Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-25-2008, 09:02 AM   #46
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,324
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fists of fury
Mendoza - it's all fine and well listing statistics, but if used in the right way, stats can prove just about anything.
You say Wlad has only been KO'd 3 times. Fair enough, but 3 times by competent but hardly oustanding fighters.

One aspect of 'greatness' that I place a lot of emphasis on is what that fighter meant to his era. Does Wlad define his era the way Ali, Louis, Dempsey, Marciano...heck, even Tyson did? I'd say no.

What I'm getting at is this: Wlad has got some great assets, no-one can deny that. But his era is weak - one of the weakest it must be said - and to be remembered as anything other than a highly competent fighter in 40 years he's going to have to do what Louis did, and that's completely dominate it. So far he's doing that, but he's got a way to go yet.

H2H? I'd bet on him more often than not. But in 30 years, who knows? It's one reason I'm not enthusiastic about H2H. The moderns have all (or most of) the advantages.
Fists of Fury,

When stats are lined up wide and deep, they pretty much can prove a point. This is not one or two stats, but many vs the best fighters in history! This is a baseball way of looking at it. Using stats for different people in different eras without saying who would win head to head.

I disagree regarding hitters. Sanders and Brewster are big hitters.Compare and contrast their KO %, amount of early Ko's, and filmed KO's and they hold up well vs the best hitters in history.

I don't think this is the weakest decade in heavyweight boxing. Not a chance. The 30's, and 40's were. The 2nd half of the 1910's was dull until Dmepsey, and the 2nd half of the 1920's was also dull because Demspey was in-active. IMO, the 60's, 70's and 90's were likely the best.

The good point you made was what does Wlad mean to this era? In the Western world he's seen as the #1 heavyweight man for many years. However, boxing is a global sport. In Europe Wlad is very popular. So perhaps Wlad's global fan base dwarfs Jack Johsnon, Jack Demspey, and Sonny Liston's. See what I mean........
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-25-2008, 09:13 AM   #47
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,324
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyrub
How can he be at the top of the list for title fight wins with a 9-2 alphabet record?

Id agree with you though that he is verging on the top 30 but i dont think the win over Brewster did anything at all to boost him up the ratings and neither did saturdays fight.
It's now 11-2 ( Article was written before Austin and Ibragimov fights ) in title fights, which is amazing in any era. How many heavyweight fighters won more than 11 title matches? Not too many.

IMO, Wlad is clearly in the top 30 if he retired today. One could argue top 20 today, and possibly top 15 or better if he keeps winning title matches.

One thing I want to point out is Wlad really has not made his name on past their prime comepetion in general, but some other champs most singificant wins were vs past their prime names. All fighters face older guys, but Klitschko on average seems to face less.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2008, 09:47 AM   #48
barneyrub
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,039
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
It's now 11-2 ( Article was written before Austin and Ibragimov fights ) in title fights, which is amazing in any era. How many heavyweight fighters won more than 11 title matches? Not too many.

IMO, Wlad is clearly in the top 30 if he retired today. One could argue top 20 today, and possibly top 15 or better if he keeps winning title matches.

One thing I want to point out is Wlad really has not made his name on past their prime comepetion in general, but some other champs most singificant wins were vs past their prime names. All fighters face older guys, but Klitschko on average seems to face less.
No way has he won 11 world title fights, since when did WBO count?

If Hide had won the WBO title one more time would we really mention him along with Ali, Holyfield and Lewis as 3 time champions?
barneyrub is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2008, 10:09 AM   #49
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,324
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyrub
No way has he won 11 world title fights, since when did WBO count?

If Hide had won the WBO title one more time would we really mention him along with Ali, Holyfield and Lewis as 3 time champions?
The WBO has been around long enough to have the #1 gun as champion. WBO can mean Joe Calzaghe, Kelly Pavlik, Sergi Diziziruk, Wlad Klitschko or Juan Diaz. These are #1 guns in their respetive divisons ( for argument sake ) in 2008. So you see the fighter defines the belt more so than the belt defining the fighter.

