Who ranks higher historically - Wladimir Klitschko or Floyd Patterson?

[Ambling Alp II]

Yours boils down to title defenses against meaningless opponents. To me they are close, but Wlad has worst losses to lesser opponents and the wins are similar in value.

And for the Povetkin argument, Byrd did beat Tua, Vitali and old Evander. Povetkin has ancient Rahman, the rest isn't much better than Byrd besting Jimmy Thunder.

I mean, the big wins I mentioned for Povetkin were over ranked guys. What more can you ask of him?

It's unfortunate I guess that he couldn't hop in a time machine, and go whip Chuvalo and Oscar Bonvavena's ass as well, but such is life ya know.

He's a solid fighter in his own era. That's all you can ask.

And for the record, I would argue that Title defenses are never "meaningless". Wlad certainly had some guys that were weak opponents even for the era he was in, Mormeck and Ray Austin for instance, but he also really didn't miss out on anybody of note that he should've fought.

He didn't fight his brother for obvious reasons, but for near 10 years he dominated the division, unified the title, gained general consensus as the Heavyweight Champion and KEPT holding it down for quite a while.

Patterson's record in World TItle fights is 8-5.

I'll give it to you that Floyd has a better Non-Title fight record than Wlad, but that's about it.

Wlad runs away with this to me. Aside from comparable wins, he also just flat out has as many wins as Patterson has fights total, and he has less total losses, and he fought to an older age.

I mean...I already broke down the numbers of Wlad's record in the Wlad/Mike Tyson thread. So I'm not gonna go into all that again.

Not sure what you need here. All the evidence is there.

Just because Povetkin beat a lot stiffs doesn't mean he very good, regardless if he ducked anyone or not.

Win/loss records in title fights? Total wins? wow.
What you aren't taking into consideration is that a fighter can always find a no hope stiff to beat. Win/loss records are very often deceiving. I can list many guys who had better stats than Klitschko that you wouldn't even consider.

Yes title defenses can be meaningless. Why? Because if the opponent sucks a guy shouldn't get credit for beating him. Which sums up Klitschkos career.
It doesn't matter if you dominate a division that sucks. That doesn't mean you are better than another guy who fought in an era when it didn't suck.

And it does matter who the losses are, which you referenced earlier. It matters a lot.

A lot of very good fighters would have and actually did get beat by Liston and Ali. That doesn't count against Patterson as Klitschko's pathetic losses.
Who else worth mentioning else did Ross Purrity beat?
Who else did Corrie Sanders ever beat?
Who else worth mentioning did Brewster beat? (Besides an ancient Golota)?

You should not get credit for beating a stiff.
You should get ripped for losing to one.

[DrDuke]

Yours boils down to title defenses against meaningless opponents. To me they are close, but Wlad has worst losses to lesser opponents and the wins are similar in value.

And for the Povetkin argument, Byrd did beat Tua, Vitali and old Evander. Povetkin has ancient Rahman, the rest isn't much better than Byrd besting Jimmy Thunder.

I mean, the big wins I mentioned for Povetkin were over ranked guys. What more can you ask of him?

It's unfortunate I guess that he couldn't hop in a time machine, and go whip Chuvalo and Oscar Bonvavena's ass as well, but such is life ya know.

He's a solid fighter in his own era. That's all you can ask.

And for the record, I would argue that Title defenses are never "meaningless". Wlad certainly had some guys that were weak opponents even for the era he was in, Mormeck and Ray Austin for instance, but he also really didn't miss out on anybody of note that he should've fought.

He didn't fight his brother for obvious reasons, but for near 10 years he dominated the division, unified the title, gained general consensus as the Heavyweight Champion and KEPT holding it down for quite a while.

Patterson's record in World TItle fights is 8-5.

I'll give it to you that Floyd has a better Non-Title fight record than Wlad, but that's about it.

Wlad runs away with this to me. Aside from comparable wins, he also just flat out has as many wins as Patterson has fights total, and he has less total losses, and he fought to an older age.

