Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

[gilgamesh]

That depends on the heavyweight and moreover, their style.

True. Tyson was past it by the time he was 30. Lewis was nearly 38 and still good enough to beat Klitschko

Tyson looked fine against his competition aside from Holyfield. There's no reason to think he was past it aside from the disappointing results against Holyfield who was potentially just a bad matchup

He was definitely very carefully managed throughout the 90's. Tyson only even fought Holyfield because he was believed to be past it.

Tyson went into their first bout as a massive favorite.

[keithmoonhangover]

That depends on the heavyweight and moreover, their style.

True. Tyson was past it by the time he was 30. Lewis was nearly 38 and still good enough to beat Klitschko

Tyson looked fine against his competition aside from Holyfield. There's no reason to think he was past it aside from the disappointing results against Holyfield who was potentially just a bad matchup

Tyson was never the same after prison.

[Ambling Alp II]

No not all. You are way off.
Tyson beat much better competition. Yes Wlad had Chris Byrd. Tyson had several good wins. sometimes he won easily,, sometimes not. We should not have to name them.

Tyson also didn't have the embarrassing meltdowns that Klitschko. Losing to Buster Douglas and Holyfield is not remotely as bad as losing to Ross Purritty, Corrie Sanders, and Lamon Brewster.

there are many guys not as good as Tyson (who is in the about the 9th-12th range) but better than Kltischko. You need to start researching guys from way before your time.

Chris Byrd, David Haye, Alexander Povetkin.

Are all right there with Trevor Berbick, Bonecrusher Smith, Tony Tucker and Frank Bruno.

Tyson has an old and past it Larry Holmes, Wlad has an old and past it Hasim Rahman.

Mike definitely has the more exciting KO's and highlight reel finishes. Wlad has more consistent success over a longer period of time.

They're not separated by much.

One big detriment for Wlad is that he doesn't have a truly great win. Tyson's win over Michael Spinks is probably better than anything Wlad has, if Wlad had KO'd Haye in spectacular fashion the achievements would've been about equal, but he didn't, and they aren't.

Haye and Povetkin? I know you are desperate, but come on. Haye is awesome in Mythical Fights, but in real life he is not worth mentioning..
Are you really counting a win over a past Rahman as meaningful as an old Holmes? Seriously?

Tyson also has Tubbs, Thomas, Spinks, and Ruddock.
The consistent success Klitschko had was beating one stiff after another in meaningless fights.

And again, you have to weigh the embarrassing losses to Purrity, Sanders, and Brewster against Klitschko.

Off of the top of my head. Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer, Charles, Walcott, Langford, Wills, Jeannette, McVey, Norton were clearly below Tyson but clearly above Klitschko. These guys actually had meaningful wins.

I hated Tyson as much as anyone, but you need to start getting real here.

[gilgamesh]

No not all. You are way off.
Tyson beat much better competition. Yes Wlad had Chris Byrd. Tyson had several good wins. sometimes he won easily,, sometimes not. We should not have to name them.

Tyson also didn't have the embarrassing meltdowns that Klitschko. Losing to Buster Douglas and Holyfield is not remotely as bad as losing to Ross Purritty, Corrie Sanders, and Lamon Brewster.

there are many guys not as good as Tyson (who is in the about the 9th-12th range) but better than Kltischko. You need to start researching guys from way before your time.

Chris Byrd, David Haye, Alexander Povetkin.

Are all right there with Trevor Berbick, Bonecrusher Smith, Tony Tucker and Frank Bruno.

Tyson has an old and past it Larry Holmes, Wlad has an old and past it Hasim Rahman.

Mike definitely has the more exciting KO's and highlight reel finishes. Wlad has more consistent success over a longer period of time.

They're not separated by much.

One big detriment for Wlad is that he doesn't have a truly great win. Tyson's win over Michael Spinks is probably better than anything Wlad has, if Wlad had KO'd Haye in spectacular fashion the achievements would've been about equal, but he didn't, and they aren't.

Haye and Povetkin? I know you are desperate, but come on. Haye is awesome in Mythical Fights, but in real life he is not worth mentioning..
Are you really counting a win over a past Rahman as meaningful as an old Holmes? Seriously?

