Tyson

[Cojimar 1946]

You can't just go by age. You also have to factor in how much punishment a fighter has taken. Did you seriously not know this?

Usyk has just 22 fights. In other words, Usyk still has not fought as many fights as Klitschko already he lost to Purrity. He has taken very little punishment. Most people thought the Joshua fights were competitive. Not interested in how you scored them.

Holyfield had a ton of mileage on him by the time he fought Ruiz. He had been in a lot of tough fights against good competition.

Lets see how Usyk looks when has 40 fights. What year will that be?

Holyfield had competive fights with Mercer, Cooper, and old Holmes. In order for a competitive fight with Joshua and Fury to be disqualifying one would have to take the position that those guys are significantly worse than Mercer, old Holmes, and Cooper which seems ridiculous. I'd rate both guys ahead of Moorer who beat Holyfield let alone Cooper and Mercer.

To claim otherwise you have to take the extreme position that the top 5 heavyweights of today are worse than 90s journeyman like Cooper and Ferguson but there's enough overlap between eras to suggest thats not the case. If things were that bad I'd expect even faded versions of Wlad and Povetkin to dominate today

[keithmoonhangover]

Whether someone rematches you is beyond your control.

Yeah, but we're talking about the losses themselves. Ross Purrity.

Were it prime it would be a problem but I wasn't so I would expect people to treat it like say
Pacquaio's losses to Torrecampo and Sangsurat
Marquez's loss to Javier Duran
Holyfield's losses to Toney and Donald
Duran's loss to Pat Lawlor
None of which are viewed as tarnishing the legacy of the fighters in question.

So you're saying that losing to Ross Purrity is better than losing to Oliver McCall?

[Cojimar 1946]

Yeah, but we're talking about the losses themselves. Ross Purrity.

Were it prime it would be a problem but I wasn't so I would expect people to treat it like say
Pacquaio's losses to Torrecampo and Sangsurat
Marquez's loss to Javier Duran
Holyfield's losses to Toney and Donald
Duran's loss to Pat Lawlor
None of which are viewed as tarnishing the legacy of the fighters in question.

So you're saying that losing to Ross Purrity is better than losing to Oliver McCall?

Of course not but there's guys far worse than McCall who could beat Lewis in the early stages of his career.
You wouldn't need someone very good to beat the Lewis of the Ossie Ocasio fight or the Greg Gorall fight.
McCall was fighting a far better version of Lewis.

[keithmoonhangover]

Were it prime it would be a problem but I wasn't so I would expect people to treat it like say
Pacquaio's losses to Torrecampo and Sangsurat
Marquez's loss to Javier Duran
Holyfield's losses to Toney and Donald
Duran's loss to Pat Lawlor
None of which are viewed as tarnishing the legacy of the fighters in question.

So you're saying that losing to Ross Purrity is better than losing to Oliver McCall?

Of course not but there's guys far worse than McCall who could beat Lewis in the early stages of his career.
You wouldn't need someone very good to beat the Lewis of the Ossie Ocasio fight or the Greg Gorall fight.
McCall was fighting a far better version of Lewis.

But they didn't beat him. Wlad actually lost to Ross Purrity. Don't you understand that?

[Cojimar 1946]

So you're saying that losing to Ross Purrity is better than losing to Oliver McCall?

Of course not but there's guys far worse than McCall who could beat Lewis in the early stages of his career.
You wouldn't need someone very good to beat the Lewis of the Ossie Ocasio fight or the Greg Gorall fight.
McCall was fighting a far better version of Lewis.

But they didn't beat him. Wlad actually lost to Ross Purrity. Don't you understand that?

Of course but I don't count non-prime losses. If I did I'd have to count McBride, Williams, and Paul against Tyson. Glen Johnson, Tarver, Calzaghe, etc against Jones, and Torrecampo, Sangsurat, Horn, etc against Pacquaio.

The legacies of lots of guys are radically different if we treat losses the same regardless of career stage.
If you disagree thats fine.

[keithmoonhangover]

Of course but I don't count non-prime losses.

So you do count the Corrie Sanders and Lamon Brewster losses?

[Ambling Alp II]

You can't just go by age. You also have to factor in how much punishment a fighter has taken. Did you seriously not know this?

Usyk has just 22 fights. In other words, Usyk still has not fought as many fights as Klitschko already he lost to Purrity. He has taken very little punishment. Most people thought the Joshua fights were competitive. Not interested in how you scored them.

Holyfield had a ton of mileage on him by the time he fought Ruiz. He had been in a lot of tough fights against good competition.

Lets see how Usyk looks when has 40 fights. What year will that be?

