rank higher wlad or lennox lewis?

[Chaos]

I didn't shorten **** you bellend. That's from the replay from between rounds.

You can even see where it cuts off at the end.

I know Wlad getting slapped about by a golfer really hurts you.

You're a proven liar, so nothing you write matters. You had the option to use footage from the round itself, moron.

[sunny31]

Their styles are exact the same if you ask me. Measuring bridging lead hand and killer diver right. Lead hooks here and there. No body punches. Same body type. Rooted feet.
I called it Lewis bcz he has more fights to still give chills.

I feel Wlad had better feet and a better jab. He was better at controlling distance, because he had to, no inside game and vulnerable in the pocket, thus the clinching.

Lennox was also known for using his length but he could certainly mix it up as well, he had the better skills, he could put his shoulder in your face and dig in an uppercut on the inside. He could throw effective counters, and combinations. If he got you hurt, you were done for, I don't think he gets the credit for what a devastating finisher he was.

All in all I agree they were similar in style and approach, but lots of subtle differences within that. Even just listing those things above there is no doubt Wlad was effective in his style but Lewis was the better more versatile fighter.

To be honest I think Manny used the same blueprint for Wlad as he had previously done for Lennox, which made sense.

[sunny31]

You're a proven liar, so nothing you write matters. You had the option to use footage from the round itself, moron.

LOL.

You Klitschko fans are hysterical.

[joseph5620]

HIs 11 year titel run was his prime...................................should be obvious.

That's a convenient way to look at it but he was not in his prime during his entire 11 year title run. That's what should be obvious.

[Chaos]

LOL.

You Klitschko fans are hysterical.

And you haters are a sad pathetic bunch of butthurt goofs.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Let's expose the myth that Lennox Lewis's era was better than Wladimir Klitschko's era using facts:


Lennox Lewis's era:

1) Total fights:1800+ fights

2) Total boxers: 1000+

3) Average weight: 220 pounds

4) Percentage of boxers that ever boxed as cruiser weights: 51% (500+)

5) Total knockouts: 1200+

6) Era KO ratio: 65%

7) Total KO'ers: 186

8) Total KO'ers with at least 3 KO's: 51



Wladimir Klitschko's era:

1) Total fights: 2000+

2) Total boxers: 1200+

3) Average weight: 224 pounds

4) Percentage of boxers that ever boxed as cruiser weights: 49% (500+)

5) Total knockouts: 1200+

6) Era KO ratio: 62%

7) Total KO'ers: 224

8) Total KO'ers with at least 3 knockouts: 66


According to the numbers, it is close (compared to the quality difference between Wladimir Klitschko's era and pre Mike Tyson's eras) but Wladimir Klitschko's era is slightly better statistically than Lennox Lewis's. There's nothing to suggest Lennox Lewis's era was any better than Wladimir Klitschko's era.

Lennox Lewis's era = All of Lennox Lewis's fights plus all of his opponent's fights.

Wladimir Klitschko's era = All of Wladimir Klitschko's fights plus all of his opponent's fights.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Let's expose the myth that Lennox Lewis's best opponents were better than Wladimir Klitschko's best opponents using facts:

These are some of Lennox Lewis's best opponents compared to a comparable opponent of Wladimir Klitschko or an even better opponent:

1) Old, washed up Mike Tyson of 2002 < Prime Alexander Povetkin in 2013 & 2009's version of Ruslan Chagaev.

2) Old Evander Holyfield < Prime Chris Byrd & prime Sultan Ibragimov (especially since they both beat Holyfield just as convincingly, if not more than Lennox Lewis did). An argument can be made that prime Eddie Chambers is comparable to Evander Holyfield too.

3) Prime David Tua = Lamon Brewster and perhaps even Alex Leapai.

4) Frank Bruno = David Haye of 2011.

5) Andrew Golota = Kubrat Pulev.

6) Tommy Morrison = comparable to Lamon Brewster < Alexander Povetkin

7) Tony Tucker = Tony Thompson

8) Donnovan Razor Ruddock = Alex Leapai.

9) Michael Grant = Ray Austin

10) Shannon Briggs = Samuel Peter


The only incomparable boxer Lennox Lewis beat that Wlad didn't was Vitali Klitschko. However, Lennox Lewis likewise avoided / ducked every 'best possible' southpaw opponent during his career whilst Wlad has beaten most southpaws.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Some typical reproaches against the statistics I posted are:

"You can't measure skill with numbers."

Yes, you can! Boxing 'skill' isn't some metaphysical or fictional concept. It is measurable! Boxing skill is merely accomplishing the objectives of boxing. So this means:

1) Winning matches = measurable through numbers via analyzing the win / loss record of a boxer. The more the wins and the less the losses relative to the number of boxing matches a boxer had, the more 'skilled' the boxer is overall.

2) Landing most effective punches on the opponent (offensive skills) = measurable through numbers via KO record of a boxer. The higher the KO stats of a boxer (especially against the best possible opponents), the more 'offensively skilled' the boxer is overall.

3) Not getting punched by the opponent = measurable through numbers via assessing how often a boxer is getting punched (especially against the best possible opponents). The lower the number, the more 'defensively skilled' the boxer is overall. Furthermore, the more wins via decision a boxer has in total relative to the number of fights the boxer has (especially against the best possible opponents), the more 'defensively skilled' the boxer is.

4) The better the above 3 stats are against the best possible opponents, the better / more 'skilled' the boxer is. The best / most 'skilled' boxer overall is the one who has the best above 3 statistics against the best possible opposition.

