Wladimir Klitschko had three losses in his career, of which he only avenged one.
The mere fact that two losses are unavenged is used as a proof of a lack of quality.
"ATGs (all time greats) like Lennox Lewis", so the Klitschko haters say, "avenge their losses".
Thus Klitschko's aspiration for the "ATG Olympus" has to be denied.
Let's analyze this "Unavenged losses"-myth closer:
"Wladimir Klitschko sucks because he didn't avenge his losses"
A short glance at record of ATGs exposes this myth for what it is:
A blatant lie:
| Name | Start of career | Total fights | Different opponents | Median Weight of Win-Opponents | Fights (200×2) | Unavenged losses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ·Vitali Klitschko | ||||||
| ·Wladimir Klitschko | ||||||
| ·Lennox Lewis | ||||||
| ·Muhammad Ali | ||||||
| ·Mike Tyson | ||||||
| ·Riddick Bowe | ||||||
| ·George Foreman | ||||||
| ·Frank Bruno | ||||||
| ·Rocky Marciano | ||||||
| ·Joe Louis | ||||||
| ·James J Jeffries | ||||||
| ·Brian Nielsen | ||||||
| ·Evander Holyfield | ||||||
| ·Tommy Morrison | ||||||
| ·Larry Holmes | ||||||
| ·Sonny Liston | ||||||
| ·Ray Mercer | ||||||
| ·Floyd Patterson | ||||||
| ·John Ruiz | ||||||
| ·Ken Norton | ||||||
| ·Archie Moore | ||||||
| ·George Chuvalo | ||||||
| ·Sugar Ray Robinson | ||||||
| ·Jersey Joe Walcott | ||||||
| ·Ezzard Charles | ||||||
| ·Jack Johnson | ||||||
| ·Jack Dempsey | ||||||
| ·Gene Tunney | ||||||
| ·John L. Sullivan |
Fistic Statistic [#2989.1] Unavenged losses
When you analyze records of ATGs and world champions there is NO OTHER heavyweight with 50+ fights 200×2 and LESS unavenged losses than Wladimir Klitschko.
A few famous guys like Rocky Marciano (49 fights), Gene Tunney (86 fights) have 0 unavenged losses and John L Sullivan (41 fights) and Jack Dempsey (83 fights) have 1 unavenged loss, but
- Sullivan (median opponent 200 lbs)
- Dempsey (median[?] opponent 191 lbs)
- Marciano (median opponent 190 lbs)
- Tunney (median opponent 174 lbs)
were of course no heavyweights as we define them today 200+, but merely cruisers.
But even _IF_ you compare 1940s Marciano, 1910s Tunney, 1910s Dempsey and 1870s Sullivan (= 140+ years ago) to Wladimir Klitschko then THAT's about it.
There are no other comparable boxers WITH LESS unavenged losses than Wladimir Klitschko.
There is no other boxer with
as many real heavyweight fights as Wladimir Klitschko
and less unavenged losses.
Lennox Lewis has less losses because he had less fights
It seems too stupid to mention, but apparently I have to point out an obvious obviousness:
If you have less fights you usually have less losses *duh*
Lennox Lewis (who is always in the back of the head of those who accuse Klitschko of not avenging) has less losses (2) than Klitschko (3) because Lennox Lewis fought only in 42 real[?] heavyweight fights (39 different opponents) in his entire career.
Additionally we should never forget that Lennox Lewis did indeed avenge his both losses… but only IF YOU WANT TO CALL the rematch "Lennox Lewis vs Oliver McCall II" an avenging:
In what has to be called one of the strangest fights in boxing history ·Oliver McCall went into some bizarre mental state in front the audience:
Walking back and forth, refusing to fight. Instead he started to cry (= tears!).
It's said to have been some drug withdrawal issue and it is said that McCall had been just out of the rehab ("Out of the rehab into the rematch") and had neither time nor attitude to train properly ("Lennox Lewis vs Cold Turkey").
In the press-conference after the fight Oliver McCall complained that the referee should not have stopped the fight and that he was robbed.
In other words: _On paper_ this may qualify as avenging but practically it's inconclusive, to say the least ("gift avenging").
In previous eras it was far easier to rematch and avenge
In previous eras there were far more rematches than now:
In his 300+ fights Sam Langford (the heavyweight with most fights) fought the same 100+ opponents. Thus by simple logic fighters back then had more chances to avenge their losses.
