Should opponents below 215 lbs count on a heavyweight's record?

[Joeyzagz]

Yup, Lennox fought the less experienced + pre-prime versions I could claim.
.

So Wlad fought the less experienced + pre prime version of Monte Barett? Haye fought the better one?

Is this some bizzaro world where concussions make you more experienced and age gives faster reflexes?

[hweightblogger]

ali was in shape. you don't have to have a six pack to have a low body fat percentage. hell hopkins doesn't have a six pack.

Did you just compare Bernard Hopkins to 215+ heavyweights?

Moreover he has a sixpack.

holmes & fraizer were also in shape.

Nonsense.

Pasttime boxers looked exactly like nowadays boxers and past time champs looked less good than nowadays champs.

[americanbot]

Did you just compare Bernard Hopkins to 215+ heavyweights?

Moreover he has a sixpack.



Nonsense.

Pasttime boxers looked exactly like nowadays boxers and past time champs looked less good than nowadays champs.

this guy is a wack job. this must be steelhammer or someone trolling becuase it's beyond ******ity......

ignored, because you're a waste of my time.....

[Steak]

Anything but the official final results is revisionism.

give me a break. are you trying to pretend that robberies dont exist?

For CURRENT rankings different rules apply than for career rankings as can be seen by the fact that boxers who are highly ranked by the Ring mag play hardly any role in all-time rankings of the Ring Mag.

Current rankings consider things like "Whom has he beaten in the last year" or "Is it now his prime?".

......isnt that what theyre supposed to do? in this present division, Adamek is a top 5 fighter, flat out. no one outside of the Klitschko will be remembered all time in todays division.

The heavyweight division is not the "fatless division" and neither the "sixpack division". It never was. Ali and Frazier themselves were overweight (try to find a six-pack picture of Ali).

Weight and gender (I guess?) are the only defining factors.

theres no way you can say that Chambers was in just as good shape as Ali or Frazier. Chambers obviously has some extra weight he could easily get rid of, wheras prime Ali and Frazier were already very lean.

and isnt that the point Im trying to make anyway? Chambers is one of the better guys in the division, and naturally hes the same size or smaller than Ali or Frazier, despite being noticably less talented than both of them.

The difference is when you analyze Foreman's opponents' records.

I analyzed 44'000+(!) fights (= Foreman's fights + Lennox' fights + opponents' fights) and it's clearly visible who is better and who worse. There is no arguing about it.

Once you delete bum-fights off the record of Lennox's opponents and Lewis opponents it becomes much clearer. For example you mention Ron Lyle. Lyle's career record against non-bums is 8-3 (all his other fights were against bums). Norton's is 9-6.

When you add up all these records then the following results come out which clearly prove who is better and who worse:

heres the problem with you: pretty looking records do not constitute a good fighter. and yet thats what youre obsessed with.

in reality, Lewis only beat about 12 or 13 top ten ranked fighters, while Foreman beat about 8. Yes, Lewis has more, but thats what I was reinterating before: Foreman's wins are just huge. Frazier was the #1 in the division, and so was Moorer about 20 years later.(surely beating the #1 in the division at 45 has to count for something). Frazier is widely considered one of the best heavyweights ever, and Foreman has two wins over him.

thats why I believe its quite close.

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

This is wrong. There is a LOWER LIMIT in every division thus it's against the rules if somebody weighs less than the lower limit.

If 1 fighter weighs below 200 then it's not a heavyweight fight anymore. Where do you want to draw a line? Below 180 lbs it's not a heavyweight anymore? Below 170? Sorry, I go by the official rules: Both fighters 200+.


And yet heavyweight nowadays is defined as 200+ although smaller men MAY give Klitschko a problem.


Then Louis had more problems with cruiser Conn. So?

It's completely irrelevant what weight class is better or worse, or at which weight opponents cause problems. It could be that Wlad Klitschko would lose every fight against 175+ opponents. So what?

It's forbidden nowadays for Klitschko to call out sub-200 opponents thus fights against sub-200 opponents should not be used when COMPARING records.


Mavrovic is an Easter-European. No wonder Lennox had problems.


This fight is utterly inconclusive as would any fight be during the rain season in the freaking RAIN FOREST.


All these guys are 200+. I don't understand how they are relevant to this thread.


No, the reason is that Wlad (like any orthodox fighter) has problems with SOUTHPAWS (that's why Lennox and Mike Tyson never fought southpaws).

Wlad vs Southpaws: KO every 9.8 rounds
Wlad vs Orthodox.: KO every 4.1 rounds

It's not the weight but the stance.

But let me add something else: You CHERRY-PICK FIGHTS to make a point. You have to analyze the WHOLE record. Singling out fights is BAD. Otherwise you could draw conclusions from Lennox vs Levi Billups (UD10) and Vitali Klitschko vs Billups (KO2).

Moreover Wlad and Vitali are bad examples for anything because they are the toppest KOers of all time thus nearly all their opponents will be KOed.
To analyze how much the performance suffers when opponents get heavier and heavier you have to analyze the WHOLE RECORDS of featherfisted champs like Joe Frazier or Muhammad Ali but I am too lazy to copy and paste it from my homepage

http://www.heavyweightblog.com/1094/joe-frazier-vs-klitschko

There you have sortable statistical tables etc...

Feather fisted champ like Joe Frazier??? Not only that but most of the rest of your post is complete garbage. You are either a troll or one of the biggest morons on this forum.

