1988 Mike Tyson vs 2011 Wladimir Klitschko - who would win this match ?

[Ambling Alp II]

Nice. you are trying to spin almost losing to a kickboxer with one win and you call me that? Wow.
Sorry, I should have said great performance. If he beats a WBS titleholder, it's automatically a great win.
I guess barely beating a kickboxer qualifies too. Guess we are up to 5.

[gilgamesh]

Nice. you are trying to spin almost losing to a kickboxer with one win and you call me that? Wow.
Sorry, I should have said great performance. If he beats a WBS titleholder, it's automatically a great win.
I guess barely beating a kickboxer qualifies too. Guess we are up to 5.

I'm not trying to spin anything. I'm calling it what it was. Did you even watch the fight? Do you even know Rico Verhoeven is? Because I've known who he was for over 10 years.

I'm actually a fan of Combat Sports. I don't just bitch about how good they used to be, and how they're not good now. I enjoy the sport.

The Present, The Past and The Future.

Ya know what else Alp? Look at pages 1 and 2 of the threads when Usyk vs Rico was first announced. I was saying it was going to be one of Usyk's toughest fights THE WHOLE TIME. Even 3 months ago when everyone was writing this fight off as a joke. I knew better.

[Ambling Alp II]

Yes, I plunked down money to watch a heavyweight PPV fight.
Maybe, just maybe Usyk is not that great.
Imagine if someone from the past struggled with a kick boxer. That would be considered an embarrassment and would be the first thing that they would be brought up every time that guy was mentioned. But since it's a current guy, somehow, it's an achievement.

More importantly, what is going on with you?

You are posting almost around the clock. 30 or more posts a day. Over 70 yesterday!
Comparing yourself to Einstein.
Saying you have dedicated your life to boxing.
Resorting to name calling.
Nobody knows everything, but you seem to think you do. You don't. Chill out.

[Riddick Bowie]

Notice how Wladimir Klitschko is forgotten? That's the impact he had on boxing. No one talks about him anymore. Tyson is a global icon, Klitschko lost to Fury and Joshua and it's like he never existed. There's nothing to reminisce on. His jab and grab fights were as dire as his challengers.

Anyone extrapolating Wlad wins over actual greats because he reigned over dreck or had X defences is beyond hope.

Imagine living on Boxrec and posting on every thread on every forum year after year and still learning nothing.

[Jaywheel]

Yes, I plunked down money to watch a heavyweight PPV fight.
Maybe, just maybe Usyk is not that great.
Imagine if someone from the past struggled with a kick boxer. That would be considered an embarrassment and would be the first thing that they would be brought up every time that guy was mentioned. But since it's a current guy, somehow, it's an achievement.

More importantly, what is going on with you?

You are posting almost around the clock. 30 or more posts a day. Over 70 yesterday!
Comparing yourself to Einstein.
Saying you have dedicated your life to boxing.
Resorting to name calling.
Nobody knows everything, but you seem to think you do. You don't. Chill out.

Will you finally give Usyk the credit he his due if and when he ko's Onosato Daiki next? You seem a little obtuse regarding him.

[Ambling Alp II]

That would be a "huge" win, pardon the bad pun.
It would be a title defense! Against an undefeated opponent!

[gilgamesh]

Yes, I plunked down money to watch a heavyweight PPV fight.
Maybe, just maybe Usyk is not that great.
Imagine if someone from the past struggled with a kick boxer. That would be considered an embarrassment and would be the first thing that they would be brought up every time that guy was mentioned. But since it's a current guy, somehow, it's an achievement.

More importantly, what is going on with you?

You are posting almost around the clock. 30 or more posts a day. Over 70 yesterday!
Comparing yourself to Einstein.
Saying you have dedicated your life to boxing.
Resorting to name calling.
Nobody knows everything, but you seem to think you do. You don't. Chill out.

Will you finally give Usyk the credit he his due if and when he ko's Onosato Daiki next? You seem a little obtuse regarding him.