Some lineal heavyweight champions such as Riddick Bowe, and Michael Morrer were WBO champs. Ring Magazine champ Vitlai Klitschko was a WBO champ.

Ali and Holyfield had a lot of chances to win titles after they lost. If Hide took out Bowe or Moorer to win the WBO title again, yes, I think he's a 3 time champ with more distinction.

What matters now is Wlad has two of the four major belts.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2008, 02:03 PM   #50
PowerPuncher
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,610
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
The WBO has been around long enough to have the #1 gun as champion. WBO can mean Joe Calzaghe, Kelly Pavlik, Sergi Diziziruk, Wlad Klitschko or Juan Diaz. These are #1 guns in their respetive divisons ( for argument sake ) in 2008. So you see the fighter defines the belt more so than the belt defining the fighter.

Some lineal heavyweight champions such as Riddick Bowe, and Michael Morrer were WBO champs. Ring Magazine champ Vitlai Klitschko was a WBO champ.

Ali and Holyfield had a lot of chances to win titles after they lost. If Hide took out Bowe or Moorer to win the WBO title again, yes, I think he's a 3 time champ with more distinction.

What matters now is Wlad has two of the four major belts.
Wlad hasn't once defended the lineal title that much is the fact. I could make the case 'Wlad has never been undisputed & Lineal Champion' and he has not. So 11-2 in title fights is REALLY 0-0 in Undisputed/Lineal title fights.

Wlad is certainly cracking my top30 but don't create propoganda about him because we'll see right through it

Herbie Hide never beat a top10 rated HW, actually I don't think he beat a top30 rated HW, yet you call him a 2 time HW time and I was a Hide fan in my younger years but he simply never amounted to much.

BTW your wrong Michael Moorer has never been WBO HW Champ, he held the WBO belt at 175. Bowe had the WBO after he was champ. Vitali had the WBO belt years before becoming. Many top fighters have held the NABA title, that doesnt make NABA a top title either
PowerPuncher is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2008, 02:21 PM   #51
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,324
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerPuncher
Wlad hasn't once defended the lineal title that much is the fact. I could make the case 'Wlad has never been undisputed & Lineal Champion' and he has not. So 11-2 in title fights is REALLY 0-0 in Undisputed/Lineal title fights.

Wlad is certainly cracking my top30 but don't create propoganda about him because we'll see right through it

Herbie Hide never beat a top10 rated HW, actually I don't think he beat a top30 rated HW, yet you call him a 2 time HW time and I was a Hide fan in my younger years but he simply never amounted to much.

BTW your wrong Michael Moorer has never been WBO HW Champ, he held the WBO belt at 175. Bowe had the WBO after he was champ
Let's focus on the facts, shall we.

Working backwards, Yes Michael Moorer was the WBO champ. He won the vacant title by beating Bert Cooper in 1991 after Mercer gave it up to fight Larry Holmes.

Hide was a top ten ring magazine ranked fighter, with wins over X-alphabet champs in Tucker and Bentt. Tucker was ring rated guy in the 1990’s.

I think if you objectively look at the WBO champs today, you’ll it is the man, not the belt that defines the fighter. Some of the #1 guns in their weight class are WBO champions.

Defending a lineal title does not make the opponent any better or worse. I see very little difference in terms of quality of opponents since the alphabets came into play. As I said before Frazier, Ali, Holmes, Holfyield, Bowe, and Lewis had their share of soft touches as lienar / lineal champion too. Therefore, I prefer to look at it as a record in title fights. Wlad is 11-2 in his title fights. This is good in ANY era.

As for the see right through you comment, coming from a confirmed Klitschko hater you are obviously not an un-biased poster.

This thread is should Wlad be linear/lienal or not after the Ibragimov fight. I think based on history, yes he should be.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2008, 03:10 PM   #52
Sonny's jab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

WBO heavyweight title was an utter joke when Lennox Lewis was champion, and any time before.

