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

[gilgamesh]

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

Plus since when is "dominating" a great opponent a must anyway? Ali certainly didn't "dominate" Joe Frazier, but he beat him, and it's a great win because Joe was a great opponent.

Same thing with Usyk and Fury.

[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?

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

The number of top 10 contenders someone beat can also be very deceiving: Some eras are much stronger than others. For example, the number 3 contender in one era might not have been as good as the #10 in another.
And of course, even if the eras are close in a given case, there is usually a huge difference between the #10 contender and the #1 contender. So the number of top 10 contenders a guy beat can deceiving.
Ezzard Charles was better than anyone Klitschko ever beat. Elmer Ray was better than anyone Klitschko ever beat. And if he had kinder judges, Walcott would have a win over Joe Louis.

Well, before you said that a guy with way more losses could not be better. You realize Weaver was better than Bobick. So that shows growth on your part.

[Ambling Alp II]

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

Plus since when is "dominating" a great opponent a must anyway? Ali certainly didn't "dominate" Joe Frazier, but he beat him, and it's a great win because Joe was a great opponent.

Same thing with Usyk and Fury.

Not to mention "out landing" doesn't mean actually winning the round. You can't use punch stat to decide who won a round. In the first fight with Joshua, Usyk "landed" dozens of punches at Joshua's gloves. How hard the punch is, and how squarely the punch lands are major factors. And no, Usyk did not dominate Joshua or Fury in any of those fights.

[Seamus]

Usyk was a clear winner in the 1st fight with Joshua (had him hurt at the bell) and the 2nd with Fury, and I think you'll find that's the consensus here.

[Ambling Alp II]

I had the first fight a draw. Found my scorecard for it. Gave Usyk the 4th, 7th, 8th 10th, 11th, and 12th rounds. Gave Joshua the rest. Several rounds were close with next to nothing happening. It was a pillow fight.

Thought Usyk won the 2nd Joshua fight and both the Fury fights. But they were all competitive. None were very good.

[gilgamesh]

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

Plus since when is "dominating" a great opponent a must anyway? Ali certainly didn't "dominate" Joe Frazier, but he beat him, and it's a great win because Joe was a great opponent.

Same thing with Usyk and Fury.

Not to mention "out landing" doesn't mean actually winning the round. You can't use punch stat to decide who won a round. In the first fight with Joshua, Usyk "landed" dozens of punches at Joshua's gloves. How hard the punch is, and how squarely the punch lands are major factors. And no, Usyk did not dominate Joshua or Fury in any of those fights.

Ali didn't dominate Frazier. Is his win over Frazier not a great win?

[gilgamesh]

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

The number of top 10 contenders someone beat can also be very deceiving: Some eras are much stronger than others. For example, the number 3 contender in one era might not have been as good as the #10 in another.
And of course, even if the eras are close in a given case, there is usually a huge difference between the #10 contender and the #1 contender. So the number of top 10 contenders a guy beat can deceiving.
Ezzard Charles was better than anyone Klitschko ever beat. Elmer Ray was better than anyone Klitschko ever beat. And if he had kinder judges, Walcott would have a win over Joe Louis.

Well, before you said that a guy with way more losses could not be better. You realize Weaver was better than Bobick. So that shows growth on your part.

I've never said the highlighted part. It's a factor. It's not THE ONLY factor.

As anyone can plainly see, you make excuses. A win counts more when you want it to count more. A loss counts more when you want it to count more. An era is better if you say so. It's not better if you say so.

Unlike you what makes a fighter great or not doesn't change with the wind, and it didn't change with the century either. A Fighter in the 21st Century would have to beat up King Kong and Godzilla in the same night for you to acknowledge that they were kinda good, but you still wouldn't give them great.

You definitely have an undeniable bias against the modern era.

In the Walcott vs Klitschko case you say that Walcott beating Hall of Famers means he's better than Klitschko

In the Mayweather vs Leonard case you say that Mayweather having beaten more Hall of Famers doesn't mean anything because those Hall of Famers weren't as good as these Hall of Famers.

Your criteria changes to suit whatever argument you wish to make. You have no consistency and therefore no legitimacy.

[Flump]

To get back to the original question in a H2H, I can't see past Tyson here. Klitschko held on for dear life v Alexander Povetkin, Tyson would make him too nervous, and KO him inside 5 rounds IMO

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

To get back to the original question in a H2H, I can't see past Tyson here. Klitschko held on for dear life v Alexander Povetkin, Tyson would make him too nervous, and KO him inside 5 rounds IMO

- Yup, you can't see what you don't understand.

Wlad bounced Povetkin around the ring like a handball. Once more, he did it in Moscow in front of Putin who is a fight fan.

Joe Louis never had to go to Berlin to beat Schmeling.

Wlad is the only Hvy who ever approached the record of Joe Louis and he and Vit fought with class.

Mike in 1988 was at his peak before being set up by DKing who got him sentenced to the Big House where he assumed legal responsibility for his $50 Million Retirement account that disappeared in his pockets. Tyson was never the same but made another fortune as a 4 round fighter.

Now some of you might make Valhalla where you can see these kind of fantasy bouts where Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey have already sorted things out with Ali. Gonna have to try harder and smarter...

[keithmoonhangover]

To get back to the original question in a H2H, I can't see past Tyson here. Klitschko held on for dear life v Alexander Povetkin, Tyson would make him too nervous, and KO him inside 5 rounds IMO

- Yup, you can't see what you don't understand.

Wlad bounced Povetkin around the ring like a handball. Once more, he did it in Moscow in front of Putin who is a fight fan.

Joe Louis never had to go to Berlin to beat Schmeling.

Wlad is the only Hvy who ever approached the record of Joe Louis and he and Vit fought with class.

Mike in 1988 was at his peak before being set up by DKing who got him sentenced to the Big House where he assumed legal responsibility for his $50 Million Retirement account that disappeared in his pockets. Tyson was never the same but made another fortune as a 4 round fighter.

Now some of you might make Valhalla where you can see these kind of fantasy bouts where Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey have already sorted things out with Ali. Gonna have to try harder and smarter...

A word that best describes most of your posts.