I mean...I already broke down the numbers of Wlad's record in the Wlad/Mike Tyson thread. So I'm not gonna go into all that again.

Not sure what you need here. All the evidence is there.

Just because Povetkin beat a lot stiffs doesn't mean he very good, regardless if he ducked anyone or not.

Win/loss records in title fights? Total wins? wow.
What you aren't taking into consideration is that a fighter can always find a no hope stiff to beat. Win/loss records are very often deceiving. I can list many guys who had better stats than Klitschko that you wouldn't even consider.

Yes title defenses can be meaningless. Why? Because if the opponent sucks a guy shouldn't get credit for beating him. Which sums up Klitschkos career.
It doesn't matter if you dominate a division that sucks. That doesn't mean you are better than another guy who fought in an era when it didn't suck.

And it does matter who the losses are, which you referenced earlier. It matters a lot.

A lot of very good fighters would have and actually did get beat by Liston and Ali. That doesn't count against Patterson as Klitschko's pathetic losses.
Who else worth mentioning else did Ross Purrity beat?
Who else did Corrie Sanders ever beat?
Who else worth mentioning did Brewster beat? (Besides an ancient Golota)?

You should not get credit for beating a stiff.
You should get ripped for losing to one.

But when stiff like Cooper got beaten in the great era by a great fighter, then he's not a stiff and counts like a great scalp.

[Ambling Alp II]

I have never said that a great fighter beating Cooper is a great scalp, or anything like that. Don't think anyone else did either.

[keithmoonhangover]

I have never said that a great fighter beating Cooper is a great scalp, or anything like that. Don't think anyone else did either.

This is a forum where a fighter's three wins against Hall of Famers and his the losses to Hall of Famers is ignored.

[Cojimar 1946]

Some of these supposed stiffs Wladimir beat could have been lineal champs in earlier eras. If a 45 year old Foreman can become lineal champion I bet Haye Povetkin Pulev could too.

[keithmoonhangover]

Some of these supposed stiffs Wladimir beat could have been lineal champs in earlier eras. If a 45 year old Foreman can become lineal champion I bet Haye Povetkin Pulev could too.

Come on, you're just being silly now.

[Cojimar 1946]

Some of these supposed stiffs Wladimir beat could have been lineal champs in earlier eras. If a 45 year old Foreman can become lineal champion I bet Haye Povetkin Pulev could too.

Come on, you're just being silly now.

Wladimir beat guys who are absolutely better than Moorer and old Foreman. This version of Foreman couldn't even convincingly beat journeyman like Axel Schulz. Povetkin and others should handle him easily. The guys are being put down because fans found Klitschko dominance boring

[DrDuke]

Some of these supposed stiffs Wladimir beat could have been lineal champs in earlier eras. If a 45 year old Foreman can become lineal champion I bet Haye Povetkin Pulev could too.

Come on, you're just being silly now.

Wladimir beat guys who are absolutely better than Moorer and old Foreman. This version of Foreman couldn't even convincingly beat journeyman like Axel Schulz. Povetkin and others should handle him easily. The guys are being put down because fans found Klitschko dominance boring

Schulz wasn't a journeyman tho.

Yet indeed, a lot of people get their butts hurt from Klits because of the boring Wlad's reign. Want it or not, he did it, he raped every contender and your eyes. That's why the Klit topics are so hot.

[gilgamesh]

Wlad should have been DQ'd for that disgrace of a fight vs Povetkin. Quite telling about his career that you consider this the best win on his resume.

I've always thought Wlad should've been DQ'd against Povetkin was a stupid argument. Once he got a point deducted the holding dropped significantly.

He won every round, and dropped the guy 4 times. Clearly his strategy worked out

[gilgamesh]

So apparently we got some people on this forum who are just gonna pretend as if Wlad wasn't any good at all no matter who you compare him to.

With Wlad vs Mike Tyson it was at least a discussion.

You guys saying Floyd Patterson is better. I mean, you got nothing. You got no argument.

Water is Wet. Fire is Hot. Wladimir Klitschko was a Better Heavyweight than Floyd Patterson.

