Is Wlad an All Time Great Heavyweight?

[GJC]

yes prime Lewis vs prime Wlad -- Wlad KO4

So you think Wlad is better than Vitali? Well its all about opinion I guess I favour Vitali personally.
Well Wlad will have to be several times better than Vitali as the poorest version of Lewis beat Vitali.
An off Lewis not focussed could get caught no doubt of that although Wlad would have to show a lot more daring than he has recently to land even on an off Lewis.
Prime v Prime can't see Wlad having a chance to be honest

[GJC]

yes he does, Lewis was vastly overated and if Frank Bruno could easily out-jab Lewis and have him on the verge of defeat Wlad would destroy him

Bruno had quite a decent jab you know, also fight ended in 7th so hardly the verge of defeat. Lewis was poor that night but never looked like Bruno was going to stop him and he won in the 7th. Likewise against Vitali he was awful but won. Test of a good champion is to fight poorly against a dangerous opponent and win.

[knn]

I don't why why I'm bothering but.....

1) So you think the only way to beat Wlad or Vitali is by outweighing them or being as tall as them?

Nope, I never said anything of that sort and I don't think that. Wlad beat heavier and lighter fighters, smaller and taller, reachier and shorter. The only way to be Wlad is to be better than Wlad. And everyone who complains about "the dire state of the division" is of course fooling himself, because if it would be that dire then you could easily become world champ.

Wlad has been outweighted in many fights (in approx. 50% of his fights). Foreman has been outweighted in only approx. 10% of his fights. Ali has been outweighted in only 25% of his fights. Thus WEIGHT is not a big factor against Wlad, but it may have been against Foreman and Ali.

2) Weight and height are all important but you do not think reach is a factor in the slightest?

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.

Being taller+heavier gives you an advantage of approx. 3:1. Those who are claiming that weight/height isn't an issue are fooling themselves.

I ask that because reach is never mentioned in your stats.

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.

3) Would you say that a fighter who KO's opponents in 3 rounds or less would be a more powerful puncher than one who knocks out opponents in later rounds?

Generally yes, HOWEVER if you compare 2 records and a boxer KOed mainly bums in rounds 1-3 and another KOed better opponents in rounds 4-6, then you cannot make a valid comparison. I hardly ever mention "early KO rounds" because of this difficulty.

So you would need to compare bum-KO-victims to bum-KO-victims.

Let's take an example: Wlad's bummy KO-victims vs Foreman's (70ies) bummy KO-victims (only 200+ opponents). Bums = those who lose 25% or more of their fights.

Let's compare their bum-opponents they could KO within rounds 1-3.

Wlad's bummy KO-victims (1st-3rd round): 14-9 (record at bout), 18-13 (career)
Foreman: 8-9 (at bout), 10-14 (career)

In other words: If you just compare the bums that Foreman and Wlad KOed within 3 rounds then Wlad KOed TWICE AS GOOD OPPONENTS as did Foreman.

In other words: Wlad KOed opponents in rounds 1-3 who would have survived longer against Foreman. Bums whom Foreman didn't manage to KO within 1-3 have the record of 18-7 (at bout) = better than his three-round-victims = approx like those whom Wlad managed to KO with 1-3.

In other words: Wlad has not only the higher KOratio than Foreman but also the higher KOratio AGAINST BETTER OPPONENTs.

In other words: Wlad KOed these opponents in approx. half the time that Foreman needed.

Thus you could conclude that Wlad is the stronger puncher OR Wlad is the more effective puncher OR that he has more heart than Foreman (= isn't afraid of his opponents = attacks more).

This is also supported by the fact that Foreman has scored only 4 KOs in world title fights (his whole career) whereas Wlad (mid-career) has already 12.

It gets even more impressive when you check THE WEIGHT of the KO-victims (I took all opponents to broaden the sample):

Foreman's round 1 KOs were against a median weight of 200lbs
Foreman's round 2 KOs were against a median weight of 212lbs
Foreman's round 3 KOs were against a median weight of 215lbs

Of these opponents Foreman outweighted approx. 85%

Wlad's round 1 KOs were against a median weight of 233lbs
Wlad's round 2 KOs were against a median weight of 232lbs
Wlad's round 3 KOs were against a median weight of 244lbs

Of these opponents Wlad outweighted approx. 42%

Thus for a median 215lbs opponent it took Foreman already 3 rounds, whereas Wlad KOed a median 233lbs opponent within 1 round.

