Mike tyson vs riddick bowe 1991?

[Caractacus]

Tyson and Bowe had known one another back in Brownsville NYC.
(Tyson is only about a year older then Bowe)
I think they had an encounter at a playground or something.

[Nile4000]

Tyson and Bowe had known one another back in Brownsville NYC.
(Tyson is only about a year older then Bowe)
I think they had an encounter at a playground or something.

I thought they went to the same elementary school.

[overhand_right]

Corrie Sanders has 1 all time great win. The same amount Norton has.

He also has less losses, and he actually won a World title fight which Ken Norton did not.

Notice your failure to acknowledge Tyson's chin and stamina failed him more frequently than Wladimir's did.

A tour de force in how simple minded Gilgamesh is. Some absolute corkers.

Blowing out Klitschko (down 18 times in his career) is equivalent to beating Muhammad Ali. Because it's 1 win a piece, don't you see?

Sanders won a 'world title' (in a year where there were 4 champs), and that obviously means more than Ken Norton losing a controversial decision to an ATG in an era where there was 1 champ. Makes perfect sense!

Sanders has "less losses" (I think he means fewer losses). Norton's losses are largely razor thin decisions to ATGs and blow outs by all-time punchers. Sanders was getting KOd by luminaries including Nate Tubbs, Rahman and that African journeyman.

Tyson had an iron chin, Wladimir obviously didn't...but if you squint your eyes, move some goal posts and stand on one leg ACTUALLY Klitschko was more durable! No questions please, we don't do scrutiny. Stop being mean!

Gilgamesh is cognitively incapable of context. He has no common sense. All he can manage is elementary counting. That's his whole basis for 'assessing' fighters. Duhhh fighter A has 5 losses, fighter B has 7 losses, that's duhhhhh 1..... Erm..... 2 more losses! fighter A is therefore better! *Presses 'submit post' on keyboard saturated in drool*

[tiny_acres]

Corrie Sanders has 1 all time great win. The same amount Norton has.

He also has less losses, and he actually won a World title fight which Ken Norton did not.

Notice your failure to acknowledge Tyson's chin and stamina failed him more frequently than Wladimir's did.

A tour de force in how simple minded Gilgamesh is. Some absolute corkers.

Blowing out Klitschko (down 18 times in his career) is equivalent to beating Muhammad Ali. Because it's 1 win a piece, don't you see?

Sanders won a 'world title' (in a year where there were 4 champs), and that obviously means more than Ken Norton losing a controversial decision to an ATG in an era where there was 1 champ. Makes perfect sense!

Sanders has "less losses" (I think he means fewer losses). Norton's losses are largely razor thin decisions to ATGs and blow outs by all-time punchers. Sanders was getting KOd by luminaries including Nate Tubbs, Rahman and that African journeyman.

Tyson had an iron chin, Wladimir obviously didn't...but if you squint your eyes, move some goal posts and stand on one leg ACTUALLY Klitschko was more durable! No questions please, we don't do scrutiny. Stop being mean!

Gilgamesh is cognitively incapable of context. He has no common sense. All he can manage is elementary counting. That's his whole basis for 'assessing' fighters. Duhhh fighter A has 5 losses, fighter B has 7 losses, that's duhhhhh 1..... Erm..... 2 more losses! fighter A is therefore better! *Presses 'submit post' on keyboard saturated in drool*

Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

[Caractacus]

Tyson and Bowe had known one another back in Brownsville NYC.
(Tyson is only about a year older then Bowe)
I think they had an encounter at a playground or something.

I thought they went to the same elementary school.

I wonder what the "Tale-of-the-Tape' had been ?
"All I remember about him from those days is that he( Mike Tyson)
was big for his age, very tough and always carried a big bag of cookies around with him".
-Reddick Bowe 1992 interview.

[gilgamesh]

Corrie Sanders has 1 all time great win. The same amount Norton has.

He also has less losses, and he actually won a World title fight which Ken Norton did not.

Notice your failure to acknowledge Tyson's chin and stamina failed him more frequently than Wladimir's did.

A tour de force in how simple minded Gilgamesh is. Some absolute corkers.

Blowing out Klitschko (down 18 times in his career) is equivalent to beating Muhammad Ali. Because it's 1 win a piece, don't you see?

Sanders won a 'world title' (in a year where there were 4 champs), and that obviously means more than Ken Norton losing a controversial decision to an ATG in an era where there was 1 champ. Makes perfect sense!

