Who ranks higher historically - Wladimir Klitschko or Floyd Patterson?

[margaret thatcher]

hmmm, who ranks higher, wlad or sweet sugar cleveland williams, that's a tough one too

[oogiebe]

hmmm, who ranks higher, wlad or sweet sugar cleveland williams, that's a tough one too

Geez I forgot that one from Alp!! LMFAO!

[DrDuke]

hmmm, who ranks higher, wlad or sweet sugar cleveland williams, that's a tough one too

We need it as a poll. We should make a series of polls "Wlad Klit vs..." and you know what, each of those will be hot, majorly because of the one legendary tireless poster.

[gilgamesh]

Louis did have 24 fights. He had been a pro for 2 years. He had just turned 20.
Not a novice, but not quite a seasoned pro.

Klitschko had 41 fights when he fought Sanders. He was 26 years old. Had been a pro for more than 6 years.
Klitschko had 44 fights when he crushed by Brewster. He was 28 years old. Had been a pro for more than 7 years.
Thee is no way that you can spin this that Klitschko was some green kid. He wasn't at all.

I don't think Louis was quite in his prime yet. Certainly count it against him to an extent when rating him.

Louis didn't lose as badly.

Most importantly, Schmeling was a great fighter himself. Losing to him is not as bad as losing to people like Sanders and Brewster. Therefore those losses should count against him more than Louis' loss to Schmeling.

Klitschko wasn't "Crushed by Brewster" he was beating the ever loving sh*t out of him in one sided fashion, and then hit the wall. Why that is, is debatable, but basically it's like the Purrity loss where he was winning handily until he ran out of steam.

You don't need an excuse for Wladimir's losses. It's Boxing. A loss is possible anytime you step in the ring.

He started fighting smarter after his losses, and at the very least protecting his flaws better. That's what great fighters do. They learn.

There is no perfect fighter who never made a mistake or had a flaw.

[gilgamesh]

No argument? Citing the number of title defenses and win/loss records is no argument.

Patterson beat better fighters than Klitschko beat.
Patterson never lost to stiffs like Klitschko did.
That's not just an argument, that's a very solid argument. One that you keep dancing around and won't take on.

Wlad-Tyson was not a worth a discussion.

Patterson didn't BEAT better fighters than Klitschko. That's bullsh*t.

Patterson did lose to better fighters, and he also lost more often in less fights.

Wladimir reigning 3 times as long as Floyd Patterson, and making 3 times as many successful title defenses is worth mentioning. If you think it's not. What do you think we should compare? Their golf scores?

Their best wins are comparable as I've already pointed out. Wlad was able to improve upon his flaws, and rise above them for a near decade long run.

Floyd losing to bigger names is your one and only argument for Floyd Patterson. On everything else Wlad is either equal to him or superior.

We can arguable about who beat better fighters. I just don't think it's worth the while. I think the division has sucked for almost 20 years and you don't.
Here is why the sheer number of title defenses don't mean anything:

1. You are counting each title defense than anyone has as equal. That is just silly. A title defense over say Don Cockell is not the same as say one over Ken Norton.

2. Youi also have to use it with everyone. Tommy Burns had at least 11 official ones. Are we really going to rank Tommy Burns near the top of hws? Better than Foreman, Frazier, Marciano etc.

Burns had a record of 13-1-1 in title fights ( A couple are disputed as to whether they were really title fights.)
George foreman lost four title fights.
He had to win the title from Joe Frazier. Burns won it from Marvin Hart. He had a title defense against Ken Norton. He lost it to Ali.
Going by stats, we are supposed to rank Burns higher, when we know we shouldn't.

You can't use stats in boxing like the NBA, MLB, NFL etc.
This is a sport where a good fighter can always find an easy opponent to beat. And he should not get credit for doing that.

I'm not counting all title fights as equal, but I do think they're more important to note than say a Non Title fight.

Any title fight is significant to some degree.

But obviously there's always the marquee wins that people bring up first as the best scalps on a guy's record. That's the biggest factor in ranking guys.

