Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

[Ambling Alp II]

As for the win/loss records, they of course can be deceiving. You are considering a fight against the number contender as being the same as fighting the #10 guy. i.e you are giving Klitschko the same credit for beating someone like Mariuz Wach as the same credit as you are giving Max Baer for beating Max Schmeling or Ali beating Frazier.

And of course some eras are much better than others. A guy ranked in one era might not be nearly as good as someone just outside the top 10 in other eras. Maybe if I didn't become a fan until 2001 I would be thinking like you. I don't know. You came a long as fan right before the hw division fell apart.

Walcott has all those losses. Clearly you don't understand his early career and why some of them happened. He also had 6 from fights with Louis, Charles and Marciano. could have got the decision in the first Louis fight. Fought a great fight in the first Marciano fight.

As I always say, at a certain point you have to watch the fights. Watch Fury-Wilder. Then watch Norton's fight against Holmes, Young, Quarry and Ali. Norton was clearly better. But statistically probably not.

Watch Jersey Joe Walcott. You can't help but notice how good he was.

One thing you don't seem understand is that a fight being a title fight doesn't automatically make it important or make the two fighters better. Yes promoters, HBO or whoever, WBA might hype up a WBA or WBC or WBO title fight as big deal. It probably wasn't.
As for Klitschko getting better- Well your chin doesn't get better in your 30s. It says more about the power and quality of his opponents that he fought in his 30s than anything. And again, nobody ever says "watch Klitschko against so and so, that was quite a fight". That is very telling.

[gilgamesh]

As for the win/loss records, they of course can be deceiving. You are considering a fight against the number contender as being the same as fighting the #10 guy. i.e you are giving Klitschko the same credit for beating someone like Mariuz Wach as the same credit as you are giving Max Baer for beating Max Schmeling or Ali beating Frazier.

And of course some eras are much better than others. A guy ranked in one era might not be nearly as good as someone just outside the top 10 in other eras. Maybe if I didn't become a fan until 2001 I would be thinking like you. I don't know. You came a long as fan right before the hw division fell apart.

Walcott has all those losses. Clearly you don't understand his early career and why some of them happened. He also had 6 from fights with Louis, Charles and Marciano. could have got the decision in the first Louis fight. Fought a great fight in the first Marciano fight.

As I always say, at a certain point you have to watch the fights. Watch Fury-Wilder. Then watch Norton's fight against Holmes, Young, Quarry and Ali. Norton was clearly better. But statistically probably not.

Watch Jersey Joe Walcott. You can't help but notice how good he was.

One thing you don't seem understand is that a fight being a title fight doesn't automatically make it important or make the two fighters better. Yes promoters, HBO or whoever, WBA might hype up a WBA or WBC or WBO title fight as big deal. It probably wasn't.
As for Klitschko getting better- Well your chin doesn't get better in your 30s. It says more about the power and quality of his opponents that he fought in his 30s than anything. And again, nobody ever says "watch Klitschko against so and so, that was quite a fight". That is very telling.

First off. Max Baer beating Max Schmeling in a Non Title bout would be a Gold star win, and on top of that a more impressive performance so it would indeed net him a lot more points than Wlad beating Wach in a Title fight. Second. I give Ali WAY more credit for his victories over Frazier than I'd give Wlad for his win over Wach. Can you not read? Have I not said multiple times that I take the quality of opposition and performance into account?

As I've explicitly stated. Some bouts are awarded significantly more points if the criteria is met for them to do so. Many of Ali's bouts meet that criteria.

Wladimir's loss against Ross Puritty seemed to be a combination of fatigued, and an accidental headbutt near the end of the 10th round that I think gave him a concussion. He comes out for the 11th already wobbling before they've even made contact with each other, and his trainer quickly jumps in and halts the bout shortly thereafter. So that loss while embarrassing is hardly the most humiliating defeat a guy ever suffered in spite of your attempts to paint it as such.

I've watched Jersey Joe Walcott. I know what he can do. He had that slick walk away right hand, nice hand speed, and a lot of clever tricks. I've never said he was a sh*t fighter, but he certainly ain't better than Wladimir Klitschko or even f*cking close.

Yes some eras are better than others. Many people would probably say the era that they grew up watching is best because people tend to be blinded by nostalgia to a degree, and either overrate guys they like personally or underrate guys they don't personally.