Sanders has "less losses" (I think he means fewer losses). Norton's losses are largely razor thin decisions to ATGs and blow outs by all-time punchers. Sanders was getting KOd by luminaries including Nate Tubbs, Rahman and that African journeyman.

Tyson had an iron chin, Wladimir obviously didn't...but if you squint your eyes, move some goal posts and stand on one leg ACTUALLY Klitschko was more durable! No questions please, we don't do scrutiny. Stop being mean!

Gilgamesh is cognitively incapable of context. He has no common sense. All he can manage is elementary counting. That's his whole basis for 'assessing' fighters. Duhhh fighter A has 5 losses, fighter B has 7 losses, that's duhhhhh 1..... Erm..... 2 more losses! fighter A is therefore better! *Presses 'submit post' on keyboard saturated in drool*

Whoa Klitschko was down 18 times in his career? How many times did he get up? How many times did Mike Tyson get up when he got knocked down?

You guys always wanna sh*t on Wladimir's weaknesses while ignoring his Strengths. Yes he had a weaker chin than Mike, but he had a bigger heart than Mike. He had more discipline, he had better conditioning than Mike, he had a better strategic mind than Mike.

When Mike Tyson was in his late 30's he couldnt' beat Danny Williams or Kevin McBride. Wladimir Klitschko was 41 years old when he fought Anthony Joshua, and I guarantee you that 41 year old version of Wladimir wouldn't have lost a round to either Williams or McBride.

Wladimir had a big heart. Tyson obviously didn't.....but if you squint your eyes real hard, and tell yourself how great Mike is, you can imagine that he's got the courage of other fighters too to go along with that natural talent.

Also it is strange the example you point to is Sanders beating Wladimir when there were 4 World titles is OBVIOUSLY better than Norton losing to Ali in their 3rd fight when there was 1?

I mean...Yes...obviously it is. You are correct.

Winning a Fight is better than Losing one. Whether there's 1 World Title, 4 World Titles or 8 World Titles. You'd rather win than lose. That sh*t don't change.

[gilgamesh]

What gets me about you and Alp is not that you guys think Mike Tyson is better than Wladimir. They're not far off from each other to me so it's reasonable to pick one over the other without it being a controversial take.

But it's completely unreasonble not to consider Wladimir to be a great fighter in my opinion.

There are only 3 Heavyweight Champions ever that had more Championship wins than The Greatest of All Time Muhammad Ali.

Those 3 men are

Joe Louis
Larry Holmes
Wladimir Klitschko

How can you possibly have earned your way into such exclusive company, and not be great? You guys act as if everything he achieved was an accident or just handed to him. It wasn't.

You guys act as if anybody could've come along, and done what he did. They couldn't have. That's why they didn't.

So again. If you think Mike Tyson or whoever else is better than Wladimir. Go right ahead in thinking that. It's a reasonable opinion to have.

However implying that Wladimir is a million miles behind MIke Tyson, and is nowhere near him on the All Time list is just stupid, and is blatantly ignoring the reality of what took place in their respective careers.

[Ambling Alp II]

Championship wins by themselves don't mean anything if your competition sucks. Klitschko's competition sucked. that the best fighter that he ever fought was Chris Byrd speaks volumes. Just because a fighters gets a title shot doesn't mean that he good. There are many guys who could have beaten the guys Klitschko beat.

Some of Holmes and Louis' opponent were not that good at all either But. some were great. Some in between.
There is no way in the world that if Klitschko would have won all those fights that Louis and Holmes won. He gets knocked down a few times in either case. Just a question of when.

And you have to look at what a fighter does before getting a title shot. Holmes beat Shavers. Louis beat three former champions (real champions, not a phony WBS champion) as well as other contenders before fighting for the title.

Some people do overrate Tyson. But he was clearly better than Klitschko. If Klitschko fought Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Biggs, Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno, and Williams consecutively, there is no way that wins them all. Not saying they were all legends but they could fight. Glassjaw is not getting by all of them.
Who can imagine Tyson (or any of the greats) getting stopped by three no contenders in their primes? One would be embarrassing enough.

Cuevas and Palomino had a lot of welterweight title defenses. There are a lot of welterweights who were better. Nobody argues that they are right at the top of the welterweights.

And he should not get a free pass which he always gets for ducking the most dangerous opponent that he could have faced.

[gilgamesh]

Wladimir absolutely would've beaten everyone Joe Louis ever fought including Schmeling, Charles and Marciano in my opinion. Baer may have clipped him, but I doubt it.