Holyfield had competive fights with Mercer, Cooper, and old Holmes. In order for a competitive fight with Joshua and Fury to be disqualifying one would have to take the position that those guys are significantly worse than Mercer, old Holmes, and Cooper which seems ridiculous. I'd rate both guys ahead of Moorer who beat Holyfield let alone Cooper and Mercer.

To claim otherwise you have to take the extreme position that the top 5 heavyweights of today are worse than 90s journeyman like Cooper and Ferguson but there's enough overlap between eras to suggest thats not the case. If things were that bad I'd expect even faded versions of Wlad and Povetkin to dominate today

Have you ever seen the Holyfield-Mercer fight? Just kidding. I know that you didn't because it was before your time as a fan and therefore you have no interest in it.

Holyfield-Mercer was a great fight. Better than anything Usyk or Klitschko were ever in.
He clearly won the Cooper fight. Cooper landed one good punch and otherwise it was almost Holyfield.
Holyfield did not look great against Holmes, but he certainly did not look terrible. Holyfield also had several fights in which he was far better than anything Usyk or Klitschko ever. But you have no interest in that.

Yes, if you just look at the bad parts of the guys that you don't like and only the good parts of the guys that you do like, then yes, your favorites will come out on top.

But if you really want rate guys like you should, you have to count all the good, bad, and in between of everyone.

You don't do that.

[Controversial]

Yes, if you just look at the bad parts of the guys that you don't like and only the good parts of the guys that you do like, then yes, your favorites will come out on top.

We are all guilty of that I guess and always an element of rose tinted glasses when people look back at lots of things. Also the highlight reels only show good clips of a fighter but as we know every fighter has looked average in many fights. Ali certainly did although overall his resume is better than them all at HW. Louis fought a lot of very average HWs, Holmes was in a few close fights, Marciano fought a lot of very average fighters and guys at the end of the careers . Tyson’s time at the top was short but explosive etc etc. I’m no Klitschko fan but his reign was long and not many fighters can keep that level of professionalism up so that has to be applauded. As we always say you can only fight who there is to fight so you can only really judge fighters on that, if they are the dominant fighter of their time then that’s how it is, it’s not fair to compare eras.

[Ambling Alp II]

Agree that we all guilty of picking out favorites from time to time. However, most of us don't pick our favorites over guys who were clearly better.

Yes, you can find faults with Ali, Louis or whomever.

Agree, that you can only beat the best that are available. ho
With Klitschko, he ducked Lennox Lewis. They were the top hws for three years. that fight should have happened. He should not get a free pass for this, but always does.

Agree, that you can only beat the best that are available. but that doesn't mean that you are great because you dominated a weak era. It just means that you are the best of a weak era.

You have to weigh the wins and losses of a fighter. Have to consider how close to the prime the fighter was as well as his opponents. to a lesser degree, you have to consider how competitive the fights were.

For Klitschko you have a guy that beat Bhris Byrd. and lost to Purrity, Sanders, and Brewster. Badly.
Then he beat a lot of weak opponents over the course of several years. That isn't enough to rate him among the truly great heavyweights, i.e. nowhere near the top 10. Not even close.

All the greats beat better opponents and didn't have three embarrassing losses against weak competition.

Yes, you can compare fighters form different eras. You can compare fighters from the 1990s to the 1980s. you can compare the 1980s to the 190s to the 1970s. therefore you can compare the 1990s to the 1970s, and so on. You just have to think more. It's not rocket science.

[Controversial]

Agree that we all guilty of picking out favorites from time to time. However, most of us don't pick our favorites over guys who were clearly better.

Yes, you can find faults with Ali, Louis or whomever.

Agree, that you can only beat the best that are available. ho
With Klitschko, he ducked Lennox Lewis. They were the top hws for three years. that fight should have happened. He should not get a free pass for this, but always does.

Agree, that you can only beat the best that are available. but that doesn't mean that you are great because you dominated a weak era. It just means that you are the best of a weak era.

You have to weigh the wins and losses of a fighter. Have to consider how close to the prime the fighter was as well as his opponents. to a lesser degree, you have to consider how competitive the fights were.

For Klitschko you have a guy that beat Bhris Byrd. and lost to Purrity, Sanders, and Brewster. Badly.
Then he beat a lot of weak opponents over the course of several years. That isn't enough to rate him among the truly great heavyweights, i.e. nowhere near the top 10. Not even close.

All the greats beat better opponents and didn't have three embarrassing losses against weak competition.

Yes, you can compare fighters form different eras. You can compare fighters from the 1990s to the 1980s. you can compare the 1980s to the 190s to the 1970s. therefore you can compare the 1990s to the 1970s, and so on. You just have to think more. It's not rocket science.

Yes obviously you can say one era is better than another one, that goes without saying. I meant you should judge someone on their overall achievements, not how it compares to someone else as everyone's career is different. I don’t particular rate Klitschko but I do respect what he done, you don’t achieve that unless you work hard at it.