Not just Usyk. Alp refuses to give any credit to any Modern Heavyweight. Every single fighter from the past is better than every single fighter from now for Alp.

I don't think I've ever heard him say anything good about Fury, Wilder, Joshua, The Klitschko's or Usyk. He thinks Jersey Joe Walcott would've whipped 'em all.

[gilgamesh]

Yes, I plunked down money to watch a heavyweight PPV fight.
Maybe, just maybe Usyk is not that great.
Imagine if someone from the past struggled with a kick boxer. That would be considered an embarrassment and would be the first thing that they would be brought up every time that guy was mentioned. But since it's a current guy, somehow, it's an achievement.

Alp is it really so insane to believe that a dominant Heavyweight Kickboxing Champion with 60+ wins in his sport, Who is 6'5 and 260 or so pounds is tough?

[Ambling Alp II]

No.

[Jaywheel]

Usyk is a very good fighter, beating Rico means nothing. It's the same as beating Rick Roufous when he crossed over to boxing.

[gilgamesh]

Usyk is a very good fighter, beating Rico means nothing. It's the same as beating Rick Roufous when he crossed over to boxing.

What if Rico boxes on, and picks up a few decent wins as a Boxer. Does it matter then in your eyes?

[Jaywheel]

Probably won't happen, but yes it could. At the same time, I'm of the opinion that the Ngannou fights lowered Fury's stock much more than they raised Joshua's. Because even if they were fighting and experienced pro fighter, he was still a novice boxer. Same for Rico.

[gilgamesh]

Probably won't happen, but yes it could. At the same time, I'm of the opinion that the Ngannou fights lowered Fury's stock much more than they raised Joshua's. Because even if they were fighting and experienced pro fighter, he was still a novice boxer. Same for Rico.

I'd be interested to see what happens when you have a decorated Amateur Boxer making his Pro debut against a long time UFC or Kickboxing Champ also making his Pro Boxing debut.

I don't consider Rico to be a novice fighter certainly, and I feel like his performance proves that, but on paper at least he's a Novice as a Pro boxer, but fights ain't fought on paper.

[Ambling Alp II]

Glad that you realize that you realize that fights are not won on paper. Maybe we should look at things like a fighter's circumstances not just often misleading stats like win/loss records, the number of title defenses etc.
For example, early in a fighter's career, did he lose fights when he was very inexperienced, took a fight on short notice, didn't have a trainer etc.
Past his prime, did he lose fights that against fighters that were inferior to him during his prime.

Conversely, are we should not give too much credit to a guy who beat someone in situations like those mentioned above.

[gilgamesh]

Glad that you realize that you realize that fights are not won on paper. Maybe we should look at things like a fighter's circumstances not just often misleading stats like win/loss records, the number of title defenses etc.
For example, early in a fighter's career, did he lose fights when he was very inexperienced, took a fight on short notice, didn't have a trainer etc.
Past his prime, did he lose fights that against fighters that were inferior to him during his prime.

Conversely, are we should not give too much credit to a guy who beat someone in situations like those mentioned above.

Prime is when you choose for who you choose it for. It can't be a factor because it allows room for personal bias.

Inexperienced Pre-Prime and Too much wear and tear post prime are definitely things that happen, but they're not things that can be clearly indicated as to when and where they happen. They vary from fighter to fighter. So how every fighter did in every phase of their career is the better measure of their overall worth in my opinion.

[Cojimar 1946]

At one time, I thought he might be the next great. It looked like he had a good mix of boxing ability and power. (I thought that the loss to Purrity might have been a fluke.) In some of his fights, he looked pretty good.
Then came the Corrie Sanders fight. That was an eye opener. It was brutal. He just got hammered. And it wasn't against a Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis or a George Foreman. It was Corrie Sanders.

After that, I had serious doubts. Then came the Lamon Brewster fight. Watched boxing all the time. Had never heard of the guy before. And he gets embarrassed. Yet again. that removed what little doubt there was. He was not the real thing.