Wladimir probably beats most of Holmes' opponents, but Shavers would obviously be pretty dangerous as would Cooney or any of the other big hitters he faced.

You might as well stop bringing up Wladimir Alp. You're simply incapable of objectivity on this guy. You hate him.

I can only assume you saw his losses and bet against him for the next 10 years losing money fight after fight or something as your dislike of him seems completely irrational, and borders on an obsession. Like you're desperate to prove that anyone from the 20th Century was better than him. Some actually were. Most weren't.

[gilgamesh]

Another thing to point out since you're all so fond of pointing out Wlad's "glass jaw" but seemingly blind to Tyson's lack of heart.

Wladimir went down 3 times against Samuel Peter and got up to win.

Wladimir went down against Davarryl Williamson and got up to win.

Can you name me 1 time Mike Tyson ever got knocked down and came back to win? Because all I ever remember is him folding like a Beach Umbrella during a Hurricane when the going got tough.

Where's the criticism of Tyson's lack of heart? Or his absolute inability to adjust his style if needed?

[overhand_right]

Wladimir was getting knocked down by crappy fighters because he was fragile. He was able to still win because they were crappy.

Tyson was obviously too durable to suffer frequent knockdowns. Hey, you like numbers. From 1985 to 2000, 15 years, 50+ fights, Tyson was down only twice. TWICE. And he fought numerous punchers.

Anything clicking yet?

Nope, didn't think so.

[gilgamesh]

Wladimir was getting knocked down by crappy fighters because he was fragile. He was able to still win because they were crappy.

Tyson was obviously too durable to suffer frequent knockdowns. Hey, you like numbers. From 1985 to 2000, 15 years, 50+ fights, Tyson was down only twice. TWICE. And he fought numerous punchers.

Anything clicking yet?

Nope, didn't think so.

What needs to click? I already knew that dipsh*t.

How many times you got knocked down proves only how good you take a punch, not how good of a fighter you are.

George Chuvalo was never knocked down ever. Does that mean he's the best Heavyweight ever in your eyes? Or do you only use this stupid argument in this specific case?

[Nile4000]

Tyson and Bowe had known one another back in Brownsville NYC.
(Tyson is only about a year older then Bowe)
I think they had an encounter at a playground or something.

I thought they went to the same elementary school.

I wonder what the "Tale-of-the-Tape' had been ?
"All I remember about him from those days is that he( Mike Tyson)
was big for his age, very tough and always carried a big bag of cookies around with him".
-Reddick Bowe 1992 interview.

I thinking it was Sports Illustrated.

[Ambling Alp II]

Wladimir absolutely would've beaten everyone Joe Louis ever fought including Schmeling, Charles and Marciano in my opinion. Baer may have clipped him, but I doubt it.

Wladimir probably beats most of Holmes' opponents, but Shavers would obviously be pretty dangerous as would Cooney or any of the other big hitters he faced.

You might as well stop bringing up Wladimir Alp. You're simply incapable of objectivity on this guy. You hate him.

I can only assume you saw his losses and bet against him for the next 10 years losing money fight after fight or something as your dislike of him seems completely irrational, and borders on an obsession. Like you're desperate to prove that anyone from the 20th Century was better than him. Some actually were. Most weren't.

Never bet on fights. Just didn't care about Klitscho's fights for his last 10 years or so. nothing to get excited about.

Certainly not everyone from the 20th century would have beaten him. Ner said that. But if Klitschko fought Schmeling 2x, Max Baer, Buddy Baer 2x, Walcott 2x, Carnera, Sharkey etc., he would have had several losses. No way in hell he would have had a long title reign under the same circumstances that Louis had.

Same with the opponents that Holmes beat. Holmes beat Shavers before he won the title and Norton in a great just to win it. Klitschko is not going through all those guys without losing. Just a matter of when.

Pretty sue Holmes and Louis would somehow have beaten the great Chris Byrd and not been embarrassed by Purity, Sanders and Brewster. And many Tyson, and many others would have as well.

Don't hate him personally. I did hate Tyson. It's not about that.
Myself and many others just look at what he really "accomplished (and don't mean Bs stats) and don't think he was one of the greats.
We see the embarrassing losses and don't see the big wins. By big wins I mean the quality of competition, not whether the WBO title or whatever was "on the line".

[gilgamesh]

You just said it yourself

"We see the losses and don't see the big wins" so you just admitted to ignoring the Good on his record and only acknowledging the Bad. Which is exactly what I always said you did when assessing him.

