad Ali.

This is as basic as ABC, 123. What's that 12 next to your name Luis? Your age?

[Tuan_Jim]

KLITSCHKO FANS SHOULD STOP USING MEANINGLESS STATS AND KO RATIOS IN DEBATES


A lot of Klit fans when discussing their idols cite statistics (which "don't lie") and avoid detail. The oldest of the old chestnuts is Vitali's reputed punch power, proven by his awesome KO ratio...

Vitali Klitschko's crazy KO ratio illustrates how meaningless KO ratios are...

I’m not sure exactly what your argument is…

That doesn't surprise me. Here, I'll hold your hand.

Are you saying the Vitali Klitschko can’t punch, despite his obviously high KO ratio?

I'm saying that his KO ratio doesn't reflect his real world power. This is made clear in the first one or two sentences. Throughout the thread you'll note Vitali has a much higher KO ratio than men who were much harder punchers than him. That's why I Christened the thread with the clear and straight forward title KLITSCHKO FANS SHOULD STOP USING MEANINGLESS STATS AND KO RATIOS IN DEBATES.

Or are you suggesting that he isn’t one of the biggest punchers in heavyweight history?

Yes, I am suggesting he isn't one of the biggest punchers in heavyweight history. The list of heavyweights who would have laid out the Corrie Sanders, Obed Sullivans, Shannon Briggs, Derek Chisoras (et al) he fought is extremely long.

[Luis Fernando12]

Wladimir Klitschko beat Hasim Rahman, who beat Corrie Sanders. Therefore, beating Hasim Rahman > beating Corrie Sanders.

Your posts are a tour de force of level 1 remedial debunked boxing arguments. You flood your posts with such a thick stream of gibberish it's nigh on impossible to wade through them. But the above really tickled me.

George Foreman beat Ken Norton and Joe Frazier, who beat Muhammad Ali. Therefore, Foreman will be beating Muhammad Ali.

This is as basic as ABC, 123. What's that 12 next to your name Luis? Your age?

Strawman and ad hominem fallacies. I did not make any predictions about which boxer would beat which boxer, based on ABC logic. That's your straw man interpretation! Rather, my point was solely about the value of beating opponents and which opponent warrants more value for beating.

Again, perhaps take some logic courses? You're posts are full of obvious logical fallacies!

[Enlightened-One]

KLITSCHKO FANS SHOULD STOP USING MEANINGLESS STATS AND KO RATIOS IN DEBATES


A lot of Klit fans when discussing their idols cite statistics (which "don't lie") and avoid detail. The oldest of the old chestnuts is Vitali's reputed punch power, proven by his awesome KO ratio...

Vitali Klitschko's crazy KO ratio illustrates how meaningless KO ratios are...

I’m not sure exactly what your argument is…

That doesn't surprise me. Here, I'll hold your hand.

Are you saying the Vitali Klitschko can’t punch, despite his obviously high KO ratio?

I'm saying that his KO ratio doesn't reflect his real world power. This is made clear in the first one or two sentences. Throughout the thread you'll note Vitali has a much higher KO ratio than men who were much harder punchers than him. That's why I Christened the thread with the clear and straight forward title KLITSCHKO FANS SHOULD STOP USING MEANINGLESS STATS AND KO RATIOS IN DEBATES.

Or are you suggesting that he isn’t one of the biggest punchers in heavyweight history?

Yes, I am suggesting he isn't one of the biggest punchers in heavyweight history. The list of heavyweights who would have laid out the Corrie Sanders, Obed Sullivans, Shannon Briggs, Derek Chisoras (et al) he fought is extremely long.

You debate using insults and pretend that you've said something when you clearly haven't.

You also hypocritically criticised someone for using an argument to determine "which boxer would beat which boxer, based on ABC logic", but then you used precisely the same sort of logic to determine “which boxer is the bigger puncher” (i.e. fighter ‘A’ KO’d opponent ‘C’ quicker than fighter ‘B’, therefore ‘A’ is a bigger puncher than ‘B’).

