BoxRec

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑06 Jan 2023, 18:01 hmmm, who ranks higher, wlad or sweet sugar cleveland williams, that's a tough one too

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑06 Jan 2023, 18:01 hmmm, who ranks higher, wlad or sweet sugar cleveland williams, that's a tough one too

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑06 Jan 2023, 16:40 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 wrote: ↑06 Jan 2023, 16:50

gilgamesh wrote: ↑06 Jan 2023, 14:28

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑06 Jan 2023, 14:22

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.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 02:33

I'm not counting all title fights as equal, but I do think they're more important to note than say a Non Title fight.

Any title fight is significant to some degree.

Controversial wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 04:33

gilgamesh wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 02:33

I'm not counting all title fights as equal, but I do think they're more important to note than say a Non Title fight.

Any title fight is significant to some degree.

Title challengers often fight or try harder than they have ever done. It’s their chance at winning the lottery so invariably train harder and fight harder. Not always of course but more often than not. Buster Douglas a fine example of this, he didn’t look that good in any other fight. So I agree numbers don’t tell the story but it should mean something even if they aren’t against ATG fighters because the champ needs to be on his game when defending against someone trying their hardest to win.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 04:39

Controversial wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 04:33

gilgamesh wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 02:33

I'm not counting all title fights as equal, but I do think they're more important to note than say a Non Title fight.

Any title fight is significant to some degree.

Title challengers often fight or try harder than they have ever done. It’s their chance at winning the lottery so invariably train harder and fight harder. Not always of course but more often than not. Buster Douglas a fine example of this, he didn’t look that good in any other fight. So I agree numbers don’t tell the story but it should mean something even if they aren’t against ATG fighters because the champ needs to be on his game when defending against someone trying their hardest to win.

Exactly.

I remember a commentator during a title fight against a lesser challenger one time made the accurate statement of "You have to assume that every Challenger you face is going to be as good or better than they've ever been because of what's at stake"

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 10:21 Wlad voters, please answer......

How many wins over HOFers does Wlad Have?
How many of Wlad's losses in his prime were against HOFers?

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 10:54

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 10:21 Wlad voters, please answer......

How many wins over HOFers does Wlad Have?
How many of Wlad's losses in his prime were against HOFers?

I don't know how seriously one can use the Hall of Famers argument considering the Hall of Fame for quite a few years has become more diluted with the lowering of their standards. At some point one may as well say that the likes of Chris Byrd, Ray Mercer, Frans Botha, Samuel Peter, Hasim Rahman, David Haye, Jean Marc Mormeck, Sultan Ibragimov, etc will eventually get into the Hall of Fame.

Besides everybody has already conceded that Vladimir Klitschko fought in a time that was practically void of those caliber of opponents. Not the man's fault he played the cards that was available to him and did damn well with it.

Are we to toss Larry Holmes into the trash can of obscurity considering the bulk of his title defenses were against no hopers? Outside of Norton and Shavers, basically everybody else he went up against was limited opposition or men who were more hype than anything else. Yet I don't know of a single person who does not rank Larry Holmes in the top ten all-time greats and many people myself included have him in the top five.

Are we to do the same with Joe Louis considering the vast majority of his Hall of Fame opponents came before he was champion and virtually everybody he fought as champion were considered bums of the month? Who did he beat who was Hall of Fame worthy as champion? Schmeling, Lewis, Conn and Walcott. But certainly context is everything. Louis was the favorite in all of those matches. And for good reason they were either old or they were considered too small or they were designated as a journeyman.

But ultimately I guess that don't matter to anyone because optics is everything because they simply have a recognizable name because they were once great or they became great later on they are automatically labeled a great win on someone's resume without ever taking into account what their actual worth was at the time.

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 13:58

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 10:54

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 10:21 Wlad voters, please answer......

How many wins over HOFers does Wlad Have?
How many of Wlad's losses in his prime were against HOFers?

I don't know how seriously one can use the Hall of Famers argument considering the Hall of Fame for quite a few years has become more diluted with the lowering of their standards. At some point one may as well say that the likes of Chris Byrd, Ray Mercer, Frans Botha, Samuel Peter, Hasim Rahman, David Haye, Jean Marc Mormeck, Sultan Ibragimov, etc will eventually get into the Hall of Fame.

Besides everybody has already conceded that Vladimir Klitschko fought in a time that was practically void of those caliber of opponents. Not the man's fault he played the cards that was available to him and did damn well with it.

Are we to toss Larry Holmes into the trash can of obscurity considering the bulk of his title defenses were against no hopers? Outside of Norton and Shavers, basically everybody else he went up against was limited opposition or men who were more hype than anything else. Yet I don't know of a single person who does not rank Larry Holmes in the top ten all-time greats and many people myself included have him in the top five.

Are we to do the same with Joe Louis considering the vast majority of his Hall of Fame opponents came before he was champion and virtually everybody he fought as champion were considered bums of the month? Who did he beat who was Hall of Fame worthy as champion? Schmeling, Lewis, Conn and Walcott. But certainly context is everything. Louis was the favorite in all of those matches. And for good reason they were either old or they were considered too small or they were designated as a journeyman.