I don't know why you insist on trying to convince me or anyone else that Walcott was better than Wladimir. While it doesn't factor into how I would rate them, I'm 100% positive he would beat Walcott 10 times out of 10.

[gilgamesh]

As for the Win/Loss records they can be deceiving. Let's point out the obvious hypocrisy of that.

Ross Purritty beat Wlad OH LORDY LORDY, Wlad's a bum that proves it.

Walcott lost 18 f*cking times. Losing 75% of his World Title bouts, and losing more than he won against ranked contenders overall. Nothing to see here folks, move along please

[gilgamesh]

And for the last time. With your "At some point you have to watch the fights" bullsh*t.

I HAVE WATCHED THE FIGHTS. I'VE SEEN ALL OF THESE FIGHTERS. I CANNOT BE MORE CLEAR ABOUT THIS.

[Ambling Alp II]

I guess I will just say that I pretty much disagree with almost all of this. It goes a lot farther than just Walcott or Klitschko. We are so far apart that it's probably not worth conversing.

[cfang]

Will just add that wlad faced 15 opponents rated in the top ten and won 13. He lost his last two fights. By any measure he beat the best available for a decade.

Oh and he faced 13 undefeated opponents and again won all bar the last two fights.

Alp your ‘I’ve seen the old guys and they are just better cos I say so’ just flies against reason. Wlad was a great champion. Perhaps not up there with the very greatest in history but certainly better than many many that came before him.

[gilgamesh]

I guess I will just say that I pretty much disagree with almost all of this. It goes a lot farther than just Walcott or Klitschko. We are so far apart that it's probably not worth conversing.

You don't wanna discuss it because you have no argument, and you f*cking know it.

[gilgamesh]

Will just add that wlad faced 15 opponents rated in the top ten and won 13. He lost his last two fights. By any measure he beat the best available for a decade.

Oh and he faced 13 undefeated opponents and again won all bar the last two fights.

Alp your ‘I’ve seen the old guys and they are just better cos I say so’ just flies against reason. Wlad was a great champion. Perhaps not up there with the very greatest in history but certainly better than many many that came before him.

MOST that came before him. There aren't a hell of a lot of Heavyweight fighters who ever had a better career.

[Jaywheel]

Who cares about ranked and undefeated fighters in Wlad's era. We're talking about an era where Tye Fields went 41-1 before facing the great Monte Barrett and Valuev was 46-0 before facing the great Chagaev.

Unedefeated record, Win streaks, KO percentage, Alphabet rankings are not tools you can use to compare the fighters of today vs yesteryear.

Wlad had better attributes than Vit, but he's at least a chin away from sniffing any top 20 HW list.

[gilgamesh]

Who cares about ranked and undefeated fighters in Wlad's era. We're talking about an era where Tye Fields went 41-1 before facing the great Monte Barrett and Valuev was 46-0 before facing the great Chagaev.

Unedefeated record, Win streaks, KO percentage, Alphabet rankings are not tools you can use to compare the fighters of today vs yesteryear.

Wlad had better attributes than Vit, but he's at least a chin away from sniffing any top 20 HW list.

Preposterous that he wouldn't make the Top 20.

You could easily name drop 20 guys you think are better than him, but you couldn't make 20 good arguments to make your case. I don't think you could make 10 either.

Let me ask you? Since "Undefeated record, Win streaks, KO percentage, Alphabet rankings are not tools you can use to compare the fighters of today vs yesteryear. "

Then what do you do to compare them?

You can watch the fights like Alp always says. You'd see guys with quicker hands than Wladimir, and better movement no doubt. They'd also have significantly less size and strength. Significantly less height and reach.

[Jaywheel]

They might have been smaller but most had a chin and could see a left hook coming, none had 3 prime losses against cans and golfers.

[gilgamesh]

They might have been smaller but most had a chin and could see a left hook coming, none had 3 prime losses against cans and golfers.

You're right they didn't have 3 prime losses. They had many more than that in most cases.

Fighters that go their whole career without suffering a defeat are few, and far between. Most fighters even suffer an embarrassing defeat somewhere along the way. It's just the nature of the sport.

If you tried to name a list of fighters that suffered embarrassing defeats, and then came back to reign as Champion for over 9 years. Your list would be 1 name long.

Most fighters suffer their first career loss, and they crumble or never bounce back from it. Wladimir bounced back, and became better than he'd ever been.