[Tuan_Jim]

Wladimir Klitschko beat Hasim Rahman, who beat Corrie Sanders. Therefore, beating Hasim Rahman > beating Corrie Sanders.

Your posts are a tour de force of level 1 remedial debunked boxing arguments. You flood your posts with such a thick stream of gibberish it's nigh on impossible to wade through them. But the above really tickled me.

George Foreman beat Ken Norton and Joe Frazier, who beat Muhammad Ali. Therefore, Foreman will be beating Muhammad Ali.

This is as basic as ABC, 123. What's that 12 next to your name Luis? Your age?

Strawman and ad hominem fallacies. I did not make any predictions about which boxer would beat which boxer, based on ABC logic. That's your straw man interpretation! Rather, my point was solely about the value of beating opponents and which opponent warrants more value for beating.

Again, perhaps take some logic courses? You're posts are full of obvious logical fallacies!

So you believe that beating 2008 Hasim Rahman has more value than beating Corrie Sanders, because the washed up Rahman had beaten Sanders nearly a decade earlier? Is that what you're arguing? It doesn't matter than Klitschko got KOd in 2 by Sanders, because five years later he beats a used up old late sub Rahman?

[Tuan_Jim]

I’m not sure exactly what your argument is…

That doesn't surprise me. Here, I'll hold your hand.

Are you saying the Vitali Klitschko can’t punch, despite his obviously high KO ratio?

I'm saying that his KO ratio doesn't reflect his real world power. This is made clear in the first one or two sentences. Throughout the thread you'll note Vitali has a much higher KO ratio than men who were much harder punchers than him. That's why I Christened the thread with the clear and straight forward title KLITSCHKO FANS SHOULD STOP USING MEANINGLESS STATS AND KO RATIOS IN DEBATES.

Or are you suggesting that he isn’t one of the biggest punchers in heavyweight history?

Yes, I am suggesting he isn't one of the biggest punchers in heavyweight history. The list of heavyweights who would have laid out the Corrie Sanders, Obed Sullivans, Shannon Briggs, Derek Chisoras (et al) he fought is extremely long.

You debate using insults and pretend that you've said something when you clearly haven't.

You also hypocritically criticised someone for using an argument to determine "which boxer would beat which boxer, based on ABC logic", but then you used precisely the same sort of logic to determine “which boxer is the bigger puncher” (i.e. fighter ‘A’ KO’d opponent ‘C’ quicker than fighter ‘B’, therefore ‘A’ is a bigger puncher than ‘B’).

What? What exactly am I pretending I have said that I haven't said? Be extra clear here.

[Luis Fernando12]

KLITSCHKO FANS SHOULD STOP USING MEANINGLESS STATS AND KO RATIOS IN DEBATES


A lot of Klit fans when discussing their idols cite statistics (which "don't lie") and avoid detail. The oldest of the old chestnuts is Vitali's reputed punch power, proven by his awesome KO ratio...

Vitali Klitschko's crazy KO ratio illustrates how meaningless KO ratios are...

I’m not sure exactly what your argument is…

That doesn't surprise me. Here, I'll hold your hand.

Are you saying the Vitali Klitschko can’t punch, despite his obviously high KO ratio?

I'm saying that his KO ratio doesn't reflect his real world power. This is made clear in the first one or two sentences. Throughout the thread you'll note Vitali has a much higher KO ratio than men who were much harder punchers than him. That's why I Christened the thread with the clear and straight forward title KLITSCHKO FANS SHOULD STOP USING MEANINGLESS STATS AND KO RATIOS IN DEBATES.

Or are you suggesting that he isn’t one of the biggest punchers in heavyweight history?

Yes, I am suggesting he isn't one of the biggest punchers in heavyweight history. The list of heavyweights who would have laid out the Corrie Sanders, Obed Sullivans, Shannon Briggs, Derek Chisoras (et al) he fought is extremely long.

