Wladimir Klitschko now holds the record for the longest reign in HW boxing history

[Boxed Ears]

Originally Posted by the cobra

Not even getting into the undisputed stuff, he's been recognized as the top guy in the division for 6 years now.

6 is not greater than 11 (don't even get me started on 4).

Four is definitely greater than eleven. Eleven is just two ones. That's two and I know for a fact that four > two. You're shite at maths, mate.

[Stonehands89]

Wlad beat a third-rate and third-rated Chagaev and The Ring appointed him champion based on that. He's one of the seventy make-pretend champions in a sport that has forgotten what the hell a champion is.

It is idiotic to even compare this make-pretend reign to Louis's dozen-year domination.

His reign hasn't even begun yet and it won't until he fights the number two contender. The sooner Vitali retires the better it will be for boxing, for obvious reasons.

That being said, he is without a doubt the premiere heavyweight of this time.

[the cobra]

Originally Posted by Boxed Ears

Four is definitely greater than eleven. Eleven is just two ones. That's two and I know for a fact that four > two. You're shite at maths, mate.

Don't get me started, man, don't get me started! I told you not to get me started!


You won't like me when I'm started...

[thistle1]

Statistics/ACHIEVEMENTS mean _uck all when not applied to proper reality...

FIGHTING the TOP MEN always & still coming out on top, makes for much more accurate & impressive statistics.

see hundreds of Champions & Contenders at ALL Weights in better Eras, now thats statistics!

[LittleRed]

Originally Posted by Boxed Ears

Four is definitely greater than eleven. Eleven is just two ones. That's two and I know for a fact that four > two. You're shite at maths, mate.

This doesn't seem right. But the math is right...

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by OMGWTF

The competition is sub par. So the record is somewhat tarnished.

Id put my money on Ali or Foreman breaking that record if they were born into this era of HW fighters.

I really like the Klitchkos so I have no idea why Im saying negative things but its still true: The stats are fairly meaningless.

I have some reservations about Ali going nearly 7 years in this era without ever being decked. I don't think he'd lose to any of these men either, but he struggled with left hookers at all phases of his career, and this era is loaded with south paws. He'd beat everyone who Klit beat within that time frame, no doubt. But to think that he might get momentarily decked or suffer a flash knockdown against one or two of them is not too far fetched.

[ushvinder]

I think all heavyweights from 1980 and onwards get underrated in my opinion. The only reason people like jerry quarry, ken norton, ron lyle, earnie shavers, etc get recognition is because they fought muhammad ali and were a part of his era. If these guys fought nowadays got thier asses whooped by the klitchkos, none of them would be viewed as credible wins. Norton would get whipped out by a david tua. I see tim witherspoon easily beating ron lyle and shavers, he prolly beats quarry too. But these modern heavyweights wont get credit because they didnt face Ali.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Wlad beat a third-rate and third-rated Chagaev and The Ring appointed him champion based on that. He's one of the seventy make-pretend champions in a sport that has forgotten what the hell a champion is.

It is idiotic to even compare this make-pretend reign to Louis's dozen-year domination.

His reign hasn't even begun yet and it won't until he fights the number two contender.

What is your take on the status of Larry Holmes' during his "reign" ?

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Wlad beat a third-rate and third-rated Chagaev and The Ring appointed him champion based on that. He's one of the seventy make-pretend champions in a sport that has forgotten what the hell a champion is.

It is idiotic to even compare this make-pretend reign to Louis's dozen-year domination.

His reign hasn't even begun yet and it won't until he fights the number two contender. The sooner Vitali retires the better it will be for boxing, for obvious reasons.

That being said, he is without a doubt the premiere heavyweight of this time.

Well he's not a champion based on a 1 v 2 rule but then again neither was Ray Robinson at WW, nor Larry Holmes at HW. He's recognised by all as number 1 and has unified WBA,WBO,IBF,Ring.

So 4 of the 5 accepted ranking bodies consider him a champion. He's certainly more worthy of the crown than Briggs ever was

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

Meaningless stat really, Joe Louis was champion for 11 years, Holmes for 7.

He's been ABC since '06, only LINEAL since '08.

meh, does anyone care about lineal any more?

by that term Jones was never champion at all during his career.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

What is your take on the status of Larry Holmes' during his "reign" ?

The WBC stripped rightful champ Leon Spinks after he had the gall to grant Ali a rematch. They gave it to Holmes after he defeated Norton in June '78. The Ring crowned him in April '80 based on the same magical thinking that they used to crown Vitali and Wlad.

Holmes has the same problem as the Klitschkos -he never once faced the top contender.

Holmes, great though he was, was appointed as champion. He never fought the next best. And by the time he faced Ali, Ali had retired and therefore can no longer be considered the king. It was a symbolic.

Holmes could easily have faced the Ring-ranked top contender but he never did. He has Donkey King to thank.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Well he's not a champion based on a 1 v 2 rule but then again neither was Ray Robinson at WW, nor Larry Holmes at HW. He's recognised by all as number 1 and has unified WBA,WBO,IBF,Ring.

So 4 of the 5 accepted ranking bodies consider him a champion. He's certainly more worthy of the crown than Briggs ever was

Robinson became champion in 1946. Between 1920 and the mid-60s, the sport was relatively uniform. It did not descend into madness until the 60s with the rise of the WBA and the WBC. We need clarity now more than at any time since the 1910s. With that in mind, please tell me a better rule for filling a vacant throne besides 1 vs 2 rule.

PS/ "accepted ranking bodies"--?! Come on, man. Using the WBS racketeers as evidence is a sure way to diminish your position.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

The WBC stripped rightful champ Leon Spinks after he had the gall to grant Ali a rematch. They gave it to Holmes after he defeated Norton in June '78. The Ring crowned him in April '80 based on the same magical thinking that they used to crown Vitali and Wlad.

Holmes has the same problem as the Klitschkos -he never once faced the top contender.

Holmes, great though he was, was appointed as champion. He never fought the next best. And by the time he faced Ali, Ali had retired and therefore can no longer be considered the king. It was a symbolic.

Yeah, you make valid points. So, would you consider Larry Holmes a make-pretend champion ?
His 'reign' never actually began ?

(I do think his win over Shavers in 1979 was arguably the win over the "next best" that we might be looking for.)

Holmes could easily have faced the Ring-ranked top contender but he never did. He has Donkey King to thank.

Do the Ring rankings actually matter much though ? I mean, if the magazine's edicts on who is champion can be dismissed, surely who is the number 1, 2, 3, 4 contender can be equally doubted.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

meh, does anyone care about lineal any more?

by that term Jones was never champion at all during his career.

Right --and that fact is a perfect illustration of how ridiculous the sport has gotten and how dire the need is for reform.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Robinson became champion in 1946. Between 1920 and the mid-60s, the sport was relatively uniform. It did not descend into madness until the 60s with the rise of the WBA and the WBC. We need clarity now more than at any time since the 1910s. With that in mind, please tell me a better rule for filling a vacant throne besides 1 vs 2 rule.

PS/ "accepted ranking bodies"--?! Come on, man. Using the WBS racketeers as evidence is a sure way to diminish your position.

come on stone that's a cop out and you know it. Wlad beating Byrd or Ibragimov or Haye or Chagaev is just as acceptable as when Robinson beat Bell.

I'm not as bothered about filling vacant thrones because it's not representative of the current landscape. Boxers fight for these belts, it's what they gear their careers towards, unifying the belts is a bigger prize. for me, the best way to become undisputed is to unify all title claims, failing that the guy with the strongest claim is my pick for number 1.