I see the talent. I see the skill. I see the ability to adapt and change his style when needed. I see the heart to get up and keep trying against adversity. I see the way he won most every round against his top contenders.

I also see the losses to Corrie Sanders, Lamont Brewster, Ross Purritty, Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua.

That's where you and me differ. I see the whole picture. You see the little corner your mind fixates on.

Same with Norton just in the opposite direction. With him you see only his success and his failures simply don't exist or all can be excused. Some people are allowed to lose, some ain't.

To you. Cruiserweight turned Heavy Usyk having gone the distance with Fury and Joshua (2 of the largest Heavyweight Champions of all time) is embarrassing, but it's not embarrassing when Super Heavyweight Lennox Lewis couldn't knock out Cruiserweight Turned Heavy Holyfield or Frazier couldn't knock out Ali or Holmes couldn't knock out Norton.

What does or doesn't make a fighter great changes with the breeze for you.

[Ambling Alp II]

I weight the good against the bad for everyone. I don't cherry pick. I take into consideration how close the fighter was to his prime as well as to how close his opponents were to thier primes when the fight took place. . One major thing that is different is for the good I look at how good the opponent is. don't care kif if the it's a title fight if the opponent is not good. you can always find a stiff to beat.

As for the specific guys that you mention:
Klitschko has three embarrassing losses against non-contenders while in his prime. (I don't hold Klitschko losses late in his career against him.) Can't find a great hw with three. Not one.
On the plus side he beat Chris Byrd, a very good but certainly not great fighter. Sometimes he looked good against lesser fights, sometimes not. therefore, he is not remotely near the top 10.

Ken Norton had a bad loss to Garcia. The losses to Ali and Holmes are not negatives. He fought so well in the Holmes fight that it's a positive. Getting destroyed by Foreman is bad, but nothing like getting destroyed by Sanders or Brewster. Shavers fight is a but of a gray area. How far past his best Norton was is debatable. I hold it against him, but not as much if would have lost to him earlier. Cooney fight was meaningless and everyone knew that for about 30 years after the fight.
On the plus side, he had the huge win over Ali of course. He had a great performance in the Young fight and the Quarry fight as well. To a lesser extent, the blowout win over Bobick helps his case. Overall, this makes him a borderline Top 20 pick.

My problem with Usyk isn't that just the didn't stop either Fury or Joshua,( neither of whom are impressive at all.) But that he couldn't dominate them in any of the four fights. In each of those fights, he had several rounds that he lost or were close. Nobody is perfect, but a great hw should have been able to win three of those 4 easily. He went 0 for 4. Given that he fights so rarely this hurts him more than a guy who had a lot more fights and beat really good fighters a sometimes and didn't other times.

Never liked Lewis that much. He wasn't perfect either. But he usually took care of business and won connivingly. His losses/ bad performances hurt him. But he had plenty of good wins and impressive performances that put him in the Top 10.

[gilgamesh]

I weight the good against the bad for everyone. I don't cherry pick. I take into consideration how close the fighter was to his prime as well as to how close his opponents were to thier primes when the fight took place. . One major thing that is different is for the good I look at how good the opponent is. don't care kif if the it's a title fight if the opponent is not good. you can always find a stiff to beat.

As for the specific guys that you mention:
Klitschko has three embarrassing losses against non-contenders while in his prime. (I don't hold Klitschko losses late in his career against him.) Can't find a great hw with three. Not one.
On the plus side he beat Chris Byrd, a very good but certainly not great fighter. Sometimes he looked good against lesser fights, sometimes not. therefore, he is not remotely near the top 10.

Ken Norton had a bad loss to Garcia. The losses to Ali and Holmes are not negatives. He fought so well in the Holmes fight that it's a positive. Getting destroyed by Foreman is bad, but nothing like getting destroyed by Sanders or Brewster. Shavers fight is a but of a gray area. How far past his best Norton was is debatable. I hold it against him, but not as much if would have lost to him earlier. Cooney fight was meaningless and everyone knew that for about 30 years after the fight.
On the plus side, he had the huge win over Ali of course. He had a great performance in the Young fight and the Quarry fight as well. To a lesser extent, the blowout win over Bobick helps his case. Overall, this makes him a borderline Top 20 pick.