Tyson also has Tubbs, Thomas, Spinks, and Ruddock.
The consistent success Klitschko had was beating one stiff after another in meaningless fights.

And again, you have to weigh the embarrassing losses to Purrity, Sanders, and Brewster against Klitschko.

Off of the top of my head. Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer, Charles, Walcott, Langford, Wills, Jeannette, McVey, Norton were clearly below Tyson but clearly above Klitschko. These guys actually had meaningful wins.

I hated Tyson as much as anyone, but you need to start getting real here.

I'm not saying beating old Rahman is the same as beating old Holmes, I'm just pointing out it follows a similar career path.

Tyson has embarrassing losses to Buster Douglas, Danny Williams, and Kevin McBride.

I don't hate Mike Tyson at all. I also don't hate Wladimir Klitschko. You clearly can't stand the Klitschko's and can't hide your bias anytime they're brought up.

Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer, Charles, Walcott, Wills, Norton were all above Wladimir Klitschko? You're delusional. Schmeling won the title by being low blowed. Baer lost it to Jimmy Braddock...a journeyman. Walcott needed 4 tries to beat a career Light Heavyweight.

I do rate Ezzard Charles above Wladimir as a fighter overall. I don't rate him above Wladimir as a Heavyweight.

For the most part I don't bother trying to rate the guys from the 1920's on back because there's not a lot to go on with them except for what's written about them. I believe they were great fighters, but we can never be exactly sure just how great they were in comparison to guys we saw with our own eyes. I sort of put them in their own category. They're just Ring Legends that it's hard to rate numerically in any substantial form.

Walcott at 49-20-1. I mean....for what reason does he rate higher than Wladimir Klitschko to you or anyone with a brain? He has a record of 2-6 in Heavyweight Title fights, and the guy he beat Ezzard Charles also beat him twice.

I mean...what are you saying with this? That Walcott was better because he was older? He fought the same amount of fights as Wlad give or take a few, and lost 4 times as many of them.

[Ambling Alp II]

Buster Douglas fought a great fight against Tyson. Probably less than 10 guys would have beaten Douglas that night.
Tyson's was way, way past his best when he fought Williams and McBride. Tyson had a ton of mileage on him by then. they don't mean anything. Losing to Purrity, Sanders, and Brewster happened during his prime.

I'm delusional for picking Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer, Walcott, Wills, and Norton above Klitschko ? Wow.

Yes Schmeling won the title on a foul. How does that make him inferior to Klitschko? Not his fault that his opponent hit him low.
Yes Walcott lost his first four tries at the title. The loses were to Louis and Charles. Many thought he won the first fight against Louis. He was not embarrassed in any of these fight. He did eventually beat Charles.

Of course you can find negatives about all these guys. But they all have big positives. They all have more quality wins than Klitschko. None of them had a glass jaw and poor stamina like Klitschko did.

You are not really fan of the history of the sport if you are going to ignore the 1920s and everything prior. You are actually missing a lot. Of course, video footage is not as good. You should still be able see what a guy was good at and what he wasn't at. And of course you have to dissect everyone's records. And I don't mean win/loss records and WBS title defense counting.

You can compare anyone to anyone. You can compare a guy from the 1990s to the 1980s. You can compare a guy from the 1980s to a guy from the 1970s. If you can do that, you can compare a guy from the 1990s to a guy from the 1970s. You can go all the way back. You might want to use a bar graph or something. Start with Klitschko and work backward with the hw champions (real, not WBS). Then add in top contenders who occasionally were better than some champions. and It can be done. It's not rocket science.

[gilgamesh]

Walcott

2-6 in Heavyweight Championship fights.

20 losses in 71 total fights.

Klitschko has 69 total fights, and only 5 losses. He has literally over 10 times as many Championship wins as Joe Walcott

Your argument is Walcott is better because he was...older? Lost more often? What exactly?

[gilgamesh]

Max Baer

1-1 in Heavyweight Championship fights

Ezzard Charles

9-4 in Heavyweight Championship fights

Max Schmeling

2-2 in Heavyweight Championship fights

Jack Sharkey

1-2 in Heavyweight Championship Fights

You have no argument with any of these guys in any way, shape or form.