Rematches also have a lot to do with boxing politics (= Don King, who does everything to prevent unification bouts) and TV networks (= 2 fighters may have exclusive contracts with 2 different networks). This was one of the reasons why it took ages for the Tyson-Lewis clash to materialize.
And if an opponent who beat you doesn't want to rematch you (fear, retirement, better money offers, contract obligations) then there is not much you can do.
But let me repeat again: There is no other fighter in the history of heavyweight with 50+ fights 200×2 and LESS unavenged losses (2) than Wladimir Klitschko.
Any accusation
"The Klitschkos have 2 unavenged losses"
turns out to actually be
a hallmark attribute for the Klitschkos.
The biggest secret about avenging your boxing losses
But let me end with an important message:
No boxer can really avenge his losses.
A loss always stays on the record.
Just like no opponent can undo a previous win.
Re-matching and winning is NOT like traveling back in a time machine and undoing mistakes of your past.
A loss stays always a loss. Thus any arguing with "my boxer avenged" while "your boxer didn't" reminds me always of the following joke:
If 2 men are on a bus, and 3 men leave the bus, then 1 man has to get on the bus so that no one is on the bus.
Wladimir Klitschko sucks because he didn't avenge his losses,
Are you going to write more? This is a great site.
I think the fact that you distort the weights to wlads advantage makes this not credible, how can you determine what is a credible opponent/weight just by using stats? fighters on average are bigger now than they were then..yea so? wlad and vitali are also 6.6.5" and 6.8" and the only reason they dont weigh 270-300 pounds is because of the superior diets training that has been passed on and learned from previous eras.
I have learned from looking at your stats something worthwile, that the trend of champions is that the heavier champes usually win against the average weights of there opposition,however, although this trend continues with wlad, he also is taller by a significant amount yet has been knocked out 3 times by crap fighters past there primes and knocked down in others.
No matter how much you distort the facts to suit your favourite fighter, you cant change the fact that NONE of any of wlads opponents..not even wins, just opponents will be hall of famers..and that pretty much sums it up really.
wessley: Why are you such an anti Klitschko? Why can't you just accept that they are amazing at what they do. Sure, they are not as exciting as Tyson was in the ring or as flamboyant as Ali was outside of it, but they have dominated the HW division for the last 8-9 years.
Doesn't that mean anything? Stop hating on them!
..and if you're gonna call me a Klitschko fan, think again. I was rooting for David Haye and Thomas Adamek to win, because it would bring some new excitement in the HW division.
I pre-answered this already at
[post=932]
You made lots of idiotic statements FANBOY OF LEWIS. But I will answer to just one. BREWSTER, BYRD, HAYE, SULTAN IBRAGIMOV, SAM PETER, CHAGAEV HAVE GREAT CHANCES TO BECOME MEMBERS OF THE "HALL OF FAME".
P.S. Great boxing blog. Respect to the author.
The hall of fame is a joke to shamelessly promote American boxers in the face of annihilation. Didn't start out that way but that's what it is today. Otherwise the BEST boxers would all be in it and not the most famous. Sometimes Wes has good points but he rates greatness differently to the way we do.
Lol i am not hating on the klitchkos, i think that they are great fighters who have dominated (between them) there era..fair play to them, well done.
But i like so many that have come to this site have been enraged by the blatent disrespect payed out to previous eras, denouncing them as 'cruiserweights' etc, its nonsense. if you read my comments they make total sense.
As i have said, the klitchkos are great fighters, if i hadnt read such biased material and disrespect maybe i would have not been so angry, never the less i stand by what i have said. that both the klitchkos have to at least CLEAR OUT THERE OWN ERA AND GET A SIGNITURE FIGHT AGAINST A HALL OF FAMER before they can be compared to greats in the top ten.
The easiest way to do this would be to fight them selfs, if wlad beat vitali, in a dominant fashion then yes, i could see him entering the top 10 heavyweights of all time.
This era and the klitchkos can be compared to other great fighters in simular eras..ie mike tyson of the 80's..poor competition, but he was the dominant fighter, he also showed new techniques, speed, training that were all new to heavyweight boxing.youngest etc.
-however he had poor competion, and when he got out of prison he lost against the greats of the next era…i put him at no 11 on the greats of all time.
Rocky marciano- again dominated his division even beating some old hall of famers,he also was tiny and beat most the fighters that were substantially bigger and heavier than him.
retired undefeated.