[Ambling Alp II]

Well, you pretty much have to compare someone to others when judging their achievement, you have to have something to go by.
Of course, Klitschko worked hard. There are also countless others who have worked hard, who did far better or far worse than Klitschko. He was very fortunate that the division all but disappeared while he was still active.

All I am really saying (and I think others feel the same way) is that he should be judged like others are.
No other heavyweight who has three embarrassing losses to far less than great fighters is considered great. None.
No other heavyweight whose victim's list is that weak is considered great. None.

There are literally dozens of guys that aren't considered anywhere near the top 10 or so who have beaten better opponents and don't have the embarrassing losses.

[Controversial]

Well, you pretty much have to compare someone to others when judging their achievement, you have to have something to go by.
Of course, Klitschko worked hard. There are also countless others who have worked hard, who did far better or far worse than Klitschko. He was very fortunate that the division all but disappeared while he was still active.

All I am really saying (and I think others feel the same way) is that he should be judged like others are.
No other heavyweight who has three embarrassing losses to far less than great fighters is considered great. None.
No other heavyweight whose victim's list is that weak is considered great. None.

There are literally dozens of guys that aren't considered anywhere near the top 10 or so who have beaten better opponents and don't have the embarrassing losses.

I don’t disagree with you. But if we are comparing eras you also have to acknowledge early eras didn’t have many 16-18 stone fighters, if Klitschko was feasting on guys 12-14 stone I imagine he’d have been far more successful.

[keithmoonhangover]

Well, you pretty much have to compare someone to others when judging their achievement, you have to have something to go by.
Of course, Klitschko worked hard. There are also countless others who have worked hard, who did far better or far worse than Klitschko. He was very fortunate that the division all but disappeared while he was still active.

All I am really saying (and I think others feel the same way) is that he should be judged like others are.
No other heavyweight who has three embarrassing losses to far less than great fighters is considered great. None.
No other heavyweight whose victim's list is that weak is considered great. None.

There are literally dozens of guys that aren't considered anywhere near the top 10 or so who have beaten better opponents and don't have the embarrassing losses.

I don’t disagree with you. But if we are comparing eras you also have to acknowledge early eras didn’t have many 16-18 stone fighters, if Klitschko was feasting on guys 12-14 stone I imagine he’d have been far more successful.

Boxing has changed, humans have changed. You've got a small heavyweight at the top of the tree right now. Usyk is the same height as Ali. Lamon Brewster was an inch shorter than Ali and he still smashed a prime Wlad. Far too much is made of sizes. Tyson cleared out a division of bigger guys.

[Controversial]

Well, you pretty much have to compare someone to others when judging their achievement, you have to have something to go by.
Of course, Klitschko worked hard. There are also countless others who have worked hard, who did far better or far worse than Klitschko. He was very fortunate that the division all but disappeared while he was still active.

All I am really saying (and I think others feel the same way) is that he should be judged like others are.
No other heavyweight who has three embarrassing losses to far less than great fighters is considered great. None.
No other heavyweight whose victim's list is that weak is considered great. None.

There are literally dozens of guys that aren't considered anywhere near the top 10 or so who have beaten better opponents and don't have the embarrassing losses.

I don’t disagree with you. But if we are comparing eras you also have to acknowledge early eras didn’t have many 16-18 stone fighters, if Klitschko was feasting on guys 12-14 stone I imagine he’d have been far more successful.

Boxing has changed, humans have changed. You've got a small heavyweight at the top of the tree right now. Usyk is the same height as Ali. Lamon Brewster was an inch shorter than Ali and he still smashed a prime Wlad. Far too much is made of sizes. Tyson cleared out a division of bigger guys.

I was talking about guys weighing 12-14 stone, fighters in older eras who were no bigger than MWs in some cases

[keithmoonhangover]

I don’t disagree with you. But if we are comparing eras you also have to acknowledge early eras didn’t have many 16-18 stone fighters, if Klitschko was feasting on guys 12-14 stone I imagine he’d have been far more successful.

Boxing has changed, humans have changed. You've got a small heavyweight at the top of the tree right now. Usyk is the same height as Ali. Lamon Brewster was an inch shorter than Ali and he still smashed a prime Wlad. Far too much is made of sizes. Tyson cleared out a division of bigger guys.

I was talking about guys weighing 12-14 stone, fighters in older eras who were no bigger than MWs in some cases

As mentioned, humans have changed, boxers have changed. You can't just compare their height and weight on BoxRec. Training, nutrition, sports science, 'supplements'. Everything has changed.