[gilgamesh]

Wladimir Klitschko has more Championship wins than all of those men I just named COMBINED! And you could throw in Ingemar Johansson, and Sonny Liston and that would remain the case.

He has more Championship success than all of those guys you would rate ahead of him put together. Think about that.

Why do you only rate Wladimir on his losses and ignore all of his success? You don't do that with any of these other guys.

[gilgamesh]

And let me be clear I do not ignore the 1920's and on back, I just understand that I cannot properly rate those guys and their abilities against the guys from the video era because there's just not a lot to go on. I can take the word of Sportswriters, and and their record and give a reasonable assumption of where they'd be, and I do know a lot about the biggest of the big names of that era. As much as you could know from simply reading about them.

I have an extensive book library of books on fighters from prior to the Great depression. That's generally the only fighters I'll read books on since everything else I can just watch and see for myself.

[Cojimar 1946]

True. Tyson was past it by the time he was 30. Lewis was nearly 38 and still good enough to beat Klitschko

Tyson looked fine against his competition aside from Holyfield. There's no reason to think he was past it aside from the disappointing results against Holyfield who was potentially just a bad matchup

He was definitely very carefully managed throughout the 90's. Tyson only even fought Holyfield because he was believed to be past it.

Tyson went into their first bout as a massive favorite.

After losing to Holyfield he was no longer champ and other fighters would have had little incentive to fight him. Where is the evidence for him deliberately ducking people? Who was calling him out and trying to fight him?

If you look at top 10 lists for the late 1990s there are a lot of guys that look very beatable. It's hard to believe Tyson's management didn't fancy his chances against Derrick Jefferson, Maskaev, let alone someone like Michael Grant.

[cfang]

Wladimir Klitschko has more Championship wins than all of those men I just named COMBINED! And you could throw in Ingemar Johansson, and Sonny Liston and that would remain the case.

He has more Championship success than all of those guys you would rate ahead of him put together. Think about that.

Why do you only rate Wladimir on his losses and ignore all of his success? You don't do that with any of these other guys.

I’m with you on this. I get why wlad isn’t rated as high on an all time heavy list as his record would immediately suggest but to dismiss him in favour of some of the lesser champs isn’t right. Charles better obviously in a p4p sense but as a heavy id rate wlad above all the guys mentioned. Also like gilga im not some wlad fanboy or someone who doesn’t appreciate the history of the sport. Wlad was an awesome fighter once steward got hold of him and he hit like a truck, was always in shape and his decade long winning streak of 20 odd defences can’t just be the overlooked.

[Jaywheel]

Tyson has an old and past it Larry Holmes, Wlad has an old and past it Hasim Rahman.

Lol come on gil...

[gilgamesh]

Tyson looked fine against his competition aside from Holyfield. There's no reason to think he was past it aside from the disappointing results against Holyfield who was potentially just a bad matchup

He was definitely very carefully managed throughout the 90's. Tyson only even fought Holyfield because he was believed to be past it.

Tyson went into their first bout as a massive favorite.

After losing to Holyfield he was no longer champ and other fighters would have had little incentive to fight him. Where is the evidence for him deliberately ducking people? Who was calling him out and trying to fight him?

If you look at top 10 lists for the late 1990s there are a lot of guys that look very beatable. It's hard to believe Tyson's management didn't fancy his chances against Derrick Jefferson, Maskaev, let alone someone like Michael Grant.

Who was calling out Mike Tyson and trying to fight him? Is that a joke?

[gilgamesh]

Tyson has an old and past it Larry Holmes, Wlad has an old and past it Hasim Rahman.

Lol come on gil...

I'm not comparing the achievements. I'm comparing the fact that they both beat up a Former World Champion. Tyson's Former World Champion is leaps and bounds better.

[Cojimar 1946]

He was definitely very carefully managed throughout the 90's. Tyson only even fought Holyfield because he was believed to be past it.

Tyson went into their first bout as a massive favorite.

After losing to Holyfield he was no longer champ and other fighters would have had little incentive to fight him. Where is the evidence for him deliberately ducking people? Who was calling him out and trying to fight him?

If you look at top 10 lists for the late 1990s there are a lot of guys that look very beatable. It's hard to believe Tyson's management didn't fancy his chances against Derrick Jefferson, Maskaev, let alone someone like Michael Grant.