These are Facts.

I wonder if Ambling Alp would rate Carmen Basilio over Bernard Hopkins, because that's about the same comparison here to me.

[gilgamesh]

Yours boils down to title defenses against meaningless opponents. To me they are close, but Wlad has worst losses to lesser opponents and the wins are similar in value.

And for the Povetkin argument, Byrd did beat Tua, Vitali and old Evander. Povetkin has ancient Rahman, the rest isn't much better than Byrd besting Jimmy Thunder.

I mean, the big wins I mentioned for Povetkin were over ranked guys. What more can you ask of him?

It's unfortunate I guess that he couldn't hop in a time machine, and go whip Chuvalo and Oscar Bonvavena's ass as well, but such is life ya know.

He's a solid fighter in his own era. That's all you can ask.

And for the record, I would argue that Title defenses are never "meaningless". Wlad certainly had some guys that were weak opponents even for the era he was in, Mormeck and Ray Austin for instance, but he also really didn't miss out on anybody of note that he should've fought.

He didn't fight his brother for obvious reasons, but for near 10 years he dominated the division, unified the title, gained general consensus as the Heavyweight Champion and KEPT holding it down for quite a while.

Patterson's record in World TItle fights is 8-5.

I'll give it to you that Floyd has a better Non-Title fight record than Wlad, but that's about it.

Wlad runs away with this to me. Aside from comparable wins, he also just flat out has as many wins as Patterson has fights total, and he has less total losses, and he fought to an older age.

I mean...I already broke down the numbers of Wlad's record in the Wlad/Mike Tyson thread. So I'm not gonna go into all that again.

Not sure what you need here. All the evidence is there.

Just because Povetkin beat a lot stiffs doesn't mean he very good, regardless if he ducked anyone or not.

Win/loss records in title fights? Total wins? wow.
What you aren't taking into consideration is that a fighter can always find a no hope stiff to beat. Win/loss records are very often deceiving. I can list many guys who had better stats than Klitschko that you wouldn't even consider.

Yes title defenses can be meaningless. Why? Because if the opponent sucks a guy shouldn't get credit for beating him. Which sums up Klitschkos career.
It doesn't matter if you dominate a division that sucks. That doesn't mean you are better than another guy who fought in an era when it didn't suck.

And it does matter who the losses are, which you referenced earlier. It matters a lot.

A lot of very good fighters would have and actually did get beat by Liston and Ali. That doesn't count against Patterson as Klitschko's pathetic losses.
Who else worth mentioning else did Ross Purrity beat?
Who else did Corrie Sanders ever beat?
Who else worth mentioning did Brewster beat? (Besides an ancient Golota)?

You should not get credit for beating a stiff.
You should get ripped for losing to one.

You should also get credit for correcting your flaws, and not losing that same way again.

Joe Louis got beat by Max Schmeling in the 1st fight because he kept making a mistake, and dropping his left hand after his jab. He learned from it, and didn't get beat that way twice.

It's Boxing. Sh*t happens. You get caught by surprise sometimes, and beat. If you can bounce back, and go on to a long stretch of uninterrupted success. I think you've gone a long way in putting your losses to bed.

Henry Armstrong lost 3 of his first 4 fights to guys who went on to jack sh*t. So by your logic I guess Henry Armstrong f*cking sucks huh?

[Ambling Alp II]

The fight, not the round, I'm guess you meant. Louis did make it the 12th round. Schmeling was a great fighter. The Great Trio that Kltischko got ko'd were not.

Did Klitschko really "correct" his flaws? No. His main flaws were a glass jaw and poor stamina. If a hard puncher nails him, he is still going down. Which is part of the point that people make about his opponents in these title defenses. They couldn't punch. His John Ruiz routine would not have worked against really good fighter, much less a great one.

Louis was a very young fighter when he lost to Schmeling. It's not like Klitschko was some young kid learning the ropes when he was getting stopped.

[Ambling Alp II]

So apparently we got some people on this forum who are just gonna pretend as if Wlad wasn't any good at all no matter who you compare him to.