Calling Wlad a champion back in 2000 is as bad as giving Damiani champion status in 1989.

None of the linear champions have held the WBO while being recognized as the real champ. The WBO heavyweight title was a minor meaningless title at best, and a handicap at worse.
It's not until 2004-05 that the WBO heavyweight title gained credibility, and that was because fans figured that Lamon Brewster was probably no worse - and possibly better - than Byrd and Ruiz, or whoever held the IBF and WBA titles.
 Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2008, 03:17 PM   #53
PowerPuncher
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,610
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
As for the see right through you comment, coming from a confirmed Klitschko hater you are obviously not an un-biased poster.
.
Pay attention I've rated Wlad in my top30 HWs, hardly the behaviour of someone hating on the man. I am also a much bigger fan of Wlad than Vitali however I'm not a Klithugger like yourself. I actually wrote this on another forum about Wlad:

I think Wlad is very good for the sport iand I hope he dominates for the next few years. He represents a dominant HW Champ, with good skills, that is in great physical shape and actually is athletic. I think Wlad has overcome some of his shotrtcomings that saw him collapse/get ko'd earlier in his career. None of the other contenders bring the same top level package to the table. Most contenders are overweight, short on skills, and cant punch or all of these. Wlad is the Larry Holmes esque saviour of this era.

Chageev doesn't bring the physical package to beat Wlad imo. He has a good punch but not top level power like Peter, Maskeev, Sanders, Brewster. His workrate and speed are okay but nothing to worry Wlad.

I really can't see anyone beating Wladdy for the forseeable future. People tout Povetkin as some second coming but hes not upto scratch and struggled last time out.

I think the best prospect to dethrone Wlad is David Haye if he can transition to HW, which I think he will as a solid ripped 220lber. I dont think anyone else is good enough but maybe theres a prospect or 2 who has slipped under my radar.
PowerPuncher is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2008, 03:25 PM   #54
PowerPuncher
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,610
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
make the opponent any better or worse. I see very little difference in terms of quality of opponents since the alphabets came into play. As I said before Frazier, Ali, Holmes, Holfyield, Bowe, and Lewis had their share of soft touches as lienar / lineal champion too. Therefore, I prefer to look at it as a record in title fights. Wlad is 11-2 in his title fights. This is good in ANY era.
.
The quality of competition is irrelevant. WLAD HAS HAD ZERO LINEAL/UNDISPUTED HW TITLE FIGHTS. He is not a true HW Champ in the manner Frazier, Ali, Holmes, Holyfield, Bowe, and Lewis were so YOU CANT COMPARE ABC FIGHTS TO UNDISPUTED BOUTS. WLAD HASNT HAD ANY YET.

Liston/Jack Johnson had great pre-HW CHampionship wins, but your agenda doesn't count those as title fights so why do you bend the rules for Wlad?

Do you count Jack Johnson as a world champion when he had his Coloured World Title? Shouldn't Jack Johnson's Coloured World Title rate above the IBF/WBO belts because you had to beat the best black fighters in the world to win it which may have been harder than winning the then white world title?
PowerPuncher is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2008, 04:05 PM   #55
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,324
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerPuncher
Pay attention I've rated Wlad in my top30 HWs, hardly the behaviour of someone hating on the man. I am also a much bigger fan of Wlad than Vitali however I'm not a Klithugger like yourself. I actually wrote this on another forum about Wlad:

I think Wlad is very good for the sport iand I hope he dominates for the next few years. He represents a dominant HW Champ, with good skills, that is in great physical shape and actually is athletic. I think Wlad has overcome some of his shotrtcomings that saw him collapse/get ko'd earlier in his career. None of the other contenders bring the same top level package to the table. Most contenders are overweight, short on skills, and cant punch or all of these. Wlad is the Larry Holmes esque saviour of this era.