A dominant lengthy reign has to count for something though.

After all if it was so easy to dominate a "weak era" why hasn't it been done several other times in Boxing? Why is Wlad the 3rd longest reign in Heavyweight Championship history?

Marciano's era was weak. Mike Tyson's era was weak. Jack Dempsey's era was fairly weak, and he even ducked all the Black fighters of his time.

All 3 of those guys combined. All of which often come up on all time Top 10 Heavyweight lists by the way, don't have the Title defenses that Wladimir Klitschko did.

If that doesn't mean anything to you. Well...the facts speak for themselves.

You don't need to understand that Fire is Hot for it to burn you. You don't need to understand why Wlad is better than Floyd Patterson either.

But I've explained it to you, and there's also this crazy little thing called vision and reality that goes a long way in proving it as well.

[gilgamesh]

And for the record. I feel it should be pointed out that Wlad's title defenses and all that sh*t alone doesn't put him ahead of everybody, it just counts heavily in putting him at least in the conversation. There are several guys who I'd rank ahead of Wlad who don't have as many title defenses or what have you. So the numbers aren't everything.

But if you don't win the numbers argument, you better win the Marquee wins argument handily.

A guy like Holyfield is a fine example in this department. I'm not even sure what his title fight record is, but I'm sure numbers wise it isn't as good as Wlad's.

That being said, Holyfield has wins over Bowe, Tyson, Foreman, Holmes, Moorer....so that's what gets it for him. Foreman and Holmes even aged are both Top 10 all time Heavyweights on pretty much every list.

Bowe is arguably Top 20. Tyson is definitely Top 20, and arguably Top 15 or 10.

So those are all HUGE wins. Really, really big wins do count for more than just numbers.

Hope that clarifies my criteria a little here since you seem hung up on the numbers thing as if that's all that matters to me.

[Controversial]

I'm not counting all title fights as equal, but I do think they're more important to note than say a Non Title fight.

Any title fight is significant to some degree.

Title challengers often fight or try harder than they have ever done. It’s their chance at winning the lottery so invariably train harder and fight harder. Not always of course but more often than not. Buster Douglas a fine example of this, he didn’t look that good in any other fight. So I agree numbers don’t tell the story but it should mean something even if they aren’t against ATG fighters because the champ needs to be on his game when defending against someone trying their hardest to win.

[gilgamesh]

I'm not counting all title fights as equal, but I do think they're more important to note than say a Non Title fight.

Any title fight is significant to some degree.

Title challengers often fight or try harder than they have ever done. It’s their chance at winning the lottery so invariably train harder and fight harder. Not always of course but more often than not. Buster Douglas a fine example of this, he didn’t look that good in any other fight. So I agree numbers don’t tell the story but it should mean something even if they aren’t against ATG fighters because the champ needs to be on his game when defending against someone trying their hardest to win.

Exactly.

I remember a commentator during a title fight against a lesser challenger one time made the accurate statement of "You have to assume that every Challenger you face is going to be as good or better than they've ever been because of what's at stake"

[Controversial]

I'm not counting all title fights as equal, but I do think they're more important to note than say a Non Title fight.

Any title fight is significant to some degree.

Title challengers often fight or try harder than they have ever done. It’s their chance at winning the lottery so invariably train harder and fight harder. Not always of course but more often than not. Buster Douglas a fine example of this, he didn’t look that good in any other fight. So I agree numbers don’t tell the story but it should mean something even if they aren’t against ATG fighters because the champ needs to be on his game when defending against someone trying their hardest to win.

Exactly.

I remember a commentator during a title fight against a lesser challenger one time made the accurate statement of "You have to assume that every Challenger you face is going to be as good or better than they've ever been because of what's at stake"

Yep and even more so if they are undefeated too, an undefeated fighter is a dangerous fighter. I'm certainly no Wlad fan but I can appreciate his achievements in the sport and it's not like his defences were against nobodies, they were top 10 fighters, some were world champions and some were unbeaten. As you say if it's that easy to stay champ for years and have numerous title defences then why does it not happen more. How many times have we seen someone fight out their skin in a title challenge and either cause an upset or end up never looking so good again. I wonder how many times across all divisions someone has won a title and lost it in their first defence. Winning the title is sometimes the easy bit, it's retaining it that can be harder.