With Wlad vs Mike Tyson it was at least a discussion.

You guys saying Floyd Patterson is better. I mean, you got nothing. You got no argument.

Water is Wet. Fire is Hot. Wladimir Klitschko was a Better Heavyweight than Floyd Patterson.

These are Facts.

I wonder if Ambling Alp would rate Carmen Basilio over Bernard Hopkins, because that's about the same comparison here to me.

No argument? Citing the number of title defenses and win/loss records is no argument.

Patterson beat better fighters than Klitschko beat.
Patterson never lost to stiffs like Klitschko did.
That's not just an argument, that's a very solid argument. One that you keep dancing around and won't take on.

Wlad-Tyson was not a worth a discussion.

[gilgamesh]

So apparently we got some people on this forum who are just gonna pretend as if Wlad wasn't any good at all no matter who you compare him to.

With Wlad vs Mike Tyson it was at least a discussion.

You guys saying Floyd Patterson is better. I mean, you got nothing. You got no argument.

Water is Wet. Fire is Hot. Wladimir Klitschko was a Better Heavyweight than Floyd Patterson.

These are Facts.

I wonder if Ambling Alp would rate Carmen Basilio over Bernard Hopkins, because that's about the same comparison here to me.

No argument? Citing the number of title defenses and win/loss records is no argument.

Patterson beat better fighters than Klitschko beat.
Patterson never lost to stiffs like Klitschko did.
That's not just an argument, that's a very solid argument. One that you keep dancing around and won't take on.

Wlad-Tyson was not a worth a discussion.

Patterson didn't BEAT better fighters than Klitschko. That's bullsh*t.

Patterson did lose to better fighters, and he also lost more often in less fights.

Wladimir reigning 3 times as long as Floyd Patterson, and making 3 times as many successful title defenses is worth mentioning. If you think it's not. What do you think we should compare? Their golf scores?

Their best wins are comparable as I've already pointed out. Wlad was able to improve upon his flaws, and rise above them for a near decade long run.

Floyd losing to bigger names is your one and only argument for Floyd Patterson. On everything else Wlad is either equal to him or superior.

[gilgamesh]

The fight, not the round, I'm guess you meant. Louis did make it the 12th round. Schmeling was a great fighter. The Great Trio that Kltischko got ko'd were not.

Did Klitschko really "correct" his flaws? No. His main flaws were a glass jaw and poor stamina. If a hard puncher nails him, he is still going down. Which is part of the point that people make about his opponents in these title defenses. They couldn't punch. His John Ruiz routine would not have worked against really good fighter, much less a great one.

Louis was a very young fighter when he lost to Schmeling. It's not like Klitschko was some young kid learning the ropes when he was getting stopped.

Got ya.

The losses are always excusable as long as they're an older fighter, and they're unforgivable if you're a modern era fighter.

Can't argue with that logic.

[gilgamesh]

By the way.

I'm thinking we oughta take this Who Ranks Higher Historically idea, and apply it to other fighters in other weight classes. I've enjoyed these threads. They make for interesting discussions.

[HomicideHenry]

The fight, not the round, I'm guess you meant. Louis did make it the 12th round. Schmeling was a great fighter. The Great Trio that Kltischko got ko'd were not.

Did Klitschko really "correct" his flaws? No. His main flaws were a glass jaw and poor stamina. If a hard puncher nails him, he is still going down. Which is part of the point that people make about his opponents in these title defenses. They couldn't punch. His John Ruiz routine would not have worked against really good fighter, much less a great one.

Louis was a very young fighter when he lost to Schmeling. It's not like Klitschko was some young kid learning the ropes when he was getting stopped.

Got ya.

The losses are always excusable as long as they're an older fighter, and they're unforgivable if you're a modern era fighter.

Can't argue with that logic.

I think Louis was 24-0 having already defeated Carnera and Baer by the time he met Schmeling. Hardly some kid. It's unforgivable. Especially when there was nobody who thought that Schmeling could actually win let alone box Louis's ears off and knock him out.

