Is Wlad an All Time Great Heavyweight?

[GJC]

Vitali's left face/lip was completely beaten up.

That was the punishment Vitali got for his constantly low left. A reachy ATG like Lennox perfectly exposed it.

Wlad knows no such problems. Wlad's defense is far superior to Vitali's.

So you think that had Lewis fought Wlad instead of Vitali he would have lost?

[GJC]

I checked several ten thousand fights. Reach is not a statistically significant factor because it's NEARLY ALWAYS included in the body height already. Thus being taller gives you an advantage of approx 2:1, being reachier gives you also an advantage but being reachier+taller gives you statistically nearly no advantage (to being taller alone) because it's nearly always included already by being taller.

The main reason why I nearly never mention reach is because in many cases it's unknown. Moreover the bumness is far more important. If you have a reachy bum then the bum will pretty surely lose.

The problem is with your statistics is that you do not stick just to facts, you will then decide arbitrarily that so and so is a bum or doesn't weigh enough so we will remove him from the sum. So it isn't facts it is opinion, your opinion is that Frazier was featherfisted I would assume that everyone else's opinion is that he wasn't.

Reach is important and most fighters reach is known. Wlad is a big fellow weighs a lot and has a reach of 81. Ali doesn't weigh as much is quicker and has a reach of 80. So big old Wlad is moving that extra 25lb's around against a quicker guy and has a whopping 1 inch reach advantage. Good luck there.
Moving on to Liston, he has an 84 inch reach so iron jawed Wlad will have to take Liston's jab to land. I know where my money is on that fight.

[GJC]

I'm pretty sure most knowledgeable historians would say that Lennox Lewis' prime was after the McCall loss when he acquired Emanuel Steward in his corner. Lennox never weighed less than 241 after that night.

My point was that if you wish to take a fighter's most impressive performance and say that was him on the best night he ever had i.e. prime or the period he was in his prime.
Lewis had many good fights but he looked a beast against Ruddock and weighed 220 odd that night.
So whilst I would agree he was best around 240 odd to say he was better at 220 odd isn't totally a ludicrous statement, no?

Are you serious? Everyone knows that the worst thing in the world to be in the U.S is a white male

I'm the racist

[BennyST]

Foreman has been genuinely floored by 2 featherfists (Ali and Jimmy Young). How often has that happened to ATGs?

Let me tell you the reason why Wlad has 3 KOs and other greats maybe not: BECAUSE OTHER ATGs didn't fights as many heavy opponents as Wlad.

In how many real heavyweight fights (= both opponents 200+) was Ali involved?

Ali: 28-4 (median win-opponent weight 213lbs)
Evan Fields: 24-10
Joe Louis: 11-0
Frazier: 13-4
Foreman: 59-5 (216lbs)
Tyson: 45-6 (221 lbs)
Lennox: 39-2 (229 lbs)
Wlad: 53-3 (233lbs)

THAT is the real reason why Klitschko has 3 KO losses on his record (aside from the fact that 2 of the losses were stamina issues): Nobody from the above ATGs has fought more heavier opponents than Klitschko. If you compare "KO losses of Ali and KO losses of Klitschko" then you are comparing a 28-4 guy (Ali) with a 53-3 guy (Klitschko).

That is the worst excuse I've heard yet. The Klit's are still way bigger than all of their opponents, whereas Ali was either as big or smaller. That golden age you speak of and this weight thing you rant about is rubbish. It would make sense if the Klit's were as small as their opposition but they aren't. They're much bigger, whereas the Ali era, everyone was of a similar size, with Foreman being the biggest.

[GJC]

since I've been watching I always remembered if a punch causes the cut it's a tko & it was 6 rounds of punches.if it was a headbutt is different.I wonder how vitali would have handled that? Quit before the 4th round ended to get a no contest?

As it was a punch it would be a TKO then

[BennyST]

AND YET the only thing that is always missing is actually A FACTUAL or VISIBLE PROOF how superior Ali was. Name the fight of Ali that impressed you the most (but don't mention any cruiser opponents or any opponents I have in my sig).


OH NOW IT'S NOT ABOUT KOs but just a few sentences ago you write about Klitschko "been KO'd three times like a *****."

Well, the first point? What about the 40-0 world unified champion George Foreman who had beaten the undefeated Joe Frazier in a couple of rounds, along with other great fighters like Ken Norton.

The second point? No, it's not about KO's, but it is about winning and losing by KO three times to mediocre opposition is a pretty bad statement for an ATG heavyweight. Supposedly the greatest heavyweight of all time if going by your suggestions. Sure, knocking your opponents out is cool, but it doesn't matter if they're bad or you are also getting knocked out throughout your career as well.

Tell me this? Do you actually think Wlad or Vit Klit are the greatest ever HW's?

[Jim Jeffries]

My point was that if you wish to take a fighter's most impressive performance and say that was him on the best night he ever had i.e. prime or the period he was in his prime.
Lewis had many good fights but he looked a beast against Ruddock and weighed 220 odd that night.
So whilst I would agree he was best around 240 odd to say he was better at 220 odd isn't totally a ludicrous statement, no?

Yes it is, as I have already explained. Nothing in my quotes of yours were taken out of context, and I have no problem with what you quoted of mine, except that after the "I'm the racist" quote, you should have a question mark.
Lennox Lewis, like Wlad, was more exciting before Steward got a hold of him, but it's rather silly to claim that he was better.
The guy said "Lennox Lewis' best weight was 220, so at 250+ he was grossly out of shape," which is a false statement, any way you slice (or spin, something you're not too shabby at) it.

[GJC]

I checked several ten thousand fights.

Checked or watched? Here lies the rub I think, boxing is a sport best enjoyed by watching it. 100 metre sprinting and golf can be analysed by "checking" them. If A can run at 9.7 and B can run at 9.9 then you can safely say A should win. Likewise if A can drive a ball 300 yards and needs 22 putts to complete a round and B can drive a ball 250 yards and needs 40 putts to complete a round then you can say A should win.
Assuming they weigh the same of course
Maybe you should use that analytical mind on a sport that deserves it more?

[GJC]

Yes it is, as I have already explained. Nothing in my quotes of yours were taken out of context, and I have no problem with what you quoted of mine, except that after the "I'm the racist" quote, you should have a question mark.
Lennox Lewis, like Wlad, was more exciting before Steward got a hold of him, but it's rather silly to claim that he was better.
The guy said "Lennox Lewis' best weight was 220, so at 250+ he was grossly out of shape," which is a false statement, any way you slice (or spin, something you're not too shabby at) it.

I would agree with him that Lewis at 250+ was not as good. He looked dreadful against Vitali, was cumbersome and lost against Rahman. Or is that spin?
What would you put as Lewis best performance?

[GJC]

Tell me this? Do you actually think Wlad or Vit Klit are the greatest ever HW's?

He'll avoid this question as he is unbiased and neutral. He will however totally discredit every other heavyweight's record until only they by some amazing coincidence are left.