-Again against poor oposition, so in at no 7 on my all time list.
Wlad and vitali,again, same level of competition (poor) both have dominated. but this is shared between the 2 of them, they are bigger than everyone else, except 1-which they didnt fght. and themselfs..again they wont fight. i put them in at 12 and 13 on my all time best.
If you see what i am saying, i am not slating the kilitchkos..i am just being realistic. try it.
you failed in your attempt to belittle Vlad's legacy. Vladimir has more fights than Lewis and most of Vladimir's opponents were better than Lennox's opponents. Chambers outboxes Tua every day a week. Thompson beats up Tyson, Haye destroys Grant, Chagaev outboxes Golota, Ibragimov has beaten Briggs and Holyfield. I can go on.
It's clear. Vladimir's opposition is better than what Lennox had.
Additionally Wlad and LeLe had 4 common opponents. Wlad performed better than LeLe against 3 of them.
I think that Mike Tyson would beat Thompson. It is true that Ibragimov had beaten Evander but when? When Holy was way over 40s. Haye destroying Grant? Yeah that can be true. But what about Tommy Morrison. That would be good oponent for Haye.
I would judge their competition fairly even really. Both lists match up well, some from 80s and 90s would defeat some from 00s and early 10s and vice verse. Too small a gap for evolution to set competition apart to great degree. Of course the Russians will claim Wlads comp the best and the brit/amer will claim opposite lol cold war lives on haha :)
Wesley they ARE cruiserweights. They were in the unlimited weight division of the time, I unlike admin don't think it was a mistake to keep the term "heavyweight" as the unlimited division, it is synonymous in my mind, and introduce the cruiser division. But by todays definition, the one that counts now, they ARE cruisers. Especially when both opponents are sub 200 you can't argue otherwise! A lot of Mikes opponents were bums sure. His first title fight onwards he was NOT fighting bums (except for his return fight with Peter McNeeley who was quote "not the usual tomato can" and despite not a serious contender very brave and tough, not to mention hilarious lol). Likewise Wlads competition also increased in difficulty as his career progressed. Unlike Mike he has NOT lost to the top contenders of his era. Rocky cannot even be compared because he is not a HW and never fought a HW! That is realistic!
MR OBJECTIVE i dont think you have any knowledge about what you are talking about…what makes you think im a lennox lewis fan?? because im british?? WRONG.
Lennox lewis was not the greatest fighter of all time, but he was in the top ten, and his opponents were substantially better than vitalis and wlads, are you seriously comparing CHAMBERS??and haye?? to fighters such as razor ruddock, mike tyson, evander holyfield twice, tommy morison, david tua, a young shannon briggs,frank bruno,golota,and lets not forget..VITALI KLITCHKO who got opened up like a beef burger by an out of shape retiring lennox?? get real..
I can not agree more. MR OBJECTIVE is Klitschko fan. I think it is the same man who said that Mike Tyson, Ray Mercer and Evander are bums.
Sorry. it was saifd but another Russian. MR OBJECTIVE only said that Muhammad Ali was a punchbag.
Yeah Honza those were some of the most stupidest comments on this blog lol. But lets look at Haye Wez for example, he could put it together with any of the guys you just listed. He and Mike would have good, competitive fight imo. I love the 90s fighters, they were the best entertainment but they were not substantially better than today. Just even, which is not taking anything away from them at all because they were from prev era so if anything that is flattering to them all that they would still be in with the best of the best.
Vitali was "winning" that fight remember, he got his face opened up by a punch fact, NOT by getting pummelled, also fact. Fight was very even despite all that, fact. Lennox was hardly a fading boxer at that time, fact. Vitali did not decline after his Lennox fight, he improved more, fact. I wouldn't bash either boxer over that fight. Lennox won, Vitali lost but was not beaten. Both fighters were/are great.
Damn Tommo why We have to agree on so many things :). Haye would be great chalenge for any good boxer from 90s. I have a few dreammatches that would be great to see: Evader vs. Haye, Vitali vs. Riddick etc.
Yes and instead of lingering on this stalemate Wlad/Ali debate for so long which is only serving to enrage a large proportion of the globe who grew up with greats of the past the author should have dedicated more time to investigating such interesting matches and maybe his own sort of version of boxrec outlining strengths/weaknesses/predictions for all of these great fighters. I understand he is only one man with only so much time. He should let us use his stats and write some for him ;) lol