There was definite damage control immediately after the loss because they fed former champion Jack Sharkey to Louis immediately afterwards, but I don't think the public quite bought it considering Sharkey looked old and out of shape.

Took a lot of fights and working out the chinks in Louis's armor for him to become a far better fighter and the champion we all grew to love and respect.

Kinda sounds like someone doesn't it? But I guess there's no comparison because the over the hill boxer was Max Schmeling and not some hardass named Ross Puritty who only won because Klitschko gassed out.

[Controversial]

Wlad was getting punched by big HWs too, not blown up LHW or CWs

[Ambling Alp II]

Louis did have 24 fights. He had been a pro for 2 years. He had just turned 20.
Not a novice, but not quite a seasoned pro.

Klitschko had 41 fights when he fought Sanders. He was 26 years old. Had been a pro for more than 6 years.
Klitschko had 44 fights when he crushed by Brewster. He was 28 years old. Had been a pro for more than 7 years.
Thee is no way that you can spin this that Klitschko was some green kid. He wasn't at all.

I don't think Louis was quite in his prime yet. Certainly count it against him to an extent when rating him.

Louis didn't lose as badly.

Most importantly, Schmeling was a great fighter himself. Losing to him is not as bad as losing to people like Sanders and Brewster. Therefore those losses should count against him more than Louis' loss to Schmeling.

[Ambling Alp II]

So apparently we got some people on this forum who are just gonna pretend as if Wlad wasn't any good at all no matter who you compare him to.

With Wlad vs Mike Tyson it was at least a discussion.

You guys saying Floyd Patterson is better. I mean, you got nothing. You got no argument.

Water is Wet. Fire is Hot. Wladimir Klitschko was a Better Heavyweight than Floyd Patterson.

These are Facts.

I wonder if Ambling Alp would rate Carmen Basilio over Bernard Hopkins, because that's about the same comparison here to me.

No argument? Citing the number of title defenses and win/loss records is no argument.

Patterson beat better fighters than Klitschko beat.
Patterson never lost to stiffs like Klitschko did.
That's not just an argument, that's a very solid argument. One that you keep dancing around and won't take on.

Wlad-Tyson was not a worth a discussion.

Patterson didn't BEAT better fighters than Klitschko. That's bullsh*t.

Patterson did lose to better fighters, and he also lost more often in less fights.

Wladimir reigning 3 times as long as Floyd Patterson, and making 3 times as many successful title defenses is worth mentioning. If you think it's not. What do you think we should compare? Their golf scores?

Their best wins are comparable as I've already pointed out. Wlad was able to improve upon his flaws, and rise above them for a near decade long run.

Floyd losing to bigger names is your one and only argument for Floyd Patterson. On everything else Wlad is either equal to him or superior.

We can arguable about who beat better fighters. I just don't think it's worth the while. I think the division has sucked for almost 20 years and you don't.
Here is why the sheer number of title defenses don't mean anything:

1. You are counting each title defense than anyone has as equal. That is just silly. A title defense over say Don Cockell is not the same as say one over Ken Norton.

2. Youi also have to use it with everyone. Tommy Burns had at least 11 official ones. Are we really going to rank Tommy Burns near the top of hws? Better than Foreman, Frazier, Marciano etc.

Burns had a record of 13-1-1 in title fights ( A couple are disputed as to whether they were really title fights.)
George foreman lost four title fights.
He had to win the title from Joe Frazier. Burns won it from Marvin Hart. He had a title defense against Ken Norton. He lost it to Ali.
Going by stats, we are supposed to rank Burns higher, when we know we shouldn't.

You can't use stats in boxing like the NBA, MLB, NFL etc.
This is a sport where a good fighter can always find an easy opponent to beat. And he should not get credit for doing that.

[HomicideHenry]

Louis did have 24 fights. He had been a pro for 2 years. He had just turned 20.
Not a novice, but not quite a seasoned pro.