I don't know if you guys dislike him because he had a lot of boring fights or because he wasn't American or what, but your criticisms against Wladimir would apply to almost every other Heavyweight you could name, but for some reason those others are free of that same criticism.

[gilgamesh]

Also you guys love to paint the myth that "Tokyo Douglas" was some unstoppable monster fighter.

No he wasn't. He was f*cking Buster Douglas. Probably the best version of Buster Douglas that had ever stepped into the ring, but still he was Buster Douglas.

Buster's whole hearted preparation combined with Mike's complete lack of preparation played a big part in that result. Don't get me wrong, Buster put on a great effort that night, but throughout his career nothing other than that night suggests that Buster was a great fighter, so why doesn't Mike get criticized for losing to a Can?

[Ambling Alp II]

I guess I will just say that I pretty much disagree with almost all of this. It goes a lot farther than just Walcott or Klitschko. We are so far apart that it's probably not worth conversing.

You don't wanna discuss it because you have no argument, and you f*cking know it.

Wow. What class.

[gilgamesh]

I guess I will just say that I pretty much disagree with almost all of this. It goes a lot farther than just Walcott or Klitschko. We are so far apart that it's probably not worth conversing.

You don't wanna discuss it because you have no argument, and you f*cking know it.

Wow. What class.

I didn't launch a personal insult at you, but I clearly stated my case, and you didn't because you couldn't.

[Ambling Alp II]

I already showed how deeply flawed rating fighters by title fights and win/loss records vs top opponents is. Gave many examples. Doesn't seem to be worth it to give more.

[gilgamesh]

I already showed how deeply flawed rating fighters by title fights and win/loss records vs top opponents is. Gave many examples. Doesn't seem to be worth it to give more.

You really didn't. You mentioned how many Ranked fighters they had fought before being Champion and how that should've been factored in.

Well I factored it in. They weren't better there either. You could say "Well their competition was better", but that's subjective. I'm simply going by where whatever opponent was rated at THAT TIME AND PLACE when the 2 met in the ring. If you think the 3rd best guy from 1935 was better than the 3rd best guy from 2005, that's simply a matter of opinion and shouldn't be factored in. I eliminate my own opinion as well by the way, not just yours

[Ambling Alp II]

Whatever.

[gilgamesh]

Solid argument there.

I'll be coming out with the total breakdown of Mike Tyson and Wladimir's careers soon so that'll be my final word on this particular subject that we started off with, and got way off in the weeds with a bunch of other sh*t

I've watched all of Mike Tyson's bouts except for 1 which is the Larry Sims bout. There's no video for that that I know of, so I recorded it as I would any other KO win with no Video accompaniment. I think it's safe to say I'm not really missing much by missing the Larry Sims bout. Likewise with Wladimir Klitschko the only one of his bouts I can't find video for is his bout with Ladislav Husarik. So I've seen mostly all there is to see with him as well. Just a few more to go to finish it out.

[Ambling Alp II]

OK I will do it again. Guessing you pretend I didn't say anything again.

You should not give credit for title defenses if the opponent was not very good. Some guys like Klitschko's, Patterson, Burns title defenses were not against quality competition. But statistically, they are going to look pretty good. Meanwhile Sonny Liston had two against Patterson and 2 against Ali. Went 2-2. But going by title fights, Patterson was way better than Liston. Guess Liston sucked. Max Schmeling was just 2-2. Who care if all his opponents were Hall of famers. We can come up with a ton of examples like this.

Win/loss records against Top 10 opponents can be deceiving as well. You are giving the same credit for beating the #10 guy as for beating the #1 guy. A loss to the #1 guy is counting the same as a loss to the #10. You aren't factoring in how competitive the fight was. A fight can a split decision and not be that competitive, just a bad score by the judge's. A fight might not go the distance, but can be a competitive fight.
And by doing that, you are throwing out losses to non-ranked fighters.

As for watching the fights: How on earth can you watch say Norton vs Young (as well as other Norton or Young fights) and not see it was a great fight with fighters a lot better than say Deontay Wilder or Anthony Joshua or Tyson Fury?
Can give tons of examples like this. have asked what great fights Klitschko had in 30s and big shocker, no response.

As for Jersey Joe Walcott, you seem to have no idea what his career was like. His first loss? He was 16 years old. Didn't have a trainer for the majority of his career. Actually had to work real jobs between fights. Finally got a real trainer (Dan Florio) and his career took off. So no, he was not like Ross Purritty.