[keithmoonhangover]

Wlad voters, please answer......

How many wins over HOFers does Wlad Have?
How many of Wlad's losses in his prime were against HOFers?

[HomicideHenry]

Wlad voters, please answer......

How many wins over HOFers does Wlad Have?
How many of Wlad's losses in his prime were against HOFers?

I don't know how seriously one can use the Hall of Famers argument considering the Hall of Fame for quite a few years has become more diluted with the lowering of their standards. At some point one may as well say that the likes of Chris Byrd, Ray Mercer, Frans Botha, Samuel Peter, Hasim Rahman, David Haye, Jean Marc Mormeck, Sultan Ibragimov, etc will eventually get into the Hall of Fame.

Besides everybody has already conceded that Vladimir Klitschko fought in a time that was practically void of those caliber of opponents. Not the man's fault he played the cards that was available to him and did damn well with it.

Are we to toss Larry Holmes into the trash can of obscurity considering the bulk of his title defenses were against no hopers? Outside of Norton and Shavers, basically everybody else he went up against was limited opposition or men who were more hype than anything else. Yet I don't know of a single person who does not rank Larry Holmes in the top ten all-time greats and many people myself included have him in the top five.

Are we to do the same with Joe Louis considering the vast majority of his Hall of Fame opponents came before he was champion and virtually everybody he fought as champion were considered bums of the month? Who did he beat who was Hall of Fame worthy as champion? Schmeling, Lewis, Conn and Walcott. But certainly context is everything. Louis was the favorite in all of those matches. And for good reason they were either old or they were considered too small or they were designated as a journeyman.

But ultimately I guess that don't matter to anyone because optics is everything because they simply have a recognizable name because they were once great or they became great later on they are automatically labeled a great win on someone's resume without ever taking into account what their actual worth was at the time.

[keithmoonhangover]

Wlad voters, please answer......

How many wins over HOFers does Wlad Have?
How many of Wlad's losses in his prime were against HOFers?

I don't know how seriously one can use the Hall of Famers argument considering the Hall of Fame for quite a few years has become more diluted with the lowering of their standards. At some point one may as well say that the likes of Chris Byrd, Ray Mercer, Frans Botha, Samuel Peter, Hasim Rahman, David Haye, Jean Marc Mormeck, Sultan Ibragimov, etc will eventually get into the Hall of Fame.

Besides everybody has already conceded that Vladimir Klitschko fought in a time that was practically void of those caliber of opponents. Not the man's fault he played the cards that was available to him and did damn well with it.

Are we to toss Larry Holmes into the trash can of obscurity considering the bulk of his title defenses were against no hopers? Outside of Norton and Shavers, basically everybody else he went up against was limited opposition or men who were more hype than anything else. Yet I don't know of a single person who does not rank Larry Holmes in the top ten all-time greats and many people myself included have him in the top five.

Are we to do the same with Joe Louis considering the vast majority of his Hall of Fame opponents came before he was champion and virtually everybody he fought as champion were considered bums of the month? Who did he beat who was Hall of Fame worthy as champion? Schmeling, Lewis, Conn and Walcott. But certainly context is everything. Louis was the favorite in all of those matches. And for good reason they were either old or they were considered too small or they were designated as a journeyman.

But ultimately I guess that don't matter to anyone because optics is everything because they simply have a recognizable name because they were once great or they became great later on they are automatically labeled a great win on someone's resume without ever taking into account what their actual worth was at the time.

I'll take any bet you like that Chris Byrd, Ray Mercer, Frans Botha, Samuel Peter, Hasim Rahman, David Haye, Jean Marc Mormeck and Sultan Ibragimov don't make the IBHOF.

