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

[Ambling Alp II]

You keep brin g up something that supports a certain guy being ranked highly. I tell you that the stat is deceiving. You say yes, but the guy would be ranked high anyway. Rinse and repeat.

The biggest problem is you give way too much credit for wins over stiffs. you don't get that in modern times, a prospect has his career mapped out for him. His opponents in his early years are selected very carefully. He is virtually guaranteed of going 15-0 or whatever. He then wins a WBS title against another guy who did the same thing. He gets a lot points for doing that even though neither guy may not be that good.

If win over a tomato can is worth 1 point, that a win over say a real great (not a fake one) should be at least 100.

I..e, Ken Norton's win over Ali should be worth more than all of Tommy Morrsion's wins combined. If you think that is silly, think about it. What was harder to do?

And of course you don't understand prime at all. You give way too much credit for a win over an opponent that is clearly past his best.

You have no clue about what it was like for fighter from way back in the 1940s and earlier. And you don't seem interested in learning.

[gilgamesh]

You keep brin g up something that supports a certain guy being ranked highly. I tell you that the stat is deceiving. You say yes, but the guy would be ranked high anyway. Rinse and repeat.

The biggest problem is you give way too much credit for wins over stiffs. you don't get that in modern times, a prospect has his career mapped out for him. His opponents in his early years are selected very carefully. He is virtually guaranteed of going 15-0 or whatever. He then wins a WBS title against another guy who did the same thing. He gets a lot points for doing that even though neither guy may not be that good.

If win over a tomato can is worth 1 point, that a win over say a real great (not a fake one) should be at least 100.

I..e, Ken Norton's win over Ali should be worth more than all of Tommy Morrsion's wins combined. If you think that is silly, think about it. What was harder to do?

And of course you don't understand prime at all. You give way too much credit for a win over an opponent that is clearly past his best.

You have no clue about what it was like for fighter from way back in the 1940s and earlier. And you don't seem interested in learning.

A win over a Great IS worth 100.

You complain and yet the things you complain about I've already considered.

A win over a Prime Great fighter is an All time great win while a win over that same Great fighter when he's past his prime may be a Gold Star win and worth significantly less.

A win over a Tomato can may be worth anything from 1 to 5.

All these complaints you're making. Claiming I don't understand. All this stuff is covered in my system already.

YOU don't understand. That's what you're not getting.


I understand how Boxing was in the 1940's or any other decade for that matter as well as anybody that didn't live through it themselves could I'd imagine. I watch it. I observe it. I read about it. I take notes on it. I get it as much as anybody.

[gilgamesh]

Also notice I never try to make excuses for ANYBODY's losses. You guys do.

I understand that it all comes out in the wash. Every fighter is one day prime and one day not. Every fighter.

When you check a guy's record it doesn't say 32-3 but 1 loss doesn't count because....

Doesn't say that does it? It just says he lost. Because everyone has excuses when they lose.

Whether it was you're too old, didn't train hard enough, wasn't focused due to personal problems, had the flu, was injured in training camp.

A loss is a loss and an excuse is an excuse. And no excuse ever erased a loss off of anybody's record.

[Ambling Alp II]

For one thing, it doesn't always come out in the wash. Everyone does have excuses. Sometimes they are legit.
you don't seem to realize that when you giving too much weight to a fight when one guy is nowhere near his prime, is that you are giving the guy who won way too much credit.

You certainly have no idea about what it was like in the early stages of Dempsey and Walcott's career. You have proven that.

What you consider a great win is often nowhere near a great win.

[gilgamesh]

For one thing, it doesn't always come out in the wash. Everyone does have excuses. Sometimes they are legit.
you don't seem to realize that when you giving too much weight to a fight when one guy is nowhere near his prime, is that you are giving the guy who won way too much credit.

You certainly have no idea about what it was like in the early stages of Dempsey and Walcott's career. You have proven that.

What you consider a great win is often nowhere near a great win.

When doesn't it come out in the wash? Have you met an Eternally young man? Because I haven't.

How don't I have any idea what it was like in the early career of Dempsey and Walcott. They were both inexperienced and fought increasingly tough guys until they got better the hard way.