Quality of opposition can be measured through numbers via the total win:loss record of a boxer's (Wladimir Klitschko's or Lennox Lewis's) opponents. In turn, the quality of opposition of a boxer's (Wladimir Klitschko's or Lennox Lewis's) opponent's (e.g. Mike Tyson or Alexander Povetkin) opponent's (Michael Spins or Mike Perez) can also be measured through the win:loss record of all of their opposition.

The boxer with the best quality of opposition is the one who's opponents combined have the highest number of wins and lowest number of losses or the best win:loss ratio combined.

If you want a sport where numbers are the be all and end all boxing isn't for you.

Numbers / stats can be applied to anything to objectively demonstrate / prove something to be true or to objectively come to the most logical / reasonable / rational conclusion. Boxing is no exception!

"Stats don't tell the whole story!"

Well, fortunately for me "Stats! Stats! Stats!" are "Facts! Facts! Facts!" thus anyone complaining about statistics is complaining about reality ("Arithmetic is not an opinion").
It's true, that a statistic like "1 KO in 1 fight = 100% KO'ratio" is ridiculous but a record of 30, 40, 50 and more fights _IS_ representative. You _CAN_ deduct things from it. You _CAN_ interpret it correctly.


"Everybody can lie with stats"

Another variation of "Stats don't tell the whole story" is "Statistics can lie" or "Liars can use shoddy statistics to prove anything they want" or "You use distorted stats to prove your biased point".

Well, if it's so easy to bend facts and lie with statistics then please be my guest.
I am waiting for stat-based rebuttals to my conclusions.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Debunking typical reproaches why Wladimir Klitschko can't be the greatest / best:

1) He didn't avenge as many losses as Lennox Lewis and other past heavyweight champions.

My response: There isn't a single boxer with as many REAL heavyweight bouts (over 60 bouts where boxers weigh 200 pounds or above) who has avenged as many losses as Wladimir Klitschko. More bouts = more likelihood of losses and less likelihood of avenging all of those losses.

Wladimir Klitschko has the best REAL heavyweight win:loss ratio compared to any past heavyweight boxer with 50+ REAL heavyweight bouts.


2) Wladimir Klitschko lost more bouts than Lennox Lewis

My response: Wladimir Klitschko also had more bouts and won more bouts too. 64 wins out of 69 professional heavyweight bouts for Wladimir Klitschko > 41 wins out of 44 professional heavyweight bouts for Lennox Lewis.


3) "Wladimir Klitschko will never be considered great because he is so limited"

My response: All such statements are equivalent to"Damn, why can't he fight like my favorite fantasy fighter?" and "MY boxer bobs and weaves better than YOUR boxer!" and "Japanese Pantomime should be compulsory subject in drama schools" and "I wish actresses would look like External link, opens in new window...Mary Pickford"

It's all wishful thinking and useless drivel BUT ABOVE ALL IT'S IDIOTIC TO CRITICIZE SOMEONE FOR A FIGHTING STYLE that keeps him WINNING. And let me clarify (since "keeps him winning" doesn't nail it enough): Keeps him winning every round since years and makes him KO his opponents like nobody before him (= flawless victory after flawless victory). The Klitschkos are the best knockout artists compared to any past heavyweight champion. and thus the wrong conclusion is "Wladimir Klitschko should throw more uppercuts". The correct conclusion should be "Why fix something that isn't broken" and "Past-time boxers should have fought like the Klitschkos and not vice versa".


4) "Wladimir Klitschko sucks because he only wins due to his huge body size"

Complaining about body advantages in a combat sport is really funny.
"Evan Fields only wins because of his hard chin based on his massive neck" and "Mike Tyson only wins because of his muscles" is equally ridiculous (especially considering that Mike Tyson is smaller than Oscar de la Hoya).
What's next? Complaining that "Vitali Klitschko only wins because he TRAINS MORE than his opponent"?

Furthermore, there have been many past boxers who have had similar dimensions to the Klitschkos (in height, weight and reach) but without anywhere near the record that they have racked up. So maybe the success of the Klitschkos are based on little more than just their size and physical dimensions?


5) "Wladimir Klitschko got knocked down x number of times"

My response: That's because he has had the most REAL heavyweight matches (69 matches against opponents weighing 200 pounds or more) whilst also beating most 'best possible opponents' at REAL heavyweight matches. So what relevance do the knockdowns he suffered have in the context of his career?

[Mr Objecitivity]

Here are some of those accomplishments / feats in REAL heavyweight bouts (when the boxers weigh 200 pounds or above) which proves why Wlad is the better heavyweight:


1) Knocked out more previously unbeaten opponents than any other heavyweight in history.

2) Knocked out more previously UN-KO'ed opponents than any other heavyweight in history.

3) Has beaten and knocked out more southpaws than any other heavyweight champion in history.

4) Has beaten and knocked out opponents with more styles than any other heavyweight in history (especially at the elite level).

5) Has the highest number of title defenses in REAL heavyweight bouts (when opponents weigh 200 pounds or above).

6) Has the highest knockout quantity and percentage in championship bouts than any other heavyweight in history.

7) Has lost fewer rounds than any other heavyweight in history (excluding his brother Vitali Klitschko).

8) Has defeated more mandatory challengers and top ranked opponents by knockout, than any other heavyweight champion in history.

9) Has one of the best win / loss ratio in his career record, out of the number of bouts he has had.