Chageev doesn't bring the physical package to beat Wlad imo. He has a good punch but not top level power like Peter, Maskeev, Sanders, Brewster. His workrate and speed are okay but nothing to worry Wlad.

I really can't see anyone beating Wladdy for the forseeable future. People tout Povetkin as some second coming but hes not upto scratch and struggled last time out.

I think the best prospect to dethrone Wlad is David Haye if he can transition to HW, which I think he will as a solid ripped 220lber. I dont think anyone else is good enough but maybe theres a prospect or 2 who has slipped under my radar.
David Haye the best prospect to dethrone Wlad? Haye has zero fights at heavyweight. This is a pipe dream, and the " next hope " of the anti kltischko fans who picked Peter and Brewster in the rematch. By the way who did you pick between Wlad vs Peter and Wlad vs Brewster II?

How many heavyweight unifcation matches did Holfyield or Bowe win? More or less than Wlad? More games here. Please tell me what the difference is in wining a lienal / linear title vs an ABC title if the opponet is the same.

Hopkins was creidted with 20 title defenses at middle weight. Are you saying because he wasn't unified or lineal, those should not count?
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2008, 04:19 PM   #56
PowerPuncher
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,610
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
David Haye the best prospect to dethrone Wlad? Haye has zero fights at heavyweight. This is a pipe dream, and the " next hope " of the anti kltischko fans who picked Peter and Brewster in the rematch. By the way who did you pick between Wlad vs Peter and Wlad vs Brewster II?

How many heavyweight unifcation matches did Holfyield or Bowe win? More or less than Wlad? More games here. Please tell me what the difference is in wining a lienal / linear title vs an ABC title if the opponet is the same.

Hopkins was creidted with 20 title defenses at middle weight. Are you saying because he wasn't unified or lineal, those should not count?
No Hopkins shouldnt have 20 title defenses, Hopkins reign at MW isnt that impressive. Bowe/Holyfield did not need to unify because they beat the Linear champion to become the man and had all 3 belts obviously made unifying an impossibilty. But Holyfield did unify with Micheal Moorer

Winning an ABC belt is 1/4 of the HW Championship and at times when the linear champ holds another belt is not even 1/4. So when Lennox Lewis was champion was Wlad also HW Champion. He was obviously not so Wlads WBO fights are not championship fights. Fighting the best fighters makes a legacy whether champion or not. But if thats the case why are you listing title fights??? Contradicting yourself Z

Haye has 1 fight at HW, once Holyfield had zero fights at HW. Haye is actually a fighter in similar mold to Wlad/Lewis. I'm not 100% sold on Haye yet, on the inside he has problems (like Wlad), he has some chin worries, but has great technique, power and speed

I picked:

Wlad-Brewster - Wlad - Brew had been out for a long time, was badly injured last time and was all but beaten in the first fight

Wlad-Peter - Wlad - Peter was unproven and technically poor, but I saw this as a bit of 50-50 because of Wlads chin/stamina and I was proven right with Wlads 3 KDs

I don't think I've ever picked against Wlad if memory serves me correct. But Haye may catch an aging Wlad although I wouldnt make Haye a favourate if they fought now BUT he'd make a better fight of it than Ibragimov thats for sure
PowerPuncher is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2008, 04:27 PM   #57
PowerPuncher
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,610
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Again I'll ask Z/Mendoza:

WHY DO YOU COUNT WLADs WBO TITLE FIGHTS AS WORLD TITLE FIGHTS BUT NOT COUNT JACK JOHNSONS COLOURED HW TITLE FIGHTS AS WORLD TITLE FIGHTS? PURE AGENDA
PowerPuncher is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2008, 04:47 PM   #58
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,324
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerPuncher
Again I'll ask Z/Mendoza:

WHY DO YOU COUNT WLADs WBO TITLE FIGHTS AS WORLD TITLE FIGHTS BUT NOT COUNT JACK JOHNSONS COLOURED HW TITLE FIGHTS AS WORLD TITLE FIGHTS? PURE AGENDA
You are going to step into a pile here.

