breaking down this heavyweight era and others: Why today stinks!!

[JAB5239]

Obviously.. but they're one entity since they can't fight each other. It diminishes what one would do if the other weren't around, and either of them would have more "top 10" wins. It wouldn't make the division any better.

No they're not one entity. And its not that they can't fight each other, they choose not to. And by this they have inadvertently weakened the era. Its not a slight, its just the way it is.

[Foreign Soil]

They can't fight each other. Brothers that close aren't fighting for any kind of money.

[Jloro]

Hmmm,

Hahaha A+ response

[JAB5239]

They can't fight each other. Brothers that close aren't fighting for any kind of money.

Of course. That doesn't mean they get lumped together. Its sucks, but they're an inadvertent detriment to their own era.

[JAB5239]

Evander Holyfield

Dokes 3
Douglas champion
Foreman 6
Bowe 1 loss
Bowe champion
Moorer 4 loss
Bowe 1
Tyson 3
Moorer 3
Lewis 1
Lewis 1
Ruiz 7 loss
Ruiz 7
Rahman 6
Byrd 2 loss
Toney 5 loss
Ibtagimov 6 loss
Valuev 5 loss

18 top 10 fighters fought, average rank 3.7

[BattlingNelson]

Bookmarked.

Nice work by the look of things. Hopefully I can get the time to give a proper response later.

[BattlingNelson]

No they're not one entity. And its not that they can't fight each other, they choose not to. And by this they have inadvertently weakened the era. Its not a slight, its just the way it is.

If Vitali hadn't been a fighter, almost all of Wlads opponents would have gone up a notch. That's a point that detracts from this method, since your method would then have this era being better without one of the brothers which is of course ridiculous.

So it's not a statistic that can stand alone when measuring the 'greatness' of an era.

[Weltschmerz]

Your numbers don't prove that previous eras are superior. They are just rankings, what do they prove? Nothing, other than this champ fought so many ranked opponents, bla bla, doesn't mean the contenders were actually better than today's contenders in any way.

In the end, the real question boils down to whether past top guys are better than the Klitschko's, something you can't possibly prove in a 'scientific' way as you try to pretend doing. It's silly really. We get the point for the umpteenth time, you don't like that the Klitschko's are champions and you keep discrediting them for their 'poor' oppositions. But the rankings you list don't mean shit.

The Klitschko's would have been competetive in any era. So shove your rankings where the sun don't shine.

[Weltschmerz]

'I don't buy the idea that today's fighters are not as good as the old fighters. If you had asked Joe Frazier if he could beat me when I was at my best, he would have said, 'Hell yeah'.
That's the way boxing goes. I think I could beat the next generation of fighters but the reality of history is that the fighters get better and better, bigger and bigger and stronger and stronger. I think the heavyweight scene is pretty good right now. The Klitschkos are doing great.'

Mike Tyson, in 2012

(Source: http://www.boxing.com/play_it_again_mike.html)

[Mr.Fantastic]

Vitaly Klitschko

Byrd 10 loss
Lewis Champion loss
Sanders 9
Peter 8
Arreola 6
Adamek 3

6 top 10 fighters faced, average rank 6

Wladimir Klitschko

Byrd 10
McCline 10
Sanders 3 loss
Brewster 10 loss
Peter 9
Ibragimov 9
Chagaev 4
Chambers 7
Haye 2
Povetkin 2

Off the top of my head with Wlad, you forgot Thompson. Think he was ranked 4 or 7. He also beat Brewster and Mercer(don't remember if by belt org or Ring 10).

With Vitali, Juan Carlos Gomez was ranked in the top 10 as well as Solis.