[Controversial]

Boxing has changed, humans have changed. You've got a small heavyweight at the top of the tree right now. Usyk is the same height as Ali. Lamon Brewster was an inch shorter than Ali and he still smashed a prime Wlad. Far too much is made of sizes. Tyson cleared out a division of bigger guys.

I was talking about guys weighing 12-14 stone, fighters in older eras who were no bigger than MWs in some cases

As mentioned, humans have changed, boxers have changed. You can't just compare their height and weight on BoxRec. Training, nutrition, sports science, 'supplements'. Everything has changed.

Yes and that’s why my post said it’s unfair to compare eras. Alp said you can, I said of course you can but then you have to also acknowledge that there weren’t many 16-18 stone HWs in past eras, so if Klitschko was fighting the small guys who were about in those times then he’d have a big physical advantage.

[keithmoonhangover]

I was talking about guys weighing 12-14 stone, fighters in older eras who were no bigger than MWs in some cases

As mentioned, humans have changed, boxers have changed. You can't just compare their height and weight on BoxRec. Training, nutrition, sports science, 'supplements'. Everything has changed.

Yes and that’s why my post said it’s unfair to compare eras. Alp said you can, I said of course you can but then you have to also acknowledge that there weren’t many 16-18 stone HWs in past eras, so if Klitschko was fighting the small guys who were about in those times then he’d have a big physical advantage.

If Wlad had grown up then and trained then, eaten then and didn't have the same 'supplements', he'd lose some of the physical advantages.

[Controversial]

As mentioned, humans have changed, boxers have changed. You can't just compare their height and weight on BoxRec. Training, nutrition, sports science, 'supplements'. Everything has changed.

Yes and that’s why my post said it’s unfair to compare eras. Alp said you can, I said of course you can but then you have to also acknowledge that there weren’t many 16-18 stone HWs in past eras, so if Klitschko was fighting the small guys who were about in those times then he’d have a big physical advantage.

If Wlad had grown up then and trained then, eaten then and didn't have the same 'supplements', he'd lose some of the physical advantages.

Yeah of course, that’s why these debates are pointless.

[keithmoonhangover]

Yes and that’s why my post said it’s unfair to compare eras. Alp said you can, I said of course you can but then you have to also acknowledge that there weren’t many 16-18 stone HWs in past eras, so if Klitschko was fighting the small guys who were about in those times then he’d have a big physical advantage.

If Wlad had grown up then and trained then, eaten then and didn't have the same 'supplements', he'd lose some of the physical advantages.

Yeah of course, that’s why these debates are pointless.

Looking at someone's record and judging them on it isn't pointless.

[elmersalsa]

I don't care what people say, Mike Tyson was a great fighter. Probably, top 15 at heavyweight and a top 100 all time pound per pound great. His contributions to the game will always be recognized as his influence and and historical impact on the sport of boxing was second to none.

[Controversial]

If Wlad had grown up then and trained then, eaten then and didn't have the same 'supplements', he'd lose some of the physical advantages.

Yeah of course, that’s why these debates are pointless.

Looking at someone's record and judging them on it isn't pointless.

Eh, I didn’t say it was ?

[keithmoonhangover]

Yeah of course, that’s why these debates are pointless.

Looking at someone's record and judging them on it isn't pointless.

Eh, I didn’t say it was ?

I didn't say you did, just making a statement.

[Ambling Alp II]

Klitschko would have an advantage if he was fighting guy way under 200. not if he was fighting someone that weighed around 200 or more.

Imagine if Klitschko had to fight 15 rounds iin a fight; not a slow paced 12 rounds. His stamina was so bad he would be screwed. His chin was too weak to stand up to guys that could punch. Great fighters don't have 2 major weaknesses.

At a certain point, the weight is not an advantage anymore. There are ideal sizes for qbs, tennis player etc. Same with boxing. there are always exceptions. Now, if a guy way bigger or way smaller can beat the top guys, he can beat the top guys regardless of the size. We can't pretend it did not happen.

Klitschko was nowhere near Ali, Louis, Foreman, Frazier, Johnson, Holmes, Holyfield, Marciano, Lewis, Tyson, Bowe, Dempsey, Liston and Tyson. They had less embarrassing losses near their primes and had many more big wins.
There are dozens of other guys not as good as the fighters mentioned who were also better than Klitschko, the gap just is not as big.

As a rule of thumb in boxing, when people have to resort to numbers in boxing (whether it's weight or the amount of WBS title defenses) it's a red flag.

[Cojimar 1946]

Of course but I don't count non-prime losses.

So you do count the Corrie Sanders and Lamon Brewster losses?

Yes of course those count against him.

[keithmoonhangover]

Of course but I don't count non-prime losses.

So you do count the Corrie Sanders and Lamon Brewster losses?

Yes of course those count against him.

So we agree, they were losses in his prime.