1 ) Many of the colored title fights were sparring type of sessions with NC, 3, or 6 round decisions. Were these sanctioned fights, or sparring matches? Do tell.

2 ) Another question is this. If Jack Johnson won the " colored title " from Klondike Haines in 1900, does that mean Choysnki took the linear claim when he Ko'd Johnson in 3 rounds in 1901 a year later? Please respond.

3 ) If not Choynski, then perhaps Griffin in 1901 who defeated Johnson as colored champion, Griffin was black. IMO this was a colored championship between the two best balck heavies of the time line, and a full 20 rounds! It seems to me that Johnson vs Griffin for the colored championship was skirted to create the illuison of a colored title reign for Johnson. Do you agree or diagree?

4 ) If not that, then was Hart the colored champ in 1905 when he beat Johnson, who was still the colored champ in 1905 depsite losing a DQ match eariler to Jeanette?! I'm sorry but if you lose a match by DQ, one can not retian the title!

See the problem here? Its very sticky. One cannot call it a true title if the title is not on the when the champion in is the ring, and the matches themselves in some cases are much shorter than the normal title matches of the time. If you want the truth, the WBO behaves and acts better than the losely held rules of the colored title.

My positon is this. I tend to view the colored championship as an accomplishment / honor for the times and simply leave it at that.

PS: After you reply direclty to my four points ( good luck ), let's foucus on the title of the thread. Or you can start a seperate thread on this topic.

Last edited by Mendoza; 02-26-2008 at 08:52 AM.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2008, 05:30 PM   #59
DamonD
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tavistock, England
Posts: 7,150
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerPuncher
BTW your wrong Michael Moorer has never been WBO HW Champ
I think he did hold it actually, back in 1992...the Moorer vs Cooper fight was for the WBO belt, after Ray Mercer had been stripped of it for wanting to fight Larry Holmes instead of whoever the WBO wanted him to fight.

Of course, Moorer ditched it pretty damn soon himself as well!

I remember when Bowe had the WBO belt, HBO refused point-blank to recognise it or even mention that it was the WBO belt. They didn't give Akinwande much lip-service for it when he had it in '96 either, and certainly scoffed and derided Herbie Hide's 1997-99 reign.

Now HBO isn't everyone, but Showtime was pretty much following suit when it came to the WBO belt as well.

I don't think it was actually until Wlad got his mitts on it in 2000 that it started getting more credit and profile on US television. And that was due to Wlad holding it rather than the belt itself, because Wlad was seen as the 'champ in waiting'.

From around that point on, the WBO has had better recognition.
In the 90s, very little.

Put it this way - if in 10 years time the IBO belt has suddenly built itself a bit of a reputation (God forbid we get another belt in the mix)...can we have Lionel Butler, Jimmy Thunder and Brian Nielsen regarded as legitimate heavyweight champions or is it a case of realising that it just didn't mean much at that time...?
DamonD is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2008, 08:31 PM   #60
BOGART
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ohio
Posts: 3,806
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Klitschko vs Irbagimov for the lineal title?

Unfortunatly the WBO title has picked up more of a reputation over the last few years. This only serves to confuse the issue more. In today's division the WBO carries the same weight as the other three belts. So with Wlad having picked up two of those belts and having been considered the best in the division for a couple years now I have no problem considering him the lineal champion. The new lineage should start with Wlad.

To be honest, in today's heavyweight picture, holding two titles is a big deal. Its not like its just any heavyweight holding two belts ether, it happens to be the divisions best fighter. Waiting around for someone to grab three or four of the belts is crazy. It's just not going to happen. Having the best guy in the division holding two of the titles is about the best we are going to get.

Lets also not forget that there are no set rules on what restarts a title lineage. Lineages have been restarted with fewer hoops to jump through than what today's heavies have to jump through. So in today's age, with the current circumstances, I would consider Wlad to be the new heavyweight champion.
BOGART is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013