Who was calling out Mike Tyson and trying to fight him? Is that a joke?

Tyson's only loss in the 1990s post Douglas is Holyfield. You seem to be claiming he was a badly diminished fighter who only got by via careful matchmaking and ducking. And I don't buy that. If his management was keeping away from certain guys they were being overly cautious in my view. I don't know why the fight didn't happen but I can't imagine it was because Tyson would have lost.

What would lead you to believe that late 90s Tyson couldn't beat Michael Grant for example? He seems like a stylistically perfect matchup. Easy to hit with a very suspect chin.

[gilgamesh]

He was clearly carefully managed in the 90's. Bowe, Lewis, Tua, Foreman. All major fights were all around, and Tyson didn't go near them.

He eventually fought Lewis, but first his team was trying their best to jump on Rahman while they had the chance since he was the more beatable Champion.

Tyson was clearly a great fighter, and even in the 90's he was still dangerous obviously, but he was also a cash cow, and they didn't want to risk him against the baddest of the bad.

[Cojimar 1946]

Fighters typically don't take tough fights unless there is a title at stake. When Tyson got out of prison Bowe, Foreman, Tua etc didn't hold any belts so Tyson had little reason to fight them.

You may not like that but that's how the sport generally works and doesn't indicate he was ducking those guys. Holyfield and Usyk fought pretty crappy opponents while waiting for their title shots as well and only fought better opponents once they won their belts.

Tyson was just doing what fighters typically did in that day and age

[Ambling Alp II]

Max Baer

1-1 in Heavyweight Championship fights

Ezzard Charles

9-4 in Heavyweight Championship fights

Max Schmeling

2-2 in Heavyweight Championship fights

Jack Sharkey

1-2 in Heavyweight Championship Fights

You have no argument with any of these guys in any way, shape or form.

You clearly don't understand the history of the sport. At all. When these guys were fighting there was 1 heavyweight champion. Not 2, 3 or 4. It was hard just to get a title shot.

Baer had been a pro for 5 years, almost 50 fights and many fights against other contenders.
Charles had been a pro 9 years and almost 70 fights.
Schmeling had been a pro for 6 years and 50 fights.
Sharkey had been a pro for 6 years and had well over 40 fights

One thing that you don't get is that there were major fights between top contenders. Gasp. All the time. there was only champion. top contenders fought each other to make $, get recognition and show some guts. They did start their careers 15-0 against stiffs and then got a title shot against a WBS titleholder.

Baer beat Schmeling and other contenders before he ever got a shot.
Schmeling beat Joe Louis in a fight between contenders.
Take a look at how many Hall of Fame wins that Ezzard Charles had.
Sharkey beat some stiff competition as well.

These guys who defending their title against serious opponents. Look at who these title losses were to.

Charles losses were to Walcott and Marciano.
Schmeling's losses were to Sharkey and Louis.
Sharkey lost to Schmeling and Carnera. (He beat Carnera earlier in his career)
Baer lost to Braddock. That's really the worst lost here.
You mentioned Walcott earlier. His title losses were to Louis, Charles and Marciano. In his early career, he literally had no trainer. He got one his 30s who completely changed his career.

All of these guys have several wins over guys better than Chris Byrd. None of them got stopped by 3 different fighters that weren't that good during their prime.

You need to read books about boxing before your time. A few to get you started:

The Boxing Register. It's a book n Hall of famers.
An Illustrated History of Boxing by Nat Fleischer and Sam Andre
The Encyclopedia of Boxing by Gilbert Odd
Boxing: An Illustrated History by Harry Carpenter

Of course, biographies of boxers can be helpful as well.

You (and Cojimar for that matter) don't know what you don't know.

[gilgamesh]

Max Baer

1-1 in Heavyweight Championship fights

Ezzard Charles

9-4 in Heavyweight Championship fights

Max Schmeling

2-2 in Heavyweight Championship fights

Jack Sharkey

1-2 in Heavyweight Championship Fights

You have no argument with any of these guys in any way, shape or form.

You clearly don't understand the history of the sport. At all. When these guys were fighting there was 1 heavyweight champion. Not 2, 3 or 4. It was hard just to get a title shot.