But ultimately I guess that don't matter to anyone because optics is everything because they simply have a recognizable name because they were once great or they became great later on they are automatically labeled a great win on someone's resume without ever taking into account what their actual worth was at the time.

I'll take any bet you like that Chris Byrd, Ray Mercer, Frans Botha, Samuel Peter, Hasim Rahman, David Haye, Jean Marc Mormeck and Sultan Ibragimov don't make the IBHOF.

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 10:21 Wlad voters, please answer......

How many wins over HOFers does Wlad Have?
How many of Wlad's losses in his prime were against HOFers?

gilgamesh wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 15:58 Are we gonna have to do a Who ranks higher between Byrd and Ingo?

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 16:33

gilgamesh wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 15:58 Are we gonna have to do a Who ranks higher between Byrd and Ingo?

Did Byrd ever beat an unbeaten undisputed heavyweight champion of the world?

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 14:16

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 13:58

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 10:54

I don't know how seriously one can use the Hall of Famers argument considering the Hall of Fame for quite a few years has become more diluted with the lowering of their standards. At some point one may as well say that the likes of Chris Byrd, Ray Mercer, Frans Botha, Samuel Peter, Hasim Rahman, David Haye, Jean Marc Mormeck, Sultan Ibragimov, etc will eventually get into the Hall of Fame.

Besides everybody has already conceded that Vladimir Klitschko fought in a time that was practically void of those caliber of opponents. Not the man's fault he played the cards that was available to him and did damn well with it.

Are we to toss Larry Holmes into the trash can of obscurity considering the bulk of his title defenses were against no hopers? Outside of Norton and Shavers, basically everybody else he went up against was limited opposition or men who were more hype than anything else. Yet I don't know of a single person who does not rank Larry Holmes in the top ten all-time greats and many people myself included have him in the top five.

Are we to do the same with Joe Louis considering the vast majority of his Hall of Fame opponents came before he was champion and virtually everybody he fought as champion were considered bums of the month? Who did he beat who was Hall of Fame worthy as champion? Schmeling, Lewis, Conn and Walcott. But certainly context is everything. Louis was the favorite in all of those matches. And for good reason they were either old or they were considered too small or they were designated as a journeyman.

But ultimately I guess that don't matter to anyone because optics is everything because they simply have a recognizable name because they were once great or they became great later on they are automatically labeled a great win on someone's resume without ever taking into account what their actual worth was at the time.

I'll take any bet you like that Chris Byrd, Ray Mercer, Frans Botha, Samuel Peter, Hasim Rahman, David Haye, Jean Marc Mormeck and Sultan Ibragimov don't make the IBHOF.

And I don't know how you can possibly compare those guys to Archie Moore and Ingrmar Johansson.

The really silly bit is comparing losing to Ross Purrity to losing to Ali or Liston.

Henry, you're a smart guy and a good poster, but you are ignoring the basics of...... who were the bests fighters they beat and who were the worst fighters they lost to.

oogiebe wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 21:28 Never a big Klit fan, but I easily rank him over Floyd.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 02:33

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑06 Jan 2023, 16:50

gilgamesh wrote: ↑06 Jan 2023, 14:28

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.

I'm not counting all title fights as equal, but I do think they're more important to note than say a Non Title fight.

Any title fight is significant to some degree.

But obviously there's always the marquee wins that people bring up first as the best scalps on a guy's record. That's the biggest factor in ranking guys.

A dominant lengthy reign has to count for something though.

After all if it was so easy to dominate a "weak era" why hasn't it been done several other times in Boxing? Why is Wlad the 3rd longest reign in Heavyweight Championship history?

Marciano's era was weak. Mike Tyson's era was weak. Jack Dempsey's era was fairly weak, and he even ducked all the Black fighters of his time.

All 3 of those guys combined. All of which often come up on all time Top 10 Heavyweight lists by the way, don't have the Title defenses that Wladimir Klitschko did.

If that doesn't mean anything to you. Well...the facts speak for themselves.

You don't need to understand that Fire is Hot for it to burn you. You don't need to understand why Wlad is better than Floyd Patterson either.

But I've explained it to you, and there's also this crazy little thing called vision and reality that goes a long way in proving it as well.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑08 Jan 2023, 12:46 The hof argument seems silly because realistically a lot of hof guys would lose H2H to more modern guys regardless of hof status.

Povetkin should be favored over Johansson and Braddock h2h pretty easily. There are cruiserweights and light heavyweights from Wladimirs era who likely beat them as well

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑08 Jan 2023, 13:43

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑08 Jan 2023, 12:46 The hof argument seems silly because realistically a lot of hof guys would lose H2H to more modern guys regardless of hof status.

Povetkin should be favored over Johansson and Braddock h2h pretty easily. There are cruiserweights and light heavyweights from Wladimirs era who likely beat them as well

How about this: How many fighters did Klitschko beat that should be in the HOF?

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑08 Jan 2023, 13:42
Marciano' era wasn't weak either.