[Joeyzagz]

give me a break. are you trying to pretend that robberies dont exist?
......isnt that what theyre supposed to do? in this present division, Adamek is a top 5 fighter, flat out. no one outside of the Klitschko will be remembered all time in todays division.
theres no way you can say that Chambers was in just as good shape as Ali or Frazier. Chambers obviously has some extra weight he could easily get rid of, wheras prime Ali and Frazier were already very lean.

thats why I believe its quite close.

Chambers is the best american Heavyweight, just like Frazier and Ali were the best American Heavyweights.

^^^Check out the rolls of fat on this mutherphucker! Im glad Lennox got his business done before the Americans regressed to this.

[studentofthegam]

Heavyweight is always the top division.

So are you saying that 200-250 should be called Junior-Heavyweight? With Heavyweight being a bunch of overweight fat guys?

Heavyweight is just a name like any other weight division. What Im saying is the heavyweight division is the most boring, undisciplined, hug me then I'll hug you weight class we have. Fighters are not in shape like they used to be. I feel like a limit on the heavyweight divisions would make for much better competition. There are exceptions like the Klits but they are few and far between these days and that why they are running away the best in the division.

Fighters being out of shape is not even frowned upon anymore and a lot of those fat heavyweights know it and think "Why pain myself to be in top physical condition for the same check" "I'll just throw 11 punches a round and hug him for 2minutes a round"

I didnt say theres no talent but the division lacks work ethic as a whole is all. Its by far the the worst era in HW boxing and who can argue that? I feel sorry for Wlad because he will never get his chance to have an epic battle for his legacy. Thats unless he fights his brother.

[hweightblogger]

give me a break. are you trying to pretend that robberies dont exist?

If robberies exist then boxers have to go against it directly after the fight.

You cannot revisionisticly redefine results after 10 years.

I myself have never seen clear cut robberies at heavyweight, neither Foreman-Schultz nor Fields-Valuev nor anything else, ESPECIALLY since I made it a habit to REWATCH robberies 2-3 times to make sure I understand the judges.

There are fights I would have scored differently but I have never seen a heavyweight scandal, and I believe that most fights which are called robberies are merely misunderstandings how scoring works: It's NOT the overall fight that is scored.

......isnt that what theyre supposed to do? in this present division, Adamek is a top 5 fighter, flat out. no one outside of the Klitschko will be remembered all time in todays division.

People are remembered for many things, even if it's just for a loud mouth.

That there are no big names is merely a failure of the American Hype Machine.

theres no way you can say that Chambers was in just as good shape as Ali or Frazier.

Ali was a champ. Compare Ali with nowadays champs, e.g. the Klitschkos.

Chambers is an non-champ opponent of a champ. Compare Chambers with an non-champ opponent of Ali.

This is THE ROOT of the nonsense that past time boxers were more in shape: Because people compare signature bouts (Ali vs Foreman) to nowadays everyday's bouts.

Chambers obviously has some extra weight he could easily get rid of, wheras prime Ali and Frazier were already very lean.

Prime Ali (= pre-ban) was a cruiser (median weight 199, started at 188).
Compare Ali to nowadays cruisers and you will see that Ali is NOT AS LEAN as nowadays cruisers and not as fast.

heres the problem with you: pretty looking records do not constitute a good fighter. and yet thats what youre obsessed with.

But here's the catch: I don't analyze the record of a fighter. I analyze his WinOpponents' records. Any fighter can line up 50 bums and beat them (LaMar Clark or Eric Esch). Once you analyze LaMar Clark's opponents his record shrinks to 0.

in reality, Lewis only beat about 12 or 13 top ten ranked fighters

But what was their record? And what was the record of their opponents? You see "A top boxer is someone who beats convincingly other top boxers".

You (since you don't have a database like me) do this by going to boxrec:
Foreman beat Tom Trimm.
Who is Tom Trimm?
A 22-14 bum.
Ignore this win.
Foreman beat Ken Norton.
Who is Norton? A 42-6 guy.
Don't ignore him. Good win for Foreman.
Since Norton is famous you might even check (3rd level) whom Norton beat.

But I go 1 level deeper (3rd level) STANDARDLY.
What do Tom Trimm's 22-15 fights consist of?
He faced 33 bums and 5 non-bums (to whom he always lost).
Thus his value for Foreman's record is "0".


Foreman's 3-level career consists of 37'000+ fights. And believe me, 37'000+ fights ARE REPRESENTATIVE. You can not argue against such a background.

The proof is that by applying this approach you get the Who's Who of boxing with greats like Lennox, Ali, Foreman at the top and nobodies (with padded records) like Eric Esch and LaMar Clark at the bottom.

[hweightblogger]

Feather fisted champ like Joe Frazier??? Not only that but most of the rest of your post is complete garbage. You are either a troll or one of the biggest morons on this forum.

Give me a freaking break, Joe Frazier had 18 real heavyweight fights of which he won 8 by KO. That's a KOratio worse than Chris Byrd.

From the 78 champs that existed today Frazier's heavyweight KOratio is one of the worst. Hardly anybody else has such a low KOratio.

His median KOvictim is 197 lbs.

Frazier is one of the most featherfisted champs of all time, only bottomed by a few others like Ali, Ernie Terrell and Tony LaRosa. TONY LAROSA!

[hweightblogger]

this guy is a wack job. this must be steelhammer or someone trolling becuase it's beyond ******ity......

ignored, because you're a waste of my time.....

Did you actually google images of Larry Holmes or are you just fantasizing?

Google it! Images of Frazier, Holmes, Ali. There is nothing impressive about their physique compared to nowadays champs.

Stop living in a fantasy world where every past time boxer is a Hercules.