Baer had been a pro for 5 years, almost 50 fights and many fights against other contenders.
Charles had been a pro 9 years and almost 70 fights.
Schmeling had been a pro for 6 years and 50 fights.
Sharkey had been a pro for 6 years and had well over 40 fights

One thing that you don't get is that there were major fights between top contenders. Gasp. All the time. there was only champion. top contenders fought each other to make $, get recognition and show some guts. They did start their careers 15-0 against stiffs and then got a title shot against a WBS titleholder.

Baer beat Schmeling and other contenders before he ever got a shot.
Schmeling beat Joe Louis in a fight between contenders.
Take a look at how many Hall of Fame wins that Ezzard Charles had.
Sharkey beat some stiff competition as well.

These guys who defending their title against serious opponents. Look at who these title losses were to.

Charles losses were to Walcott and Marciano.
Schmeling's losses were to Sharkey and Louis.
Sharkey lost to Schmeling and Carnera. (He beat Carnera earlier in his career)
Baer lost to Braddock. That's really the worst lost here.
You mentioned Walcott earlier. His title losses were to Louis, Charles and Marciano. In his early career, he literally had no trainer. He got one his 30s who completely changed his career.

All of these guys have several wins over guys better than Chris Byrd. None of them got stopped by 3 different fighters that weren't that good during their prime.

You need to read books about boxing before your time. A few to get you started:

The Boxing Register. It's a book n Hall of famers.
An Illustrated History of Boxing by Nat Fleischer and Sam Andre
The Encyclopedia of Boxing by Gilbert Odd
Boxing: An Illustrated History by Harry Carpenter

Of course, biographies of boxers can be helpful as well.

You (and Cojimar for that matter) don't know what you don't know.

Brother. Why do you always talk to me as if I don't know Boxing history? I've read the Boxing Register Cover to Cover 2 or 3 times.

I highly doubt there is anything you know about Boxing history that I don't.

Check the records of the guys from these old eras. In the Heavyweight division for the most part, they don't fight particularly dangerous opponents with any greater regularity in that era than they do in any other.

You love to name drop on me to try to flex that you know old time boxing better than me, but honestly you seem like you've locked yourself into thinking that fighters from that era were better because they just were, with no better reasoning behind your argument.

Also, you really need to get it through your head that the loss to Ross Purrity doesn't define Wladimir Klitschko's career anymore than Henry Armstrong losing 3 of his first 4 bouts defines his.

He improved. He got better. He didn't make the same mistakes that got him beat against Purrity. Many fighters suffer a bump in the road along the way in the fight game. It's a painful business, and painful lessons often need to be learned.

[gilgamesh]

Now really think about this. When you say these guys Schmeling, Walcott, Charles, Baer, Sharkey. Are all better than Wladimir, and Wladimir has more Championship wins than all of those gentlemen combined, and then some.

They are better than him how? Make your argument make sense some kinda way.

Aside from reading about them I've watched all of these guys. Wladimir isn't just better than them on paper, he's a guy that's visibly going to be a gigantic problem, to put it mildly for all of them.

[cfang]

Pretty patronising post alp. Just because gilga and I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean we don’t know our boxing history or haven’t read the very famous boxing books you quoted. I’d read those when I was 15.

Not everyone who gives credit to a modern fighter’s achievements doesn’t know their history. Your points about the champs from the 30s and 40s are elementary and in no way convince me they were better than wlad.

He’d beat them all. Only the very best would beat a steward trained prime wlad.

Max Baer

1-1 in Heavyweight Championship fights

Ezzard Charles

9-4 in Heavyweight Championship fights

Max Schmeling

2-2 in Heavyweight Championship fights

Jack Sharkey

1-2 in Heavyweight Championship Fights

You have no argument with any of these guys in any way, shape or form.

You clearly don't understand the history of the sport. At all. When these guys were fighting there was 1 heavyweight champion. Not 2, 3 or 4. It was hard just to get a title shot.

Baer had been a pro for 5 years, almost 50 fights and many fights against other contenders.
Charles had been a pro 9 years and almost 70 fights.
Schmeling had been a pro for 6 years and 50 fights.
Sharkey had been a pro for 6 years and had well over 40 fights

One thing that you don't get is that there were major fights between top contenders. Gasp. All the time. there was only champion. top contenders fought each other to make $, get recognition and show some guts. They did start their careers 15-0 against stiffs and then got a title shot against a WBS titleholder.