Though I agree that KO ratios alone don't prove how powerful a boxer is. The argument that you used to criticize Vitali Klitschko's punching power, can also be applied to many others boxers too.

Lennox Lewis couldn't KO Levi Billups, or even come close to doing so, despite landing multiple of his best punches that landed flush for the entire fight. Yet, Vitali Klitschko put that same Levi Billups to sleep inside just 3 rounds. So what does that prove about Vitali Klitschko's and Lennox Lewis's punching power?

Mike Tyson took 10 rounds of flush punches to TKO a bum in Jose Ribalta, a bum who has over 25% losses out of his career win/loss record. Yet, Vitali Klitschko and even Chris Byrd stopped that same guy inside just 6 rounds. So what does that say about Mike Tyson's punching power, compared to Vitali Klitschko and even a feather fist like Chris Byrd? Considering Chris Byrd has a significantly lower KO percentage than Mike Tyson, but managed to stop at least one common opponent in Jose Ribalta in far less time?

How about Lennox Lewis, and especially Mike Tyson failing to even come close to stopping Tony Tucker in 12 rounds? Yet, Herbie Hide, who is Vitali Klitschko's 2 round KO victim, stopped that same Tucker in just 2 rounds? Despite the fact that Hide is practically a blown up cruiser weight? So going by your logic, if other guys who have lower KO% than Vitali Klitschko but supposedly are harder punchers according to you for being able to more impressively and quickly KO common opponents. Does that also mean Chris Byrd is also a more powerful puncher than Mike Tyson for being able to stop Jose Ribalta in far less time and with far fewer punches?

The list of boxers that would've also KO'ed the likes of Tony Tuckers, Levi Billups and Jose Ribaltas of the world that both Tyson and Lewis fought is extremely long too.

I could also apply the same type of logic to criticize George Foreman's punching power as well. But you and everyone else should hopefully get the drift here.

This is what happens when you use one sided arguments or incomplete evidence to prove a point. You get exposed as a horrendous 'cherry picker'!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

[Luis Fernando12]

Your posts are a tour de force of level 1 remedial debunked boxing arguments. You flood your posts with such a thick stream of gibberish it's nigh on impossible to wade through them. But the above really tickled me.

George Foreman beat Ken Norton and Joe Frazier, who beat Muhammad Ali. Therefore, Foreman will be beating Muhammad Ali.

This is as basic as ABC, 123. What's that 12 next to your name Luis? Your age?

Strawman and ad hominem fallacies. I did not make any predictions about which boxer would beat which boxer, based on ABC logic. That's your straw man interpretation! Rather, my point was solely about the value of beating opponents and which opponent warrants more value for beating.

Again, perhaps take some logic courses? You're posts are full of obvious logical fallacies!

So you believe that beating 2008 Hasim Rahman has more value than beating Corrie Sanders, because the washed up Rahman had beaten Sanders nearly a decade earlier? Is that what you're arguing? It doesn't matter than Klitschko got KOd in 2 by Sanders, because five years later he beats a used up old late sub Rahman?

Yes, because Vitali Klitschko also beat an old, similar aged version of Corrie Sanders. And since Hasim Rahman beat Corrie Sanders conclusively. Beating Hasim Rahman > beating Corrie Sanders in terms of value and impressiveness. Irrespective of age.

[gilgamesh]

His victories over Corrie Sanders, Tomasz Adamek and Chris Arreola are better than a few of those you mentioned. Particularly the first two I mentioned.

Wladimir Klitschko beat Hasim Rahman, who beat Corrie Sanders. Therefore, beating Hasim Rahman > beating Corrie Sanders.

Wladimir Klitschko's wins over Alexander Povetkin and Kubrat Pulev > Vitali Klitschko's wins over Chris Arreola and Tomasz Adamek.

What's Adamek's best wins? Andrew Golota? Who was previously already stopped in 1 round by Wlad's leftover in Lamon Brewster? Eddie Chambers? Who was already previously beaten whilst undefeated by Wlad's leftover in Povetkin? Or is it Kevin McBride? Who was knocked out cold by Wlad's leftover in Mariusz Wach?