My problem with Usyk isn't that just the didn't stop either Fury or Joshua,( neither of whom are impressive at all.) But that he couldn't dominate them in any of the four fights. In each of those fights, he had several rounds that he lost or were close. Nobody is perfect, but a great hw should have been able to win three of those 4 easily. He went 0 for 4. Given that he fights so rarely this hurts him more than a guy who had a lot more fights and beat really good fighters a sometimes and didn't other times.

Never liked Lewis that much. He wasn't perfect either. But he usually took care of business and won connivingly. His losses/ bad performances hurt him. But he had plenty of good wins and impressive performances that put him in the Top 10.

Let's discuss that "You can always find a stiff to beat" comment

Mike Tyson couldn't find a stiff to beat when he thought he found one in Danny Williams or Kevin McBride could he? He wasn't as old as Wladimir Klitschko was when Klitschko was still defending the Heavyweight Championship of the F*cking World! Against guys that were better than Williams and McBride mind you.

Why don't you ever give him credit for that? He has more total fights than Mike Tyson. So if Mike Tyson was more "used up" by that age than Klitschko, it's because he didn't defend himself as well, and didn't prepare as diligently, and therefore wound up in rougher shape at the same after fewer fights than Klitschko had fought at the same age.

Give the guy his due. He's most certainly a Top 15 Heavyweight at the very worst. I personally consider him Top 10 toward the back end of it with Mike.

As for Usyk. I thought the 1st victories over Fury and Joshua were pretty damn convincing, the rematches were closer, but he still edged them.

If you consider Gene Tunney to be a great Heavyweight with so relatively few Heavyweight fights to his record, then you have to give Usyk the same credit for doing essentially the same thing nearly a decade later, and defending the title more than Tunney mind you. The majority of his bouts at the weight class have been for the Heavyweight Championship, Tunney only fought 3 Heavyweight Championship bouts.

[Ambling Alp II]

So Klitschko was better when he was way past it then Tyson was when he was way past it? So what? You also can't just go age. You have to consider the punishment that a fighter takes in his career. Tyson took a lot more partly because was fighter much better competition. He wasn't winning hugfests like Klitschko was.

How many fights a guy won? Really? So that would make Carnera the best then? And then why would Usyk be in the top 100?

Klitschko certainly is not Top 15. A win over Chris Byrd isn't nearly enough. Tyson had a ton of wins over fighters as good or better than Byrd. Tyson losses his prime were to Douglas and Holyfield, who fought great against him. Tyson never came close to losing to some as bad as Puritty, Sanders, and Brewster anywhere near his prime.

Usyk was fortunate to get the win in the first Joshua fight. What was with the constant jabbing at Joshua's gloves? terrible fight. And he couldn't dominate in the other 3 fights either.

I don't have Tunney in the top 10. He is hard to rate at hw. Didn't fight a lot of the top hw's. Did beat Dempsey twice, though Dempsey was not at as his best though not shot. Still, watching Tunney, you tell can he was great.

And course you aren't fair to fighters from previous eras. The sport is well over 100 years old and you have such a high % of guys at the top when watching them you can tell it's been a crummy era. Learn how the sport used to be in different times.

[gilgamesh]

Bend it and twist it any which way you want, but you can never undo Wladimir Klitschko's 9 year title reign or the place in history it earns him.

His resume is not just Chris Byrd, and you know it. Alexander Povetkin, David Haye, Samuel Peter 2x, Ruslan Chagaev all were solid Heavyweight opponents. Not Earth shattering, but certainly not walkovers either. He also avenged his loss to Lamon Brewster.

Anybody fighting for the Heavyweight title is at least Top 20 or thereabouts so they're not just some bum off the street. Even Ali has his Jean Pierre Coopman's and Alfredo Evangelista's.

Wladimir's era isn't one of the best. That's not his fault. He dominated in it. Other fighters in similarly weak eras couldn't do the same. Holmes was in an era that was pretty much on par with Klitschko's and he dominated in a similar fashion. Joe Louis's era was better from a competitive standpoint, but the size of the participants had shifted dramatically from the time of Joe Louis to the time of Klitschko.

Hard to imagine Abe Attell or Buddy Baer isn't gonna get their ass kicked by Alexander Povetkin.

[Ambling Alp II]

Bird is the best guy that he ever fought. I have said this many times and you never refute it. Are we going to pretend that he beat someone better/
Klitschko was the best of his era? Don't remember him beating Lennox Lewis. The greats don't duck people. Not his fault that it sucked after Lewis left. But he certainly could have fought Lewis.
Yes Ali fought Dunn and Coopman. And I don't give me any credit for it. But in your super system of counting title defenses, they count as much as defending the title against Joe Frazier.