Baer beat Schmeling and other contenders before he ever got a shot.
Schmeling beat Joe Louis in a fight between contenders.
Take a look at how many Hall of Fame wins that Ezzard Charles had.
Sharkey beat some stiff competition as well.

These guys who defending their title against serious opponents. Look at who these title losses were to.

Charles losses were to Walcott and Marciano.
Schmeling's losses were to Sharkey and Louis.
Sharkey lost to Schmeling and Carnera. (He beat Carnera earlier in his career)
Baer lost to Braddock. That's really the worst lost here.
You mentioned Walcott earlier. His title losses were to Louis, Charles and Marciano. In his early career, he literally had no trainer. He got one his 30s who completely changed his career.

All of these guys have several wins over guys better than Chris Byrd. None of them got stopped by 3 different fighters that weren't that good during their prime.

You need to read books about boxing before your time. A few to get you started:

The Boxing Register. It's a book n Hall of famers.
An Illustrated History of Boxing by Nat Fleischer and Sam Andre
The Encyclopedia of Boxing by Gilbert Odd
Boxing: An Illustrated History by Harry Carpenter

Of course, biographies of boxers can be helpful as well.

You (and Cojimar for that matter) don't know what you don't know.

[gilgamesh]

Pretty patronising post alp. Just because gilga and I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean we don’t know our boxing history or haven’t read the very famous boxing books you quoted. I’d read those when I was 15.

Not everyone who gives credit to a modern fighter’s achievements doesn’t know their history. Your points about the champs from the 30s and 40s are elementary and in no way convince me they were better than wlad.

He’d beat them all. Only the very best would beat a steward trained prime wlad.

And most importantly. Even whether or not Alp would agree he'd beat them all. He absolutely undeniably had a better career than absolutely all of them. He has more Championship wins than all of them combined. More KO wins than most of them have wins period, and also check these guys' record.

Walcott aside from losing his 4 attempts at a World Championship also lost his first 4 attempts at a Top 10 ranked fighter. I mean....come on. What's the argument here that he'd compare to Wlad in any way, shape or form?

Jack Sharkey with a 37-13 record. He has a relatively low KO percentage. He's giving away tons of height and reach to Wladimir. He was beaten by Primo F*cking Carnera for God's sake, and you think he's better than Wladimir? Wladimir who has literally over 20x as many Championship wins as him?

The argument for Wlad being inferior to them simply doesn't exist. You look like a fool to attempt to argue they were better than him in any capacity.

Yes, Wlad lost some fights. So did they. They lost a hell of a lot more of 'em in fact.

[Ambling Alp II]

You are looking at boxing from your time through the same lens as you do from well before your time. The sport changed dramatically over the years. You can't count WBS title fight over stiffs and ignore non-title fights that were every fight fan was paying attention from years ago.

You should know that using title fight win/loss records is absolutely ridiculous. Statistics in boxing are often very unreliable. First and foremost, this is a sport where you don't have to fight someone if you don't want to. The level of competition that one guy has compared to another guy can be oceans apart. And obviously, one fighter is often well past his prime. Officiating is often horrible.

Floyd Patterson was 8-5 in title fights.
Sonny Liston was only 2-2.
So if they actually fought, Liston would be screwed, right?

Tommy Burns was 11-1-1 in title fights. So that makes him what, the 5th best heavyweight ever? Way better than George Foreman, right?

Klitschko gets credit for two wins over the great Tony Thompson.
Meanwhile Joe Frazier gets penalized for losing the Thrilla in Manilla to Ali.

Max Schmeling doesn't get credit for beat Joe Louis because it wasn't a title fight? At a time when there was only one title.
Sonny Liston gets zero credit for beating Folley, Williams, DeJohn before he could get a title shot?

We are supposed to believe that Klitschko magically greatly improved in his 30s? Did he suddenly did not have a glass jaw? Couldn't be that his opponents that he was defending the title against sucked, could it? Why doesn't anyone ever talk about the specific title fights that were great? It's always just about the numbers.

