Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

[gilgamesh]

Mike Tyson with victories over 15 Quality opponents, 2 Gold Star Victories, Victories in 12 Championship fights, 50 wins, 44 KO's, and 6 defeats (For this breakdown I did not count the loss to Jake Paul)

His score nets him a career total of 317 points

For arguments sake if you were to add in the defeat to Jake Paul, and erase the No Contest Win over Andrew Golota it would lower his score to 299 points

For a different arguments sake if you were to ignore his losses to Danny Williams and Kevin McBride, along with the Jake Paul loss he winds up with a score of 377, but of course we don't ignore losses.

[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.

Bumping this one, just so they're both side by side on the same thread page.

[gilgamesh]

Also keep in mind that the Numbers I presented here take in their careers as a whole. If you would be of the opinion that the only results that matter are their bouts against Quality Opponents combined with their Losses, I could pretty easily add those numbers up, and see where we'd be.

If you would be of the opinion that the Championship bonuses don't matter because it was a "WBS" title as Alp is so fond of saying. I could simply remove all Championship bonuses from both fighters, and view the fights as they are by themselves and give you THAT score.

So there's any number of ways you could play with this system, and depending on what your measure is, you may wind up with a different rating.

I personally take a guy's entire career, but I may eventually hit a result that makes me rethink that. Thus far, taking in the whole career has felt about right as far as how the scores wind up to me.

[Cojimar 1946]

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.

Smith and Weaver fought Ruddock far closer to scoring big wins (Witherspoon in 1986, Williams in 1986) and put up much better performances. Logically they have far better arguments for being top 10 heavyweights than Dokes does based on how they performed. Smith fought Ruddock immediately prior to Dokes so you can't argue for any improvement on the part of Ruddock. If they weren't top 10 and Dokes was it doesn't make sense that they performed so much better than he did.

[Ambling Alp II]

Neither Smith or Weaver had a better argument to being in the top 10 at the top 10 at the time going into the Ruddock-Dokes fight. Both Smith and Weaver had lost several times in the last few years. Weaver was considered shot by then. Putting Smith in the Top 10 at the would have been pushing it.

Dokes had not lost since 1983 when he lost to Holyfield. He gave a prime Holyfield a tough fight. He then won several easy fights in a row. It made sense for Dokes to be the #3 contender going into the Ruddock fight.
He lost badly to Ruddock who was ranked below him. So he went down in the rankings. That's how it works.
Dokes never beat anyone worth noting in the next three years. he wasn't ranked anymore when he fought Bowe. He was on the decline. As expected, Bowe beat him easily.

Ruddock should get more credit for beating Dokes than Bowe did. Beat a better version. Not saying that Bowe wouldn't have. Just going on what actually happened.

You can argue that Smith was better than Dokes for their career. That's a different argument.

The End.