[keithmoonhangover]

Wlad voters, please answer......

How many wins over HOFers does Wlad Have?
How many of Wlad's losses in his prime were against HOFers?

I don't know how seriously one can use the Hall of Famers argument considering the Hall of Fame for quite a few years has become more diluted with the lowering of their standards. At some point one may as well say that the likes of Chris Byrd, Ray Mercer, Frans Botha, Samuel Peter, Hasim Rahman, David Haye, Jean Marc Mormeck, Sultan Ibragimov, etc will eventually get into the Hall of Fame.

Besides everybody has already conceded that Vladimir Klitschko fought in a time that was practically void of those caliber of opponents. Not the man's fault he played the cards that was available to him and did damn well with it.

Are we to toss Larry Holmes into the trash can of obscurity considering the bulk of his title defenses were against no hopers? Outside of Norton and Shavers, basically everybody else he went up against was limited opposition or men who were more hype than anything else. Yet I don't know of a single person who does not rank Larry Holmes in the top ten all-time greats and many people myself included have him in the top five.

Are we to do the same with Joe Louis considering the vast majority of his Hall of Fame opponents came before he was champion and virtually everybody he fought as champion were considered bums of the month? Who did he beat who was Hall of Fame worthy as champion? Schmeling, Lewis, Conn and Walcott. But certainly context is everything. Louis was the favorite in all of those matches. And for good reason they were either old or they were considered too small or they were designated as a journeyman.

But ultimately I guess that don't matter to anyone because optics is everything because they simply have a recognizable name because they were once great or they became great later on they are automatically labeled a great win on someone's resume without ever taking into account what their actual worth was at the time.

I'll take any bet you like that Chris Byrd, Ray Mercer, Frans Botha, Samuel Peter, Hasim Rahman, David Haye, Jean Marc Mormeck and Sultan Ibragimov don't make the IBHOF.

And I don't know how you can possibly compare those guys to Archie Moore and Ingrmar Johansson.

The really silly bit is comparing losing to Ross Purrity to losing to Ali or Liston.

Henry, you're a smart guy and a good poster, but you are ignoring the basics of...... who were the bests fighters they beat and who were the worst fighters they lost to.

[gilgamesh]

Wlad voters, please answer......

How many wins over HOFers does Wlad Have?
How many of Wlad's losses in his prime were against HOFers?

Povetkin may not be a Hall of Famer, but he was a Top 5 Heavyweight for like a decade. That's not nothing.

David Haye is widely considered to be one of the all time best Cruiserweights. Not by me, but by others

He has several wins over Top 10 contenders, and Titleholders of his time. That's all he really had any kinda control over. Far as I know he doesn't have a Hall of Fame ballot he can cast his vote on

But yeah Samuel Peter (the 1st time particularly) was a meaningful win. Both wins over Byrd are great. If Byrd ain't a Hall of Famer he's the next tier down, and I don't think anybody could REALLY argue he doesn't have a better career than Ingemar Johansson can they?

Are we gonna have to do a Who ranks higher between Byrd and Ingo?

[keithmoonhangover]

Are we gonna have to do a Who ranks higher between Byrd and Ingo?

Did Byrd ever beat an unbeaten undisputed heavyweight champion of the world?

[gilgamesh]

Are we gonna have to do a Who ranks higher between Byrd and Ingo?

Did Byrd ever beat an unbeaten undisputed heavyweight champion of the world?

Alright. You asked for it.

[oogiebe]

Never a big Klit fan, but I easily rank him over Floyd.

[DrDuke]

So far it's being split about 70 to 30 in favor of Klit, like he lost to Tyson. Fair enough too.

[HomicideHenry]

I don't know how seriously one can use the Hall of Famers argument considering the Hall of Fame for quite a few years has become more diluted with the lowering of their standards. At some point one may as well say that the likes of Chris Byrd, Ray Mercer, Frans Botha, Samuel Peter, Hasim Rahman, David Haye, Jean Marc Mormeck, Sultan Ibragimov, etc will eventually get into the Hall of Fame.