What ain't I getting?

I don't think Dempsey's early losses to Jack Downey or Willie Meehan define him any more than Wlad's losses to Purrity and Corrie Sanders do. Because those losses are not the story of either man's career, they're merely a page in it.

Why you keep thinking I don't understand Boxing i haven't a clue. If there's anything I understand it's Boxing.

[Cojimar 1946]

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

That's not how it works though. Wins are wins and losses are losses. People are not penalized legacy wise because they didn't win as easily as people wished.

He dominated both Dubois fights and the rematches with Joshua and Fury

[gilgamesh]

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

That's not how it works though. Wins are wins and losses are losses. People are not penalized legacy wise because they didn't win as easily as people wished.

He dominated both Dubois fights and the rematches with Joshua and Fury

Ali struggled like hell to beat Frazier in the Thrilla in Manila. I guess that's not a great win for Ali because it wasn't dominant.

Or maybe the rules just change from fighter to fighter for Alp.

[Ambling Alp II]

It matters who the opponent is.
A great fighter should be able to dominate guys like Fury and Joshua, yes he should be able to dominate them. Zero ko's. all were competitive fights. Looked awful in the first Joshua and was lucky to get the decision.

Joe Frazier was a great fighter.
how about watching the 3rd Frazier fight and then any of Usyks fights. Can you seriously not tell the difference?
You can't tell that the Frazier fight was a great win and Usyks wins look like a joke in comparison? Really

Watch Ali from 1964-1967. 8 Kos and 2 lopsided decisions wins that were not nearly as close as Usyk's.

[Ambling Alp II]

For one thing, it doesn't always come out in the wash. Everyone does have excuses. Sometimes they are legit.
you don't seem to realize that when you giving too much weight to a fight when one guy is nowhere near his prime, is that you are giving the guy who won way too much credit.

You certainly have no idea about what it was like in the early stages of Dempsey and Walcott's career. You have proven that.

What you consider a great win is often nowhere near a great win.

When doesn't it come out in the wash? Have you met an Eternally young man? Because I haven't.

How don't I have any idea what it was like in the early career of Dempsey and Walcott. They were both inexperienced and fought increasingly tough guys until they got better the hard way.

What ain't I getting?

I don't think Dempsey's early losses to Jack Downey or Willie Meehan define him any more than Wlad's losses to Purrity and Corrie Sanders do. Because those losses are not the story of either man's career, they're merely a page in it.

Why you keep thinking I don't understand Boxing i haven't a clue. If there's anything I understand it's Boxing.

You act like someone who has been following it for a year.
What ain't you getting? Seems like everything lately.
When does it not come out of the wash?
Umm, some guys fight a lot of guys who had not reached their prime or were way past it. Then themselves did it far less.
Just a page in Klitschko's career? Name a great hw champion who got ko'd 3 x in his prime? Or 2x in his prime by guys outside of the top 10..

it's idiotic to compare Dempsey loss to Downey to Klitschko's embarrassing losses.
Dempsey had been a pro for 9 months. Didn't really have a trainer. Wasn't remotely the fighter that he would become a few years later.

Klitschko was much more experienced against Purrity. Had a long amateur career. first class trainers. It was his 25th fight as a pro. and he got stopped by a journeyman.

He had over 40 fights when got crushed by Sanders.
Then a year later, it happens yet against against to Brewster.

Walcott? He was 16 years old when he lost his for fight.
He was 17 when he lost his 2nd.
He actually had to work for a living outside of boxing. Would take fights on short notice.

Walcott was 31 years old and had been fighting 15 years before he got a real trainer.

How in the world can you not get this?

[gilgamesh]

For one thing, it doesn't always come out in the wash. Everyone does have excuses. Sometimes they are legit.
you don't seem to realize that when you giving too much weight to a fight when one guy is nowhere near his prime, is that you are giving the guy who won way too much credit.

You certainly have no idea about what it was like in the early stages of Dempsey and Walcott's career. You have proven that.

What you consider a great win is often nowhere near a great win.

When doesn't it come out in the wash? Have you met an Eternally young man? Because I haven't.