The size of the participants? Really? We are going back to the size advantage crap of a few years ago? Remember beat Fury and proved yet again that at a certain point weight doesn't matter and at a later point it hurts you.

There were great, good, mediocre, and bad fighters well before our time. Learn about them. And no, you don't know everything which you claimed.

[gilgamesh]

Technically I consider Hasim Rahman and Alexander Povetkin to be better than Chris Byrd. I know that Rahman was shot by the time Wlad fought him though.

Povetkin was still at his best when Wlad fought him, and he couldn't do a thing with Wladimir.

[gilgamesh]

Bird is the best guy that he ever fought. I have said this many times and you never refute it. Are we going to pretend that he beat someone better/
Klitschko was the best of his era? Don't remember him beating Lennox Lewis. The greats don't duck people. Not his fault that it sucked after Lewis left. But he certainly could have fought Lewis.
Yes Ali fought Dunn and Coopman. And I don't give me any credit for it. But in your super system of counting title defenses, they count as much as defending the title against Joe Frazier.

The size of the participants? Really? We are going back to the size advantage crap of a few years ago? Remember beat Fury and proved yet again that at a certain point weight doesn't matter and at a later point it hurts you.

There were great, good, mediocre, and bad fighters well before our time. Learn about them. And no, you don't know everything which you claimed.

No they don't. As I've explained countless times to you. Ali beating Joe Frazier is an All Time great victory. Ali beating Jean Pierre Coopman is a standard title defense.

You're either deliberately obtuse or you're suffering from dementia or something because I shouldn't have to explain this same sh*t over and over and over.

It's all on Page 1 of my Refined Rankings System thread. It's all laid out. You can't grasp it even when it's spelled out in explicit detail.

The size of the participants isn't the end all, be all factor, but if 2 guys are equally talented and one guy has about 35 to 40 pounds on the other, the heavier man in all likelihood will win that fight more often than not.

The lighter man can win, but it takes him being the significantly better fighter.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Tyson

[Caractacus]

Mike Tyson was born June 1966
Reddick Bowe was born August 1967.
They had been in the sixth grade together (PS 396)
But Mike Tyson had only showed up for lunch there.
where did Reddick Bowe start his amateur boxing ?
was there a boxing gym in Brownsville at the time ?

[Ambling Alp II]

Bird is the best guy that he ever fought. I have said this many times and you never refute it. Are we going to pretend that he beat someone better/
Klitschko was the best of his era? Don't remember him beating Lennox Lewis. The greats don't duck people. Not his fault that it sucked after Lewis left. But he certainly could have fought Lewis.
Yes Ali fought Dunn and Coopman. And I don't give me any credit for it. But in your super system of counting title defenses, they count as much as defending the title against Joe Frazier.

The size of the participants? Really? We are going back to the size advantage crap of a few years ago? Remember beat Fury and proved yet again that at a certain point weight doesn't matter and at a later point it hurts you.

There were great, good, mediocre, and bad fighters well before our time. Learn about them. And no, you don't know everything which you claimed.

No they don't. As I've explained countless times to you. Ali beating Joe Frazier is an All Time great victory. Ali beating Jean Pierre Coopman is a standard title defense.

You're either deliberately obtuse or you're suffering from dementia or something because I shouldn't have to explain this same sh*t over and over and over.

It's all on Page 1 of my Refined Rankings System thread. It's all laid out. You can't grasp it even when it's spelled out in explicit detail.

The size of the participants isn't the end all, be all factor, but if 2 guys are equally talented and one guy has about 35 to 40 pounds on the other, the heavier man in all likelihood will win that fight more often than not.

The lighter man can win, but it takes him being the significantly better fighter.

Yes I know you have your all-time victory stat which I know you think is perfect. It's not, but at least some minimal effort is made to take into consideration how good the opponents are.

But when you say a guy has won 20 title fights or something like, you are counting every single title victory, including one over guys that are medicore and suck.. So in that particular statistic, a win over someone that sucks counts just as much as a win over Ali.
So throw out the standard title defense or whatever you want to call it. It's meaningless.

As for size, In basketball, if two guys have about the same numbers in rebounds, points etc, People recognize that they are about even. They don't say, wait a minute, they everything equally, but one guy is 6 inches taller, so he must be better.
Same thing in any sport. It's what you can do that counts.

At a certain point in boxing, weight stops being an advantage. A later point it becomes a disadvantage. So just block from your mind and judge on what a guy can do.