Yes, he later had several title defenses. By then the sport was just a fringe sport and the division was a joke as it continues to be. If he just did his grab and clutch thing, he would minimize the amount of times he would get hit. Since his opponents always lacked power, ability, tenaciousness, that was good enough. Would not have been good enough in a normal era.

Have nothing against him personally. It's just that it bugs the heck out of me (and others who saw truly great hws) when people go on and on about him.

By that logic though you couldn't rate Lewis over someone like Usyk given his losses. Isn't it disrespectful to Usyk to have him below someone who lost to Rahman and McCall? Especially given Usyk never lost in his prime.

No that isn't the logic. You have to weigh the quality (not quantity) of wins/ great performances against losses/bad performances.

Lewis had two losses. They count against him. Not as nearly as much as Klitschko who had three losses to opponents worse than the guys who beat Lewis.
Lewis had far better wins than Klitschko. Not even close.
Usyk has not officially lost yet. In a whopping 9 fights as a heavyweight, 25 total. He also doesn't have one great win.

They absolutely hurt Lewis with regards to Usyk though who never lost in his prime. So if you place emphasis on losses Lewis will have to rank below Usyk. Unless in this instance losses suddenly don't matter.

But how do you claim knockout losses to Rahman and McCall don't matter when the guy he's being compared to never lost

[gilgamesh]

By that logic though you couldn't rate Lewis over someone like Usyk given his losses. Isn't it disrespectful to Usyk to have him below someone who lost to Rahman and McCall? Especially given Usyk never lost in his prime.

No that isn't the logic. You have to weigh the quality (not quantity) of wins/ great performances against losses/bad performances.

Lewis had two losses. They count against him. Not as nearly as much as Klitschko who had three losses to opponents worse than the guys who beat Lewis.
Lewis had far better wins than Klitschko. Not even close.
Usyk has not officially lost yet. In a whopping 9 fights as a heavyweight, 25 total. He also doesn't have one great win.

They absolutely hurt Lewis with regards to Usyk though who never lost in his prime. So if you place emphasis on losses Lewis will have to rank below Usyk. Unless in this instance losses suddenly don't matter.

But how do you claim knockout losses to Rahman and McCall don't matter when the guy he's being compared to never lost

I don't rate Usyk ahead of Lewis as a Heavyweight, and I don't think it's very likely (damn near impossible) he'll catch up though there are still a few things that could boost his legacy for him. One of 'em he actually wouldn't even have to get in the ring for.

[Ambling Alp II]

By that logic though you couldn't rate Lewis over someone like Usyk given his losses. Isn't it disrespectful to Usyk to have him below someone who lost to Rahman and McCall? Especially given Usyk never lost in his prime.

No that isn't the logic. You have to weigh the quality (not quantity) of wins/ great performances against losses/bad performances.

Lewis had two losses. They count against him. Not as nearly as much as Klitschko who had three losses to opponents worse than the guys who beat Lewis.
Lewis had far better wins than Klitschko. Not even close.
Usyk has not officially lost yet. In a whopping 9 fights as a heavyweight, 25 total. He also doesn't have one great win.

They absolutely hurt Lewis with regards to Usyk though who never lost in his prime. So if you place emphasis on losses Lewis will have to rank below Usyk. Unless in this instance losses suddenly don't matter.

But how do you claim knockout losses to Rahman and McCall don't matter when the guy he's being compared to never lost

As I have said many times, you have to weigh the wins and good performances against the losses and bad performances. Taking into consideration the competitiveness of fights, and the phase of the fighter and his opponent's careers when they fought.

Lewis' losses count against him. But he had a ton of very good wins as well. Usyk doesn't have nearly the quality of wins that Lewis has.