What's Chris Arreola's best wins? Eric Molina? Who's own best wins were against DaVarryl Williamson, the guy who was beaten by Wlad's leftover in Chris Byrd? And against Chris Arreola, who has been proven to be inferior to Wlad's best opponents like Povetkin and Pulev?

Yeah but Corrie Sanders beat Wlad. I wasn't comparing the best guys Vitali's beaten to other guys Wlad has beaten I was comparing 'em to the guys you had mentioned as Vitali's best victories.

Adamek's best wins came as a Cruiserweight I'd say. He had a respectable run as Cruiserweight Champion, and did ok as a Heavyweight. He's no major force at Heavyweight, but just the fact that he was a former Cruiserweight Champ who had become a contender at Heavy makes him a more meaningful win than a lot of the other guys Vitali beat.

Kevin Johnson never did sh*t.

Besides if you're trying to prove to me that Wlad's resume is better than Vitali's...I already agree with you so there's no need.

I was just saying that Vitali had some better wins than the ones you were citing as his best.

[Tuan_Jim]

Lennox Lewis couldn't KO Levi Billups, or even come close to doing so, despite landing multiple of his best punches that landed flush for the entire fight. Yet, Vitali Klitschko put that same Levi Billups to sleep inside just 3 rounds. So what does that prove about Vitali Klitschko's and Lennox Lewis's punching power?

Mike Tyson took 10 rounds of flush punches to TKO a bum in Jose Ribalta, a bum who has over 25% losses out of his career win/loss record. Yet, Vitali Klitschko and even Chris Byrd stopped that same guy inside just 6 rounds. So what does that say about Mike Tyson's punching power, compared to Vitali Klitschko and even a feather fist like Chris Byrd? Considering Chris Byrd has a significantly lower KO percentage than Mike Tyson, but managed to stop at least one common opponent in Jose Ribalta in far less time?

Facile comparison. You're cherry picking fighters who were in their prime when they fought Lewis and Tyson and were scrambled brain half cadavers when they fought Klitschko. It tells you nothing because the opponents in question could no longer take punches. They're simply too used up to gauge anyone's power.

What is telling about power is that when old men with a history of getting knocked down, knocked out, but who are still in the land of the living--Briggs, Sanders, Lewis--stay on their feet under Vitali's best punches, or when guys in their prime take his best shots while all around the same time frame other guys with supposedly 'less power' are decking them. When you see examples of that again, and again, and again, and again, as you do in the long list I provided in the OP, you see a pattern. Most people recognise that pattern. You don't. No surprises there.

Vitali's KO ratio is patently ridiculous--trying to argue the irrefutable with childish semantics and pedantry is the equivalent of a boxer trying to win a fight by grabbing his balls and leaping to the floor every time he gets hit to the body. Doesn't work and makes you look stupid.

[Boxerbeetle]

Some top tier trolling in this thread

[ewenhay]

Corrie Sanders' win over Wladimir Klitschko was meaningless? That's a new one. Dearie me.

[oogiebe]

Corrie Sanders' win over Wladimir Klitschko was meaningless? That's a new one. Dearie me.

[Luis Fernando12]

His victories over Corrie Sanders, Tomasz Adamek and Chris Arreola are better than a few of those you mentioned. Particularly the first two I mentioned.

Wladimir Klitschko beat Hasim Rahman, who beat Corrie Sanders. Therefore, beating Hasim Rahman > beating Corrie Sanders.

Wladimir Klitschko's wins over Alexander Povetkin and Kubrat Pulev > Vitali Klitschko's wins over Chris Arreola and Tomasz Adamek.

What's Adamek's best wins? Andrew Golota? Who was previously already stopped in 1 round by Wlad's leftover in Lamon Brewster? Eddie Chambers? Who was already previously beaten whilst undefeated by Wlad's leftover in Povetkin? Or is it Kevin McBride? Who was knocked out cold by Wlad's leftover in Mariusz Wach?