How don't I have any idea what it was like in the early career of Dempsey and Walcott. They were both inexperienced and fought increasingly tough guys until they got better the hard way.

What ain't I getting?

I don't think Dempsey's early losses to Jack Downey or Willie Meehan define him any more than Wlad's losses to Purrity and Corrie Sanders do. Because those losses are not the story of either man's career, they're merely a page in it.

Why you keep thinking I don't understand Boxing i haven't a clue. If there's anything I understand it's Boxing.

You act like someone who has been following it for a year.
What ain't you getting? Seems like everything lately.
When does it not come out of the wash?
Umm, some guys fight a lot of guys who had not reached their prime or were way past it. Then themselves did it far less.
Just a page in Klitschko's career? Name a great hw champion who got ko'd 3 x in his prime? Or 2x in his prime by guys outside of the top 10..

it's idiotic to compare Dempsey loss to Downey to Klitschko's embarrassing losses.
Dempsey had been a pro for 9 months. Didn't really have a trainer. Wasn't remotely the fighter that he would become a few years later.

Klitschko was much more experienced against Purrity. Had a long amateur career. first class trainers. It was his 25th fight as a pro. and he got stopped by a journeyman.

He had over 40 fights when got crushed by Sanders.
Then a year later, it happens yet against against to Brewster.

Walcott? He was 16 years old when he lost his for fight.
He was 17 when he lost his 2nd.
He actually had to work for a living outside of boxing. Would take fights on short notice.

Walcott was 31 years old and had been fighting 15 years before he got a real trainer.

How in the world can you not get this?

Excuses, Excuses, Excuses for the ones you like. Insults, insults, insults for the ones you don't.

Don't tell me what I do and don't understand because it's clear your understanding of what's understood is off the mark.

Any Champion you respect if he lost before going on to greatness. Oh hey...that's just inexperience. Could happen to anybody.

Any Champion you've chosen to dislike for whatever reason if he loses under any circumstance you take it as justification that he's a bum.

If Usyk loses his Championship you won't be making any excuses for him because he's 40 will you? You'll say it's proof he never was any good. Even though he's older than Muhammad Ali was when Ali couldn't beat Spinks and Berbick, and he's still the Champion.

Your hypocrisy and bias cannot help but show itself. Your reasoning has no logic. It's just "I really like this guy, and he's better because.....look he's just better alright you don't understand" that's basically how you argue. If you can give me 2 reasons why Walcott was better. I can counter you with about 10 to 15 reasons why Wladimir was better, and you'll just tell me more about what I don't understand, no matter how clearly explained it is.

[Ambling Alp II]

Excuses, yeah that's it. Since circumstances don't count, Downey must be one of the All-time greats. At least he beat an All-time great heavyweight, something Klitschko never did.

As for Usyk, lets see how he does in his 60th and 61st fights. He sure has taken a lot of punishment in his career in all those fights against big punchers.

I never actually said that Walcott was better, but OK, here are two reasons.

1. Walcott was never knocked out by someone outside of the Top 10.
Klitschko was knocked out 3 times by someone outside of the top 10.

2. Walcott had 6 wins over Hall of Famers.
Klitschko had zero wins over Hall of Famers.

[gilgamesh]

Excuses, yeah that's it. Since circumstances don't count, Downey must be one of the All-time greats. At least he beat an All-time great heavyweight, something Klitschko never did.

As for Usyk, lets see how he does in his 60th and 61st fights. He sure has taken a lot of punishment in his career in all those fights against big punchers.

I never actually said that Walcott was better, but OK, here are two reasons.

1. Walcott was never knocked out by someone outside of the Top 10.
Klitschko was knocked out 3 times by someone outside of the top 10.

2. Walcott had 6 wins over Hall of Famers.
Klitschko had zero wins over Hall of Famers.

I forget all the long ass list of reasons why Wlad is better. It's stuff like.

More KO wins than Walcott has wins.

More wins over Top 10 rated contenders, Walcott actually has a losing record of 12-13 against Top 10 ranked contenders in his career. Wladimir as I recall has a 12-3 record against Top 10 ranked contenders.

