BoxRec

Mike Weaver "ruled" as WBA heavyweight champ from 1980-1982. Guess that puts him above Vitali Klitschko.

Terence wrote:By that reckoning Lewis was the #1 until Febuary 2004 and VK retired in 2005 so he didn't even put a full year stint in. Some legacy. Neither 2004 nor 2005 was his year.

Maybe a new thread is in order? Specifying months?

Yeah, why don't you specify months.

Klitschko was probably the best heavyweight in 2004 (which isn't saying a whole lot) but since he didn't fight at all he wasn't the best in 2005. It's that simple. You don't give the MVP Award to an injured player who was out the whole year because he won the year before. You have to prove it on the field, or in boxing in the ring.

Terence wrote:

pundit wrote:

Terence wrote:By that reckoning Lewis was the #1 until Febuary 2004 and VK retired in 2005 so he didn't even put a full year stint in. Some legacy. Neither 2004 nor 2005 was his year.

Maybe a new thread is in order? Specifying months?

Yeah, why don't you specify months.

Just my twisted logic Pundit, you know me. I assumed being #1 meant being the best, yet how can you be the best at something you never do?

I'm the #1 160lb fighter of all time myself

VK seemed a good guy though, it was a bit scary when he went Glenn Close on Lewis though. I always enjoyed his pre-Lewis interviews a great deal.

Ah see Vitali just cant win can he!... according to some of you guys he 'quit' against Byrd, even though his shoulder was literally hanging off!... then when he wants a rematch with Lewis he's accused of doing a Glenn Close!!!!..... :x

Ambling Alp wrote:Klitschko was probably the best heavyweight in 2004 (which isn't saying a whole lot) but since he didn't fight at all he wasn't the best in 2005. It's that simple. You don't give the MVP Award to an injured player who was out the whole year because he won the year before. You have to prove it on the field, or in boxing in the ring.

I disagree with this. Vitali and nobody else was considered the #1 heavyweight in 2005.

Sure, had he said at the beginning of the year "I won't fight any more" he wouldn't have been considered #1. But he didn't say this, he planned on having an (easy) defense against Rahman, which then never came about. But during the entire year of 2005 the fight was on though and Vitali had to be considered an active fighter; and as long he was considered an active fighter he was considered #1.

He passed on the baton when he retired, presumably to his brother.

Cheers,
P

Decagon wrote:

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Klitschko was probably the best heavyweight in 2004 (which isn't saying a whole lot) but since he didn't fight at all he wasn't the best in 2005. It's that simple. You don't give the MVP Award to an injured player who was out the whole year because he won the year before. You have to prove it on the field, or in boxing in the ring.

I disagree with this. Vitali and nobody else was considered the #1 heavyweight in 2005.

Only by you, a bunch of lame nuthuggers, and people fooled by Ring magazine's championship policy.

Unqualified post by a sore loser.

Decagon wrote:I thought you liked people who lose matches. Anyway, explain how I'm biased. I wouldn't call Mike Tyson the best heavyweight of 1993, or Muhammad Ali the best heavyweight of 1968. If you can't fight, you can't fight. At least Joe Louis in 1945 fought exhibitions. Vitali couldn't have even done that; he was too injured.

Or too scare?

... new Boxrec annual ratings say ...

Decagon wrote:

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Klitschko was probably the best heavyweight in 2004 (which isn't saying a whole lot) but since he didn't fight at all he wasn't the best in 2005. It's that simple. You don't give the MVP Award to an injured player who was out the whole year because he won the year before. You have to prove it on the field, or in boxing in the ring.

I disagree with this. Vitali and nobody else was considered the #1 heavyweight in 2005.

Only by you, a bunch of lame nuthuggers, and people fooled by Ring magazine's championship policy.

Why this constant obsession with 'nuthugging' Dec? :x ... is there something you're not telling us??? 8) ... as for the Ring... I'd put their knowledge of the game just a tad above yours I have to say!...

computerrank wrote:... new Boxrec annual ratings say ...

Code: Select all

Heavyweight          2003 1690.9 001853 Lennox Lewis
Heavyweight          2003 1006.3 004923 Chris Byrd
Heavyweight          2003  887.4 004655 John Ruiz
Heavyweight          2003  696.1 007033 Vitali Klitschko
Heavyweight          2003  681.7 001728 Corrie Sanders

Heavyweight          2004 1027.4 007033 Vitali Klitschko
Heavyweight          2004 1000.3 004655 John Ruiz
Heavyweight          2004  937.3 004923 Chris Byrd
Heavyweight          2004  671.2 001437 James Toney
Heavyweight          2004  596.7 016554 Joe Mesi

Heavyweight          2005 1027.1 004923 Chris Byrd
Heavyweight          2005  756.4 019904 Nikolay Valuev
Heavyweight          2005  755.4 004655 John Ruiz
Heavyweight          2005  744.5 008987 Lamon Brewster
Heavyweight          2005  699.7 001437 James Toney

Where are they posted?

Decagon wrote:Why? Because they've accepted money for rankings and I haven't?

Anyone know what happened to Johnny Ort who was The Ring's bagman at the time of the US tournement?

pundit wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Klitschko was probably the best heavyweight in 2004 (which isn't saying a whole lot) but since he didn't fight at all he wasn't the best in 2005. It's that simple. You don't give the MVP Award to an injured player who was out the whole year because he won the year before. You have to prove it on the field, or in boxing in the ring.

I disagree with this. Vitali and nobody else was considered the #1 heavyweight in 2005.

Sure, had he said at the beginning of the year "I won't fight any more" he wouldn't have been considered #1. But he didn't say this, he planned on having an (easy) defense against Rahman, which then never came about. But during the entire year of 2005 the fight was on though and Vitali had to be considered an active fighter; and as long he was considered an active fighter he was considered #1.

He passed on the baton when he retired, presumably to his brother.

Cheers,
P

Pundit,
I must say I find your logic regarding Klitschko baffling. None of this makes any sense to me at all.

I don't think that is fair to Pundit. I don't think he is nuts or anything like that. I just don't understand his reasoning regarding Klitschko. He has made other points on other threads that were very good.

There's 7 threads about Vitali Klitschko on the first page of Boxers Of The Past. I'd like to know if this is a record ?

pundit wrote:

computerrank wrote:... new Boxrec annual ratings say ...

Code: Select all

Heavyweight          2003 1690.9 001853 Lennox Lewis
Heavyweight          2003 1006.3 004923 Chris Byrd
Heavyweight          2003  887.4 004655 John Ruiz
Heavyweight          2003  696.1 007033 Vitali Klitschko
Heavyweight          2003  681.7 001728 Corrie Sanders

Heavyweight          2004 1027.4 007033 Vitali Klitschko
Heavyweight          2004 1000.3 004655 John Ruiz
Heavyweight          2004  937.3 004923 Chris Byrd
Heavyweight          2004  671.2 001437 James Toney
Heavyweight          2004  596.7 016554 Joe Mesi

Heavyweight          2005 1027.1 004923 Chris Byrd
Heavyweight          2005  756.4 019904 Nikolay Valuev
Heavyweight          2005  755.4 004655 John Ruiz
Heavyweight          2005  744.5 008987 Lamon Brewster
Heavyweight          2005  699.7 001437 James Toney

Where are they posted?

... to be published in Wiki the next days