What's Chris Arreola's best wins? Eric Molina? Who's own best wins were against DaVarryl Williamson, the guy who was beaten by Wlad's leftover in Chris Byrd? And against Chris Arreola, who has been proven to be inferior to Wlad's best opponents like Povetkin and Pulev?

Yeah but Corrie Sanders beat Wlad. I wasn't comparing the best guys Vitali's beaten to other guys Wlad has beaten I was comparing 'em to the guys you had mentioned as Vitali's best victories.

Adamek's best wins came as a Cruiserweight I'd say. He had a respectable run as Cruiserweight Champion, and did ok as a Heavyweight. He's no major force at Heavyweight, but just the fact that he was a former Cruiserweight Champ who had become a contender at Heavy makes him a more meaningful win than a lot of the other guys Vitali beat.

Kevin Johnson never did sh*t.

Besides if you're trying to prove to me that Wlad's resume is better than Vitali's...I already agree with you so there's no need.

I was just saying that Vitali had some better wins than the ones you were citing as his best.

Fair enough (to the bold part)!

[Luis Fernando12]

Lennox Lewis couldn't KO Levi Billups, or even come close to doing so, despite landing multiple of his best punches that landed flush for the entire fight. Yet, Vitali Klitschko put that same Levi Billups to sleep inside just 3 rounds. So what does that prove about Vitali Klitschko's and Lennox Lewis's punching power?

Mike Tyson took 10 rounds of flush punches to TKO a bum in Jose Ribalta, a bum who has over 25% losses out of his career win/loss record. Yet, Vitali Klitschko and even Chris Byrd stopped that same guy inside just 6 rounds. So what does that say about Mike Tyson's punching power, compared to Vitali Klitschko and even a feather fist like Chris Byrd? Considering Chris Byrd has a significantly lower KO percentage than Mike Tyson, but managed to stop at least one common opponent in Jose Ribalta in far less time?

Facile comparison. You're cherry picking fighters who were in their prime when they fought Lewis and Tyson and were scrambled brain half cadavers when they fought Klitschko. It tells you nothing because the opponents in question could no longer take punches. They're simply too used up to gauge anyone's power.

What is telling about power is that when old men with a history of getting knocked down, knocked out, but who are still in the land of the living--Briggs, Sanders, Lewis--stay on their feet under Vitali's best punches, or when guys in their prime take his best shots while all around the same time frame other guys with supposedly 'less power' are decking them. When you see examples of that again, and again, and again, and again, as you do in the long list I provided in the OP, you see a pattern. Most people recognise that pattern. You don't. No surprises there.

Vitali's KO ratio is patently ridiculous--trying to argue the irrefutable with childish semantics and pedantry is the equivalent of a boxer trying to win a fight by grabbing his balls and leaping to the floor every time he gets hit to the body. Doesn't work and makes you look stupid.

Levi Billups was literally knocked out clean and stopped multiples times before Lennox Lewis fought him. So what excuse does Lewis have for failing to KO / stop Billups? Since you excuse Mike Tyson for failing to KO his early opponents because he fought them first and apparently damaged them, which enables other boxers to later stop those same opponents. So why couldn't Lennox Lewis KO / stop Levi Billups, since he was totally damaged from multiple knockout losses? At least Vitali Klitschko managed to put that same Levi Billups to sleep in just 3 rounds.

The same pattern that you're alluding to about Vitali Klitschko, can also be applied to Mike Tyson as well. There are literally multiple opponents that Mike Tyson faced, which he couldn't stop but other supposedly lesser boxers with less power stopped, before and after fighting Mike Tyson.

James Tillis went 12 rounds with Mike Tyson. Yet, was stopped multiples times beforehand by the likes of Greg Page, Tim Witherspoon and etc. And then getting stopped afterwards by the likes of Gary Mason and Cliff Couser.