Klitschko had 41 fights when he fought Sanders. He was 26 years old. Had been a pro for more than 6 years.
Klitschko had 44 fights when he crushed by Brewster. He was 28 years old. Had been a pro for more than 7 years.
Thee is no way that you can spin this that Klitschko was some green kid. He wasn't at all.

I don't think Louis was quite in his prime yet. Certainly count it against him to an extent when rating him.

Louis didn't lose as badly.

Most importantly, Schmeling was a great fighter himself. Losing to him is not as bad as losing to people like Sanders and Brewster. Therefore those losses should count against him more than Louis' loss to Schmeling.

It isn't spin when I'm talking specifically about Ross Puritty. The Sanders loss is unforgivable. The Brewster loss somewhat suspect considering Klitschko's blood tests showed his sugar levels were twice the normal rate. He avenged the Brewster loss.

Regardless, from that time on the chinks were worked out and he became the unified champion for basically eight years. As for Schmeling, yes at one point he was a good or near great fighter, but in 1936 he was written off by most of the sporting press as an old man who was likely to get stopped by Joe Louis.

It took Louis another three years and plenty of fights to get the best of Schmeling. He was like 35-1 as a professional before meeting Schmeling the second time, and was 24-0 in their first meeting. Nevermind the fact that the referee basically allowed Louis to foul Schmeling repeatedly.

On paper it looks like a forgivable loss because Schmeling's name is bigger than Sanders or Brewster, but context is everything. Schmeling was considered passed his best when he met Louis the first time. Sanders was one of the more underrated heavyweights of his time, and Brewster's career was essentially cut short due to a damaged retina so we never got to see his full potential but the fact that he blew out Andrew Golota in one round shows that he certainly was a promising heavyweight.

[HomicideHenry]

2. You also have to use it with everyone. Tommy Burns had at least 11 official ones. Are we really going to rank Tommy Burns near the top of hws? Better than Foreman, Frazier, Marciano etc.

Burns had a record of 13-1-1 in title fights ( A couple are disputed as to whether they were really title fights.) George foreman lost four title fights.
He had to win the title from Joe Frazier. Burns won it from Marvin Hart. He had a title defense against Ken Norton. He lost it to Ali. Going by stats, we are supposed to rank Burns higher, when we know we shouldn't.

It wouldn't be until Joe Louis that Tommy Burns record of title defenses was finally eclipsed. So from a historical perspective Burns was certainly the most hyperactive heavyweight champion in boxing history until that point. That accounts for something.

Factor in the fact that Tommy Burns was only 5'7" and was originally a middleweight who jumped straight to the heavyweight division capturing the vacant title over Marvin Hart, the hyperactive title defenses makes it all the more impressive.

The real question is just how good were the men he defended the title against? It's kind of hard to gauge because so many people don't have much of a grasp on the worthiness of fighters back then, because the general consensus is that if you were a white heavyweight you simply weren't as good as the black heavyweights when I don't think that is entirely true there were damn good white heavyweights around at the time.

Prior to Tommy Burns most of the heavyweight champions were basically defending the titles against the English champion or against regional champions across the United States, drawing the color line. What Burns did was unique as he stated straight out of the gate that he wanted to be legitimately the champion of the world taking on the champions of various countries.

He defeated the Irish champion, the English champion, the top British contender, the Australian champion, the top Australian contender, and he also defeated reigning Light Heavyweight champion. How good Jewey Smith the champion of South Africa really was we don't know since his record is largely incomplete. I think the only subpar opposition he basically took on was the time he took on to American heavyweights on the same night, but as you pointed out they may very well have been exhibitions but always went down on his record as title defenses.

With the exception of Philadelphia Jack O'Brien and Marvin Hart I don't think there is anyone on his record that he defeated that you could call a Hall of Famer, so of course George Foreman and others have the superior title reigns. But to dismiss him entirely on the pound for pound level or to dismiss him as some sort of average or mediocre champion is ridiculous.

The fact is that Tommy Burns has been largely been maligned throughout history because he happened to lose to a black man and from that point on the critics came out in full force saying that he fought nothing but bums and that he was so tiny that it was only proof that he couldn't whip anybody who was worth anything, etc.

