Let's make a comparison like it has never been made before.
Let's compare two fighters: An unnamed fighter from today (2013, Klitschko era) and an unnamed fighter from the 1970s (Ali era), who got a title shot against Muhammad Ali.
Let's call them Boxer Nineteen Seventy and Boxer Twenty Ten.
Boxer Nineteen Seventy has beaten the following 17 opponents at real heavyweight 200×2 when he got a title shot against Muhammad Ali:
|#||Fight result of Boxer Nineteen Seventy||Opponent's record at bout|
Fistic Statistic [#4088.1]
Additionally Boxer Nineteen Seventy has beaten the following cruiser opponents sub-200 before his match with Muhammad Ali:
|#||Fight result of Boxer Nineteen Seventy||Opponent's record at bout|
Fistic Statistic [#4088.2]
Please note the loss against one of his better opponents (12-2).
All in all a rather doubtful record and not too good to be considered a worthy challenger of Muhammad Ali, right?
Wait, it gets worse, since the records of his opponents (second column) contain a lot of non-heavyweight opponents, too.
Take for example the third fight (= WKO3 win against the 17-4 opponent). "17-4" This sounds somewhat OK, but this 17-4 record consists of barely any real heavyweight 200×2 fights.
In other words the…
- heavyweight worthiness
- heavyweight experience
- heavyweight background
…of this 17-4 opponent is far less than nowadays when you fight a 17-4 opponent at heavyweight.
OK, now let's check Boxer Twenty Ten. A modern boxer. A sparring partner of Wladimir Klitschko.
He has currently the following record:
|#||Fight result of Boxer Twenty Ten||Opponent's record at bout|
Fistic Statistic [#4088.3]
So the at-a-glance pre-titlefight records of both boxers look like this:
|pre-titlefight record nutshell||Boxer Nineteen Seventy||Boxer Twenty Ten|
|Sum of opponents records||348-235||313-174|
|Sum of opponents 200×2 record||70-64||173-101|
|Opponents average record||11-7||11-6|
|Average real heavyweight record of real heavyweight opponents||3-3||6-3|
|Total KOs opponents have scored||143 KOs||198 KOs|
|Total KOs opponents have scored in their 200×2 fights||30 KOs||115 KOs|
|Median weight of opponent||201 lbs||230 lbs|
|Median weight of KO'victim||202 lbs||230 lbs|
|Rounds between KOs||7 rounds between KOs (162.5 rounds for 23 KOs)||1.2 rounds between KOs (35 rounds for 27 KOs)|
Fistic Statistic [#4088.4]
Now, completely objectively Boxer Twenty Ten has a far superior record than Boxer Nineteen Seventy.
In terms of real heavyweight 200×2 we can say that Boxer Twenty Ten has a record approximately 40-50 times better than Boxer Nineteen Seventy,
- because he faced opposition twice as good (6-3 vs 3-3 on average)
- because he has beaten opposition far heavier (230 lbs vs 202 lbs)
- because he has KO'ed all of his opponents (27 KOs vs 23 KOs)
- because he didn't lose to a 12-2 cruiser
- because his KO'speed is 5 times faster (1.2 rounds between KOs vs 7 rounds)
- because he scored twice as many KOs (27) in real heavyweight fights 200×2 than Boxer Nineteen Seventy (14 KOs)
- because he faced opponents who were far more proven/dangerous at real heavyweight (115 KOs vs 30 KOs).
So just by using core boxing properties like…
- opponent's record at bout
- fight result (= win or not, KO or not)
…we can objectively state: Boxer Twenty Ten (Klitschko era) has a far superior boxing record than Boxer Nineteen Seventy (when he got a title shot against Ali).
We didn't even consider lesser known or less tangible properties like
- athleticity (Boxer Twenty Ten is more athletic)
- being out-weighed (Boxer Twenty Ten was outweighed in 70%+ of the fights, while Boxer Nineteen Seventy was outweighed only 40% of the fights)
- years to compile this record (it took Boxer Twenty Ten only 4 years, while it took Boxer Nineteen Seventy 5 years)
- winning streaks of his opponents (Boxer Twenty Ten has faced opponents who had a streaktotal of 57 wins/draws in their last fights, whereas Boxer Nineteen Seventy's opponents had a streakstotal of only 20 wins/draws = approx. 3 times worse)
- and so on.