Summary for the three-round-KO-performance:
Foreman is LESS EFFECTIVE than Wlad WHILE FIGHTING LIGHTER opponents and WORSE opponents and WHILE BEING HEAVIER than the opponents. Wlad is MORE EFFECTIVE (= faster KOs than Foreman) though FIGHTING the HEAVIER opponents (than Foreman's) and BETTER opponents (than Foreman's) and while being usually LIGHTER than his opponents.

Only haters aren't impressed.

Let me also add that I hardly mention the losses of a boxer. Just imagine a boxer would have 50 LOSSES and 5 wins, then nobody would make a conclusion about the greatness of the boxer based on 3 wins. But you will often hear the opposite like "He has 5 losses thus he cannot be any good" (e.g. Roy Jones Jr)

4) Would you call a fighter who has a dozen KO's in 160 fights a featherfist?

Featherfist is Chris Byrd. If you have a KOratio (against 200+ opponents) like Chris Byrd (= 50% or below), I call the fighter featherfist. Usually natural cruisers (Byrd, Moorer, Evan Fields, Ali) are featherfists.

5) Do you think big punchers are born or made?

You can MAKE a natural born big puncher better.

[knn]

puritty & sanders & brewster wouldn't last 3 rounds with lewis.

Pure and utter speculation. Substatiated by nothing than hate.

davarryl wiiliams lost a controversial split decision after being knocked down.

There was nothing controversial about it. Wlad was beating the crap out of Davarryl. And if DaVarryl is so good then where is he now?

lewis stares at williamson & he passed out.anybody on this site who thinks wlad is on par with lewis is dillusional.he couldn't carry lewis jockstrap.

Yeah, so? Then Lewis is #1 and Wlad is #2. Happy?

[knn]

I think lewis, Tyson & Holyfield beat Ali.different eras completely.the older guys were smaller but went 15 HARD rounds

They had to. Because they were such featherfists.

had way more heart

And more spleen.

they all fought each other

Yeah, since there weren't exposed to global competition.

no ducking,fought regularily

Yeah, except that Ali fought approx. half as often as Wlad.

todays heavyweights wouldn't last long in that era.

Pure speculation. Again, based on nothing but hate and delusion.

[knn]

You seem to be missing the point. You class a fighter by who he beat in his era. All the guys I mentioned were legit Heavyweights of their respective era. You're completely devalueing every one of Louis' victory just because his opponents were smaller than that of todays.

I am not devalueing Louis opponents. I just add them to Louis' cruiser record.

And if "you class a fighter by who he beat in his era" then Wlad is an ATG because so far he cleaned up the field.

[Jim Jeffries]

Probably best performance of Lewis career was Ruddock when he was 220 odd so not totally out there to say he was at prime at 220 odd.

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.

[sonnyboyx2]

So you think Wlad is better than Vitali? Well its all about opinion I guess I favour Vitali personally.
Well Wlad will have to be several times better than Vitali as the poorest version of Lewis beat Vitali.
An off Lewis not focussed could get caught no doubt of that although Wlad would have to show a lot more daring than he has recently to land even on an off Lewis.
Prime v Prime can't see Wlad having a chance to be honest

quite amazing how Lewis excuses are acceptable but no other fighters are ... Lewis was not focuses, Lewis did not train, Lewis got caught with a lucky punch etc etc etc, Wlad would beat any opponent Lewis ever fought including Tyson & Holyfield in the condition both was in when Lewis beat them.. Wlad would completely destroy any version of Lennox Lewis, Lewis once boasted he would have one brother for lunch the other brother for tea, he took on the lesser of the two first any very nearly came unstuck, he then wanted nothing to do with the best of the two brothers... Lewis was nothing special, he was an oppotunist who avoided fighters who was at the top of their game instead choosing exposed over-the-hill fighters and old hasbeens,

[knn]

So you think Wlad is better than Vitali? Well its all about opinion I guess I favour Vitali personally.

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.

Having said that: Lennox is one of the seldom cases who could give Wlad problems. No other ATG would give Wlad more problems than Lennox (and maybe Foreman). Vice versa, no other ATG would give Lennox as much problems as Wlad.

Lennox was lucky that he just escaped the upcoming eastern-europe-domination. Lennox got a pre-taste of Eastern-Euro-Power when he fought Mavrovic (a fight he described later as hardest fight of his life). Then came Vitali and away went Lennox.

[GJC]

Lewis was nothing special, he was an oppotunist who avoided fighters who was at the top of their game instead choosing exposed over-the-hill fighters and old hasbeens,

The fact you don't like Lewis is one thing but your above statement is nonsense. Amongst others he fought Golota who had just given Bowe his 2 hardest fights, an undefeated Grant a dangerous Tua etc hardly has beens. Lewis fought everyone put in front of him.