Besides everybody has already conceded that Vladimir Klitschko fought in a time that was practically void of those caliber of opponents. Not the man's fault he played the cards that was available to him and did damn well with it.

Are we to toss Larry Holmes into the trash can of obscurity considering the bulk of his title defenses were against no hopers? Outside of Norton and Shavers, basically everybody else he went up against was limited opposition or men who were more hype than anything else. Yet I don't know of a single person who does not rank Larry Holmes in the top ten all-time greats and many people myself included have him in the top five.

Are we to do the same with Joe Louis considering the vast majority of his Hall of Fame opponents came before he was champion and virtually everybody he fought as champion were considered bums of the month? Who did he beat who was Hall of Fame worthy as champion? Schmeling, Lewis, Conn and Walcott. But certainly context is everything. Louis was the favorite in all of those matches. And for good reason they were either old or they were considered too small or they were designated as a journeyman.

But ultimately I guess that don't matter to anyone because optics is everything because they simply have a recognizable name because they were once great or they became great later on they are automatically labeled a great win on someone's resume without ever taking into account what their actual worth was at the time.

I'll take any bet you like that Chris Byrd, Ray Mercer, Frans Botha, Samuel Peter, Hasim Rahman, David Haye, Jean Marc Mormeck and Sultan Ibragimov don't make the IBHOF.

And I don't know how you can possibly compare those guys to Archie Moore and Ingrmar Johansson.

The really silly bit is comparing losing to Ross Purrity to losing to Ali or Liston.

Henry, you're a smart guy and a good poster, but you are ignoring the basics of...... who were the bests fighters they beat and who were the worst fighters they lost to.

I'm not comparing them to Archie Moore or Ingemar Johansson, but speaking of just the politics of the Hall of Fame itself. Most of the good or great boxers are already in the Hall of Fame and have been for quite some time. Sooner or later they are going to have to add some of these alphabet champions into the Hall of Fame because quite frankly there is not that many people left especially in the modern category that fits the criteria especially when the rules say you have to wait a decade after their last fight to add them into the Hall of Fame.

I don't think I ever compared the loss of Ross Puritty as being in the same category as a loss to Muhammad Ali or Sonny Liston. I was merely putting everything into context because people wanted to act like the loss was unforgivable. Context is everything in sports or anything else for that matter.

I'm just pointing out that you can only judge a person by what they do in their own era and I'm one of those type of people who also factor in their physical size and abilities into the equation as well. I can admit that somebody has a far better resume but I also have the willingness to admit that these men with better resumes most likely would have lost to these guys who had lesser resumes because of the physical size differences and abilities that these modern boxers have that are so underrated by nostalgic boxing fans.

[gilgamesh]

Never a big Klit fan, but I easily rank him over Floyd.

Like I said it's a no brainer. You need mental gymnastics to even put Floyd in the discussion. To me he's nowhere near Wlad on the all time list.

[Cojimar 1946]

The hof argument seems silly because realistically a lot of hof guys would lose H2H to more modern guys regardless of hof status.

Povetkin should be favored over Johansson and Braddock h2h pretty easily. There are cruiserweights and light heavyweights from Wladimirs era who likely beat them as well

[Ambling Alp II]

Patterson didn't BEAT better fighters than Klitschko. That's bullsh*t.

Patterson did lose to better fighters, and he also lost more often in less fights.

Wladimir reigning 3 times as long as Floyd Patterson, and making 3 times as many successful title defenses is worth mentioning. If you think it's not. What do you think we should compare? Their golf scores?

Their best wins are comparable as I've already pointed out. Wlad was able to improve upon his flaws, and rise above them for a near decade long run.

Floyd losing to bigger names is your one and only argument for Floyd Patterson. On everything else Wlad is either equal to him or superior.