Adding everything up, one could make the case that Boxer Twenty Ten has a record approximately 100 times better than Boxer Nineteen Seventy.
So what do modern fans say about Boxer Twenty Ten? Here are some examples:
- "A big mouth that has proven nothing."
- "No hope"
- "He is a joke"
- "Bottom feeder"
- "King of bum fighters"
- "a one trick pony gimmick"
- "Only fights soup cans"
- "Fighting D class fighters"
- "Fighting corpses"
- "Patheric opposition"
- "nothing more than a publicity stunt"
- "hyped up no-hoper"
- "most padded record in HW history"
- "A turd"
- "All talk"
- "No skill as a boxer"
…and on and on and on. Typical rants by boxing fans about about modern boxers.
And about Boxer Twenty Ten's Top10 WBC ranking modern fans write:
- "Absolute con"
- "He got promoted to position #9 on the WBC rankings? Corruption at its best."
- "It's a joke!"
For modern fans Boxer Twenty Ten is a joke.
For modern fans it's inconceivable how Boxer Twenty Ten could even be ranked in the Top 10.
Would Boxer Twenty Ten get a title shot against Wladimir Klitschko it would be a proof of how the division sucks and how Wladimir Klitschko fights unworthy challengers.
Yet in Ali's times a boxer with a far worse record got a title shot.
Even worse: After the title fight against Muhammad Ali the record of Boxer Nineteen Seventy consists of losing 5x to A-level boxers (including getting KO'ed 3 times) and a few wins against B-level boxers.
But Boxer Nineteen Seventy got inducted into 2 Boxing Hall of Fames and is one of the greatest names on Ali's resume and a proof of the superiority of Ali's era. Boxer Nineteen Seventy is one of the shining examples of glorious times gone by. Boxer Nineteen Seventy is one of the four boxers, who are listed by name when boxing fans talk about "Teh Golden Age".
How is this even possible?
Because AliFants have no clue. They have no clue how to interpret records. And especially they have no clue how to interpret modern records. They rather dwell in childhood memories, glorifications of the past and "mystical skill levels".
Good-old-times nostalgists interpret failures as virtues and successes as failures
Additionally Ali LOST to Boxer Nineteen Seventy.
Ali LOST to him and that puts yet another bizarre layer of confusion into the heads of good-old-time nostalgists, because they consider Ali's defeats as a proof of greatness of his era.
It goes like this:
- Woooow! Boxer Nineteen Seventy beat Ali! Oh my god! He beat Ali. THE Ali.
- Boxer Nineteen Seventy must be a marvelous boxer. Only out-of-the world boxers are able to beat Ali.
- But now look! The rematch! Ali avenged his loss!
- Muhammad Ali is the greatest since he beat a boxer like Boxer Nineteen Seventy.
It's a triple confusion that good-old-time nostalgists sit in:
- First they cannot compare records properly.
- Then they confuse fame and childhood memoeries with resume.
- And then they convert failures (= losses, struggles) into virtues.
These are the ingredients of what I call "nostalgia delusion", which also goes the other way around:
- Modern records are interpreted as bad (even when they are much better)
- Modern boxers are considered bad, since their names are not well known
- When Klitschko beats an opponent easily (even if it was a multiple world champ) it's interpreted as a failure ("Such an easy win? Must have been a bum").
So all in all not a very convincing record of Boxer Nineteen Seventy, you might say right?
Well, that's what I would say.
Indeed, that's what modern fans would say. They would call him "bum beater" and B-level fighter.
Unfortunately modern fans say such things only about modern boxers.
When it comes to ancient boxers like Boxer Nineteen Seventy modern fans don't have much clue, hence prefer listening to good-old-time nostalgists who indoctrinate them that FAME NAMES are more important than actual records. Hence if a good-old-time-nostalgist comes along and claims that Boxer Nineteen Seventy is one of the prime examples of the greatness of Ali's era then modern fans tend to believe him and tend to assume that this Klitschko era does not feature such fine specimens like Boxer Nineteen Seventy anymore.
They assume that only Ali fought such boxers and that only in Ali's times such boxers existed.
Modern fans do not doubt that Ali's era was "Teh Golden Age" while the all modern eras are "ridiculously void of any talent".
- Muhammad Ali’s heavyweight record in a nutshell
- How modern fans would complain about Ali’s opponents
- Is Jean-Marc Mormeck a better win for Wladimir Klitschko than George Foreman for Muhammad Ali?