I've seen ali criticized countless time for getting knocked down in fights before he won the title. But we are going to keep sweeping all of Klitschko embarrassing Ko losses under the rug?

You said you have read the Boxing Register. go back and check how contenders these guys were fighting before they ever got a title shot or when neither guy was the champion.

i'm sorry that I sounded condescending. But it clearly there are things that you are not getting.

[gilgamesh]

Clearly there are things YOU aren't getting. It's not just Championships. Let's take a look at these names vs Ranked fighters shall we?

According to The Boxing Register, The International Boxing Hall of Fame Record Book

Jersey Joe Walcott faced 25 Top 10 ranked fighters in his career.

He had a record of 12-13 against them.

Max Schmeling faced 12 Top 10 ranked fighters in his career

He had a record of 7-5 against them.

Max Baer faced 17 Top 10 ranked fighters in his career.

He had a record of 10-7 against them

Jack Sharkey faced 23 Top ranked fighters in his career

He had a record of 13-8-2 against them.

[gilgamesh]

You are looking at boxing from your time through the same lens as you do from well before your time. The sport changed dramatically over the years. You can't count WBS title fight over stiffs and ignore non-title fights that were every fight fan was paying attention from years ago.

You should know that using title fight win/loss records is absolutely ridiculous. Statistics in boxing are often very unreliable. First and foremost, this is a sport where you don't have to fight someone if you don't want to. The level of competition that one guy has compared to another guy can be oceans apart. And obviously, one fighter is often well past his prime. Officiating is often horrible.

Floyd Patterson was 8-5 in title fights.
Sonny Liston was only 2-2.
So if they actually fought, Liston would be screwed, right?

Tommy Burns was 11-1-1 in title fights. So that makes him what, the 5th best heavyweight ever? Way better than George Foreman, right?

Klitschko gets credit for two wins over the great Tony Thompson.
Meanwhile Joe Frazier gets penalized for losing the Thrilla in Manilla to Ali.

Max Schmeling doesn't get credit for beat Joe Louis because it wasn't a title fight? At a time when there was only one title.
Sonny Liston gets zero credit for beating Folley, Williams, DeJohn before he could get a title shot?

We are supposed to believe that Klitschko magically greatly improved in his 30s? Did he suddenly did not have a glass jaw? Couldn't be that his opponents that he was defending the title against sucked, could it? Why doesn't anyone ever talk about the specific title fights that were great? It's always just about the numbers.

I've seen ali criticized countless time for getting knocked down in fights before he won the title. But we are going to keep sweeping all of Klitschko embarrassing Ko losses under the rug?

You said you have read the Boxing Register. go back and check how contenders these guys were fighting before they ever got a title shot or when neither guy was the champion.

i'm sorry that I sounded condescending. But it clearly there are things that you are not getting.

Let me address these 2 gripes you have that I highlighted here.

1. Yes, Wlad gets more credit for beating Tony Thompson twice than Joe Frazier gets for losing to Muhammad Ali in the Thrilla. At the end of the day a Win is better than a Loss, but Frazier doesn't get penalized for the 3rd fight with Ali because performance is taken into account. It's one of the all time great fights against one of the all time great fighters. It's not a black eye on his career, but because he lost it, it's also not a big boost to his legacy either. So it's a Zero on his record as far as points. Rare that a fighter can suffer a loss, and not do any damage to their legacy in the process, but that is one fight where that was indeed the case.

2. Max Schmeling beating Joe Louis would be considered to be a Gold Star Non Title Win. A Great win over a Great fighter. It would net him a bonus of +20. That bonus is double the bonus that would typically come with a standard unified title defense.

Gold Star, Non Title wins are more rare in the modern era. They wouldn't be as uncommon in the past.

Norton over Ali would be one. Ali over Norton in their 2nd fight would be another.

In a case like Tommy Burns. Whatever bonus he would gain with his title defenses would be offset by his general lack of competition, and the low points he'd get from the Quality of his Opposition.

And lastly, yes we are supposed to believe that Wladimir improved in his 30's because we saw it. The main weakness that he needed to improve upon that caused 2 of his defeats was in pacing himself, and he undoubtedly learned how to pace himself better.

'Ol Glass Jaw Wladimir wasn't knocked out or knocked down as often as many people you insist were better than him.