We can arguable about who beat better fighters. I just don't think it's worth the while. I think the division has sucked for almost 20 years and you don't.
Here is why the sheer number of title defenses don't mean anything:

1. You are counting each title defense than anyone has as equal. That is just silly. A title defense over say Don Cockell is not the same as say one over Ken Norton.

2. Youi also have to use it with everyone. Tommy Burns had at least 11 official ones. Are we really going to rank Tommy Burns near the top of hws? Better than Foreman, Frazier, Marciano etc.

Burns had a record of 13-1-1 in title fights ( A couple are disputed as to whether they were really title fights.)
George foreman lost four title fights.
He had to win the title from Joe Frazier. Burns won it from Marvin Hart. He had a title defense against Ken Norton. He lost it to Ali.
Going by stats, we are supposed to rank Burns higher, when we know we shouldn't.

You can't use stats in boxing like the NBA, MLB, NFL etc.
This is a sport where a good fighter can always find an easy opponent to beat. And he should not get credit for doing that.

I'm not counting all title fights as equal, but I do think they're more important to note than say a Non Title fight.

Any title fight is significant to some degree.

But obviously there's always the marquee wins that people bring up first as the best scalps on a guy's record. That's the biggest factor in ranking guys.

A dominant lengthy reign has to count for something though.

After all if it was so easy to dominate a "weak era" why hasn't it been done several other times in Boxing? Why is Wlad the 3rd longest reign in Heavyweight Championship history?

Marciano's era was weak. Mike Tyson's era was weak. Jack Dempsey's era was fairly weak, and he even ducked all the Black fighters of his time.

All 3 of those guys combined. All of which often come up on all time Top 10 Heavyweight lists by the way, don't have the Title defenses that Wladimir Klitschko did.

If that doesn't mean anything to you. Well...the facts speak for themselves.

You don't need to understand that Fire is Hot for it to burn you. You don't need to understand why Wlad is better than Floyd Patterson either.

But I've explained it to you, and there's also this crazy little thing called vision and reality that goes a long way in proving it as well.

The heavyweight division was never this weak for this long.
Most of the time, the division isn't weak, Most of the time it was average. Occasionally really good. It was never this weak for this long before. Klitschko benefitted from that.
Tyon's era wasn't weak. Tucker, Thomas, Berbick, Smith Bruno etc. weren't great. But they were good fighters; much better than who Klitschko beat. Tyson also beat Ruddock 2x after losing the title to Douglas.
Marciano' era wasn't weak either.

Again, the sheer amount of title defenses don't mean anything. You can always find a stiff to beat. Quality is what counts.
If the sheer amount of title defenses really mattered, everyone would have Tommy Burns in the top 10. you ducked that part.
You have tom use the same criteria all of the time; not just when if favors your guy.
You also have said that the Klitschko-fury fight was a non-fight. It was terrible. Yet in different posts you have give Fury credit for winning it and Klitschko credit for not losing badly. That is nonsense.

Reality and vision will show you that in some eras Patterson and Klitschko and Tommy Burns would have been the champion.

[Ambling Alp II]

The hof argument seems silly because realistically a lot of hof guys would lose H2H to more modern guys regardless of hof status.

Povetkin should be favored over Johansson and Braddock h2h pretty easily. There are cruiserweights and light heavyweights from Wladimirs era who likely beat them as well

How about this: How many fighters did Klitschko beat that should be in the HOF?

[gilgamesh]

The hof argument seems silly because realistically a lot of hof guys would lose H2H to more modern guys regardless of hof status.

Povetkin should be favored over Johansson and Braddock h2h pretty easily. There are cruiserweights and light heavyweights from Wladimirs era who likely beat them as well

How about this: How many fighters did Klitschko beat that should be in the HOF?

Haye is the only one I'd think with any kinda chance of making the Hall. Not sure he will either, but he's the closest candidate I'd say.

[Controversial]

Marciano' era wasn't weak either.

It wasn’t a strong division. Post WW2 and lots of older HWs still knocking around. Marciano fought lots of average guys up to his title eliminator and the big names were at the tail end of their careers.