[Ambling Alp II]

Glad that you realize that you realize that fights are not won on paper. Maybe we should look at things like a fighter's circumstances not just often misleading stats like win/loss records, the number of title defenses etc.
For example, early in a fighter's career, did he lose fights when he was very inexperienced, took a fight on short notice, didn't have a trainer etc.
Past his prime, did he lose fights that against fighters that were inferior to him during his prime.

Conversely, are we should not give too much credit to a guy who beat someone in situations like those mentioned above.

Prime is when you choose for who you choose it for. It can't be a factor because it allows room for personal bias.

Inexperienced Pre-Prime and Too much wear and tear post prime are definitely things that happen, but they're not things that can be clearly indicated as to when and where they happen. They vary from fighter to fighter. So how every fighter did in every phase of their career is the better measure of their overall worth in my opinion.

Their prime is what counts the most. Sometimes there are gray areas of when a fighter's prime is. This all a matter of opinion. But we should all try our best to be consistent and use common sense.

[gilgamesh]

I am being consistent. As consistent as anyone. I don't change the criteria from fighter to fighter.

[Cojimar 1946]

No that isn't the logic. You have to weigh the quality (not quantity) of wins/ great performances against losses/bad performances.

Lewis had two losses. They count against him. Not as nearly as much as Klitschko who had three losses to opponents worse than the guys who beat Lewis.
Lewis had far better wins than Klitschko. Not even close.
Usyk has not officially lost yet. In a whopping 9 fights as a heavyweight, 25 total. He also doesn't have one great win.

They absolutely hurt Lewis with regards to Usyk though who never lost in his prime. So if you place emphasis on losses Lewis will have to rank below Usyk. Unless in this instance losses suddenly don't matter.

But how do you claim knockout losses to Rahman and McCall don't matter when the guy he's being compared to never lost

As I have said many times, you have to weigh the wins and good performances against the losses and bad performances. Taking into consideration the competitiveness of fights, and the phase of the fighter and his opponent's careers when they fought.

Lewis' losses count against him. But he had a ton of very good wins as well. Usyk doesn't have nearly the quality of wins that Lewis has.

Lewis doesn't have any great wins though. The notable names on his resume like Tyson and Holyfield were well faded. Holyfield was losing to Ruiz at that stage.

The only edge for Lewis is quantity of wins at heavyweight. There is no qualitative advantage

[gilgamesh]

They absolutely hurt Lewis with regards to Usyk though who never lost in his prime. So if you place emphasis on losses Lewis will have to rank below Usyk. Unless in this instance losses suddenly don't matter.

But how do you claim knockout losses to Rahman and McCall don't matter when the guy he's being compared to never lost

As I have said many times, you have to weigh the wins and good performances against the losses and bad performances. Taking into consideration the competitiveness of fights, and the phase of the fighter and his opponent's careers when they fought.

Lewis' losses count against him. But he had a ton of very good wins as well. Usyk doesn't have nearly the quality of wins that Lewis has.

Lewis doesn't have any great wins though. The notable names on his resume like Tyson and Holyfield were well faded. Holyfield was losing to Ruiz at that stage.

The only edge for Lewis is quantity of wins at heavyweight. There is no qualitative advantage

I've got Lewis having 16 Quality wins to Usyk having 7 as a Heavyweight.

3 Gold star wins for Lewis. 3 for Usyk.

So yeah there is a qualitative edge to the work of Lewis at Heavy.

[Ambling Alp II]

Still waiting for that dominating wins over someone halfway decent. It's now been 6 years.

[Ambling Alp II]

I am being consistent. As consistent as anyone. I don't change the criteria from fighter to fighter.

It's what your criteria is which is the main problem.

[gilgamesh]

I am being consistent. As consistent as anyone. I don't change the criteria from fighter to fighter.

It's what your criteria is which is the main problem.

I disagree. My criteria makes as much sense as one can make out of this sport without trying to show favoritism.

Almost every time you've pointed out a problem with my system. It wasn't even a problem that my system didn't already cover you just don't pay attention to detail.