Maybe there ought to be a thread in the future where we rate people's title defense opposition on a scale from 0 to 10 to see what the average actually comes out to. Considering the amount of bums that Muhammad Ali fought especially in the 1970s that will be very interesting what his average turns out to be.

[Ambling Alp II]

Louis did have 24 fights. He had been a pro for 2 years. He had just turned 20.
Not a novice, but not quite a seasoned pro.

Klitschko had 41 fights when he fought Sanders. He was 26 years old. Had been a pro for more than 6 years.
Klitschko had 44 fights when he crushed by Brewster. He was 28 years old. Had been a pro for more than 7 years.
Thee is no way that you can spin this that Klitschko was some green kid. He wasn't at all.

I don't think Louis was quite in his prime yet. Certainly count it against him to an extent when rating him.

Louis didn't lose as badly.

Most importantly, Schmeling was a great fighter himself. Losing to him is not as bad as losing to people like Sanders and Brewster. Therefore those losses should count against him more than Louis' loss to Schmeling.

It isn't spin when I'm talking specifically about Ross Puritty. The Sanders loss is unforgivable. The Brewster loss somewhat suspect considering Klitschko's blood tests showed his sugar levels were twice the normal rate. He avenged the Brewster loss.

Regardless, from that time on the chinks were worked out and he became the unified champion for basically eight years. As for Schmeling, yes at one point he was a good or near great fighter, but in 1936 he was written off by most of the sporting press as an old man who was likely to get stopped by Joe Louis.

It took Louis another three years and plenty of fights to get the best of Schmeling. He was like 35-1 as a professional before meeting Schmeling the second time, and was 24-0 in their first meeting. Nevermind the fact that the referee basically allowed Louis to foul Schmeling repeatedly.

On paper it looks like a forgivable loss because Schmeling's name is bigger than Sanders or Brewster, but context is everything. Schmeling was considered passed his best when he met Louis the first time. Sanders was one of the more underrated heavyweights of his time, and Brewster's career was essentially cut short due to a damaged retina so we never got to see his full potential but the fact that he blew out Andrew Golota in one round shows that he certainly was a promising heavyweight.

If Purrity was a really good fighter, it wouldn't be that big of a loss for Klitschko. He wasn't. Purritty was journeyman. Klitschko had 24 fights and was 22 years old by then. He should be able to beat stiffs like Purritty by then. That's a bad loss.

Yes the Sanders loss is unforgivable. Sanders wasn't underrated at all. Never did anything outside of the Klitschko fight.

Don't care about the crybaby excuses for the Brewster. We can come up with lame excuses for every fight. He got embarrassed. Golota didn't show up for the Brewster fight. Brewster had several other fights where he either lost or struggled. Terrible loss for Klitschko.

Schmeling was the number #2 contender for Braddock's title when he fought Louis. He was coming off of three good performances.

[HomicideHenry]

Purrity was what you would call a spoiler in the division much like Bert Cooper. He wasn't just your typical journeyman. If anything he fits more into the trial horse category since there are seven levels to boxing: First Tiersman, Second Tiersman, Journeyman, Trial Horse, Gate Keeper, Contender, and Champion.

One can argue Purrity was robbed against Tommy Morrison. He did beat Joe Hipp. So he certainly was a live wire and somebody who could be dangerous. And Vladimir Klitschko was winning every round of the fight against Ross Puritty. That is something you're not taking into account because he completely dominated him but then got completely gassed out and Ross Puritty being the tough bastard that he was jumped all over Vladimir Klitschko forcing the stoppage.

It was a matter of conditioning that cost Vladimir Klitschko the fight more than anything else. Which is something you don't really want to take into account. I'm reminded of Earnie Shavers losing to Randall Cobb basically for the same reasons that Earnie punched himself out against a human anvil.

[Controversial]

As the saying goes, every dog has their day. Anyone can lose, especially at HW and someone could fight someone a 100 times and lose to them once. It happens. What is more important is how you come back from it.