Walcott has a record of 2-8 in Championship bouts to Wladimir's 26-4 or something like that. Like overwhelmingly lopsided in Wlad's favor.

Walcott was knocked out more often than Wladimir. Walcott lost 4 times more often than Wladimir, 15 more fights to be exact even though he had only a few more total bouts than Wladimir to my recollection.

Ya know. Just stuff like that. Nothing too obvious or anything.

[gilgamesh]

Walcott also has losses significantly more embarrassing than any of Wladimir's. He lost to people that couldn't have beaten Wladimir if you gave them 1000 tries.

[gilgamesh]

Oh and if Wladimir has 2 losses to unranked fighters and Walcott is 12-13 against Top 10 ranked contenders then do the math. That means Walcott lost not once, not twice, but 7 times to unranked fighters.

But those don't count because being an inexperienced guy who gets his ass kicked by journeymen was just standard stuff back then for Championship fighters. Even though it really wasn't.

Only Wladimir's losses count because he had all the advantages that come from coming from behind the Soviet Wall where no fighter had previously hailed from to succeed.

He never beat dozens of guys with better records than people that Walcott couldn't beat. I mean never.

Your criteria is changing from one fighter to the other. Wladimir's losses count because whoooo boy it sure is embarrassing to lose when you're Wladimir. Walcott's losses don't count because he's Black and Black guys look cool doing everything, even getting their ass kicked.

Walcott's losses don't count because????

[Ambling Alp II]

My criteria isn't changing. You asked me to name two reasons that favor Walcott over Klitschko and I gave them. They are not my opinion. They are facts.

[gilgamesh]

And Alp. You talk about excuses for losses some are legit and some aren't right? So some should be excused. This is something you repeatedly bring up.

What about Vitali Klitschko's loss to Chris Byrd. He was legitimately injured and needed to stop due to that injury. Does his loss to Byrd count?

[gilgamesh]

My criteria isn't changing. You asked me to name two reasons that favor Walcott over Klitschko and I gave them. They are not my opinion. They are facts.

Is everything I said not a fact?

[Ambling Alp II]

No, not everything that you said is a fact. And do you really have to be on Boxrec every waking minute of the day? 70 posts in one day. Wow.

[gilgamesh]

No, not everything that you said is a fact. And do you really have to be on Boxrec every waking minute of the day? 70 posts in one day. Wow.

I'm on break at work. I got nothing better to do but listen to a podcast and talk to you mugs at the moment.

So Wladimir doesn't have more KO wins than Walcott has wins? Walcott didn't lose 4 times as often as Wladimir? Wladimir doesn't have over 10 times as many Championship wins as Walcott? Wladimir doesn't have a better winning percentage against Top 10 contenders?

Is any of that a lie?

Does Vitali's loss to Chris Byrd count? If so why? Why does it count but Walcott's don't?

You simply cannot justify your stance and rather than admit it, you get mad.

[Ambling Alp II]

You said everything you said earlier was a fact. I said it wasn't all facts. i.e. He lost to people that couldn't have beaten Wladimir if you gave them 1000 tries. That isn't a fact.

You asked me to name ways that Walcott's career was better and I did.

As for "Does Vitali's loss to Chris Byrd count? If so why? Why does it count but Walcott's don't?"
Vitali just had to stand up for three rounds and he goes the distance. In fact, the judges somehow had him so far ahead in pathetic performance that he actually would have got the decision. Just stand up for three rounds, against a guy who couldn't possibly hurt him. That's all. Not a big ask. At the time, almost everyone was stunned that he quit so easily.

You really can't see the difference in that and Walcott losing when he was a 16-year-old kid? That is just insane.

Yes fighters and their fans make excuses all the time. Most of them are BS. You actually have to look at them on an individual basis. There are gray areas once in a while. There obvious BS excuses and there are legitimate reasons.

When you say circumstances don't matter, you are also giving too much credit to the guy who won. Like Downey who beat a novice Jack Dempsey. Watch Walcott and Dempsey when they are close to their best, not just going through the boxrec records and looking for losses and disregarding the circumstances.