Same with James Smith. Who went 12 rounds with Mike Tyson but was knocked out cold in his first fight by James Broad in 1 round. Also was stopped by Larry Holmes before fighting Mike Tyson. Then stopped by Buster Douglas and Lionel Butler after fighting Mike Tyson.

Your excuse for boxers getting knocked out by other boxers that Mike Tyson couldn't KO due to Tyson facing those boxers in their primes and because he damaged them before other boxers knocked them out doesn't apply, because Mike Tyson himself also faced many opponents who were already knocked out previously and badly damaged, yet Tyson also couldn't stop / KO those opponents. Such as James Smith and James Tillis. So what's your next excuse?

None of your excuses are going to change the fact that the same Tucker that Mike Tyson couldn't even drop, was brutalized in just 2 rounds by a blown up light heavyweight / cruiser weight in Herbie Hide. Who happens to be Vitali Klitshcko's 2 round KO victim.

So again, your argument used to criticize Vitali Klitschko's punching power, can also be applied to Mike Tyson as well.

[Luis Fernando12]

Corrie Sanders' win over Wladimir Klitschko was meaningless? That's a new one. Dearie me.

Yes, it is because boxers are judged by the entirety of their careers and not by one fight. One single win on its own is meaningless. Otherwise, boxers would only seek to have 1 fight in their entire career and then retire, rather than having multiple fights spanning over 20 bouts.

[gilgamesh]

Corrie Sanders' win over Wladimir Klitschko was meaningless? That's a new one. Dearie me.

Yes, it is because boxers are judged by the entirety of their careers and not by one fight. One single win on its own is meaningless. Otherwise, boxers would only seek to have 1 fight in their entire career and then retire, rather than having multiple fights spanning over 20 bouts.

His win over Wlad doesn't mean he's better than Wlad, but it does mean he had a style that was trouble for Wlad, and it's certainly not a meaningless victory. Especially considering that everybody else that defeated Wlad...it took some doing for them to do it. They had to wear him down, and usually take their fair share of punishment before they got the job done. Corrie just blasted him outta there, and barely took a scratch in the process nobody else ever did that to Wlad.

I doubt even Corrie could've done it again to be honest, but nevertheless it was a spectacular and memorable victory.

[HomicideHenry]

It was an accumulation of punches, in combination with the fact his ring IQ and awkwardness and size made his opponents wear out fast because they had to work two-three times harder than they normally would have to.

Neither Klitschko brother could kayo the prime Chris Byrd, and many men attest to both men's punching power. Kevin Johnson once told me in a radio interview that when the Klitschko brothers hit you with a jab it felt like getting your head slammed into a wall.

These kinds of threads reminds me of the hateful threads Larry Holmes and Lennox Lewis used to get. It only took about a decade and a half for those men to remotely get the just due respect they deserved.

[ewenhay]

Corrie Sanders' win over Wladimir Klitschko was meaningless? That's a new one. Dearie me.

Yes, it is because boxers are judged by the entirety of their careers and not by one fight. One single win on its own is meaningless. Otherwise, boxers would only seek to have 1 fight in their entire career and then retire, rather than having multiple fights spanning over 20 bouts.

We're not going to agree on this one. Sanders v Klitschko was a first class example of how to dismantle a bigger, more powerful man. He deserves huge credit for that performance.

[man]

Vitali could certainly hit, but a lot of his lofty KO percentage is owed to the fact that his competition was pretty abysmal...and I'm a fan of him and his brother, but that's just a fact.

[HeavyHitters]

Wlad had much more quality opponents in his resume and hit much, much harder. Chris Byrd actually said Wlad hits 3 times harder than Vitali.

I still think Vitali would ko Wlad though.

If you could remove his emotions, and make him a soulless robot coming in maybe. If he's fighting his little brother, he'd lose because he wouldn't have it in him to beat up his little brother...even if he could.

Now if Lex Luther was a fight promoter, he could easily persuade Vitali and Wladmir to go to war against each other.