As for knowing how the sport was different before your time: Som times, non-title fights are more important than title fights. If Ali never fought Richard Dunn and had a one less title win, who cares? But if he did not fight Frazier in 1974, that would hurt is legacy. You have to factor in Liston's wins over Machen, Folley, and Williams when he couldn't get a title fight against Patterson. Schmeling-Louis I matters. Langford's fights with McVey and Jeanette matters. Louis' wins over Max Baer matters. Norton's win over Ali matters. Foreman's win over Lyle matters. etc.

Klitscjko's losses to Purritty, Sanders and Brewster matter. He had plenty of experience and was still in his 20s. And he got embarrassed each time. Lennox Lewis got hell for getting embarrassed twice in his prime. At least Lewis's losses were to contenders.

[Cojimar 1946]

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.

Likewise you can't take many heavyweight 1990s ratings seriously given so many are based on guesswork and not results.

Dokes hadn't scored a quality win in years and was badly out of shape against Ruddock. He was immediately dropped from the ratings following the fight and in his next test against a capable opponent was blown away by Bowe easily.

It's silly to hide behind a rating when there is so little evidence supporting it.

[gilgamesh]

There's always a bit of debate about whether a guy is a Journeyman or a Fringe Contender, or a Fringe Contender a Real One. There's never any debate about whether a fight is big or not. Also, we must remember that Boxing is often subject to revisionist history. A competitive fight going in, can be seen as a somebody beating a shot fighter going out. Like De La Hoya vs Pacquiao for instance. Hindsight changes people's view of that fight, to the point they barely seem to remember what they thought going in. It's often like that, but where the 2 fighters were and how they were viewed coming into the contest, I feel is the way to go.

Ultimately it only results in 1 point difference in the score whichever way I wind up classifying it. So the performance in the fight combined with the quality of the opponent winds up being more crucial.

[Ambling Alp II]

As for Dokes, Bowe, and Ruddock- The WBA, WBC, IBF etc. are corrupt orangizationsThey will had a guy ranked #1 that the other organizations don't have ranked or have him much lower. Then that guy gets a madatory title shot. (And when this unserving #1 contender loses, the titleholder get s a title defnese on his record. )

Ring Magazine has made a legitimate effort for many years. Certainly don't always agree with it. The biggest problem is that fighters simply don't fight enough. There isn't enough information to go on. A promising fighter will get ranked #9 or #10. He might be for a real and he might not be.
Dokes had been one of many relatively even title holders. (along with Weaver, Coetzee, Page, Tubbs etc.)
He gave Holyfield a tough fight in 1989. He looked pretty good. Ring did not regard anyone as the champion at the moment. Tyson and Holyfield was ranked #1 and #2. Dokes had as good a case as anyone as being #3.
Then he fought Ruddock a year fighting. Ruddock scored a devastating 4th round knockout. Naturally Dokes fell out of the ranking and Ruddock moved up.
This was a big win for Ruddock. There is no getting around this. Watching the fight, you can tell it was a good performance Ruddock deserves some credit for this win.

After the loss, Dokes kept fighting. fought 10 fights over the next 3 years. Best opponents were Jessie Ferguson and Joe Ribalta. Beat them, but was not impressive. He was no longer even a fringe contender when he fought Bowe. Almost no one is better when they are 34 than they were when they were 31. You speed, stamina, reflexes gradually decline. He also took punishment in the Ruddock fight and the 10 fights he had between Ruddock and Bowe.

When Ruddock k's dokes (which was on national network TV) it was an eye opener. People really started looking at Ruddock. By the time Dokes fought Bowe, there was little doubt going in that Bowe would blow him out early.

Taking all this together, this is not rocket science. Ruddock deserves more credit than Bowe does for beating Dokes.

[SteveO]

Lennox Lewis got hell for getting embarrassed twice in his prime. At least Lewis's losses were to contenders.

Plus, he avenged both defeats

[gilgamesh]

Now for my final analysis of Wladimir and Mike Tyson's careers after taking in all available footage, and examining every Victory and Defeat in their careers.

Wladimir Klitschko with victories over 12 quality opponents, No Gold star victories, Victories in 25 Championship contests, 63 wins, 54 KO's, and 5 defeats.

His score nets him a career total of 421 points

For arguments sake if you were to consider his initial reign as WBO Champion to be insignificant, and remove the Championship bonus from all of those bouts it would lower his score to 391 points.