[gilgamesh]

I see the difference in how you only want losses to count when you'd like them to.

Like I said. No excuse ever took a loss off somebody's record.

Saying a guy with 4 times as many losses as somebody is better in a roughly equal amount of fights though just doesn't follow any kind of logic. It's like saying 2+2 = 27. I mean sure you can say it, but no matter how many times you do it'll never be right.

[gilgamesh]

And yes I do consider Vitali's loss to Byrd to be an embarrassing TKO defeat for all the reasons you cited. I also consider Walcott's defeat via 1st round KO in the Marciano rematch to be an embarrassing defeat.

I don't excuse one and not the other. I don't make excuses for Vitali in his loss to Byrd, everything you said about how all he had to do is stand up for 3 rounds is right on the money. So yes, the decision to quit under that circumstance definitely made him look bad.

Losing is never a good thing. Some losses hurt your reputation more than others though obviously, but a Quit job in a fight you're well in control of and a devastating 1st round KO loss are both equally embarrassing just in different ways.

[Ambling Alp II]

I see the difference in how you only want losses to count when you'd like them to.

Like I said. No excuse ever took a loss off somebody's record.

Saying a guy with 4 times as many losses as somebody is better in a roughly equal amount of fights though just doesn't follow any kind of logic. It's like saying 2+2 = 27. I mean sure you can say it, but no matter how many times you do it'll never be right.

I count them when they are relevant. Has nothing to do with anything else.

-No excuse ever took a loss off of somebody's record. True, But boxing isn't the NFL MLB, or the NFL. Fighters make their own schedules. In boxing, they often vary way too much to think win/loss records are often deceiving.

-Saying a guy with 4 times as many losses as somebody is better in a roughly equal amount of fights though just doesn't follow any kind of logic. It's like saying 2+2 = 27.
No, this isn't math question. Occasionally, the fighter with a much worse win/loss record is the better fighter.

Normally the fighter with way less losses would be better. But if there are extenuating circumstances, such as the guy with the worse record fought dramatically better competition, you have to take a hard look.

Mike Weaver was 41-18-1. Duane Bobick was 48-4. Bobick won the h2h early in their careers. I am almost afraid to ask, but who do you rank higher, Weaver or Bobick?

[gilgamesh]

I see the difference in how you only want losses to count when you'd like them to.

Like I said. No excuse ever took a loss off somebody's record.

Saying a guy with 4 times as many losses as somebody is better in a roughly equal amount of fights though just doesn't follow any kind of logic. It's like saying 2+2 = 27. I mean sure you can say it, but no matter how many times you do it'll never be right.

I count them when they are relevant. Has nothing to do with anything else.

-No excuse ever took a loss off of somebody's record. True, But boxing isn't the NFL MLB, or the NFL. Fighters make their own schedules. In boxing, they often vary way too much to think win/loss records are often deceiving.

-Saying a guy with 4 times as many losses as somebody is better in a roughly equal amount of fights though just doesn't follow any kind of logic. It's like saying 2+2 = 27.
No, this isn't math question. Occasionally, the fighter with a much worse win/loss record is the better fighter.

Normally the fighter with way less losses would be better. But if there are extenuating circumstances, such as the guy with the worse record fought dramatically better competition, you have to take a hard look.

Mike Weaver was 41-18-1. Duane Bobick was 48-4. Bobick won the h2h early in their careers. I am almost afraid to ask, but who do you rank higher, Weaver or Bobick?

I wouldn't bother to rate Bobick at all so it's Weaver by default.

Yes you can have a worse Win/Loss record and be the better fighter. Muhammad Ali has less wins and the same amount of losses as Wladimir, yet he ranks WAYYYYYYYY ahead of him due to the quality of his wins in comparison to Wladimir's.

Jersey Joe Walcott on the other hand while he did fight more Top 10 contenders than Wladimir lost to them more than he beat them.

How are you not getting this? You love to use that one on me

[Cojimar 1946]

Usyk appeared to dominate both rematches outlanding Joshua in 9 of 12 rounds and Fury in 10 of 12.

I don't see any issue with his performances in either fights