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

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Excuse that, please.



I'd tend to agree. But that isn't the point.

Fair enough Stonehands, you are excused.




Since you have relationships in boxing, you should ask those who have sparred with Wlad in the gym. You’ll hear plenty of accolades on his speed, power and skill. And his stamina, and mobility. None of these things have to do with his size. As they say in boxing, the fighters know.




You could say a dominating champion who meets the best in their prime, and beats them all in a talent rich era is extremely rare. While this isn’t a talent rich era, Wlad will meet anyone, and dispatches the majority of them without any close calls on the score cards.

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

Fair enough Stonehands, you are excused.




Since you have relationships in boxing, you should ask those who have sparred with Wlad in the gym. You’ll hear plenty of accolades on his speed, power and skill. And his stamina, and mobility. None of these things have to do with his size. As they say in boxing, the fighters know.




You could say a dominating champion who meets the best in their prime, and beats them all in a talent rich era is extremely rare. While this isn’t a talent rich era, Wlad will meet anyone, and dispatches the majority of them without any close calls on the score cards.

Accolades!

[Boxed Ears]

Originally Posted by amhlilhaus

not really. fans a hundred years from now will read about him, look up his fights and go ugh, his competition was almost all old, out of shape or not aggressive enough to test him.

I haven't seen that much wiggle room since watching midgets at a regular people's discotheque.

Originally Posted by the cobra

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...

Ahem:

Originally Posted by LittleRed

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

See.

[SuzieQ49]

Mendoza you and I are in agreement about Wlad. In fact, I think I rate Wladimir higher than you do. But when it comes to Vitali, we are in total disagreement. I rate Wlad above Vitali. I also strongly think Vitali absolutely needs to fight one legitimate top 5 contender before he retires. He cannot go out with a win over manuel charr. That would be less than appetizing.

[Rumsfeld]

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.

I consider him have been linear champ since his rematch win over Byrd. They were basically the two top guys when they faced off. Of course, Wlad was a stylistic nightmare for Chris, but who are you arguing was #1 and #2 at that time?

[Rumsfeld]

Originally Posted by McGrain

He's top 10 class for me. If he retires without another KO loss he's a lock. If he gets sparked again, it depends on when and how and by whom. He's not going to lose on points if he boxed to be 44 I don't think.

He's definitely right about that there.

I wonder how a heavyweight survey would look:
1. After his Retirement
2. 25 years after that

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by Rumsfeld

I consider him have been linear champ since his rematch win over Byrd. They were basically the two top guys when they faced off. Of course, Wlad was a stylistic nightmare for Chris, but who are you arguing was #1 and #2 at that time?

This is my stance. Chris Byrd was almost universally recognized as #1, no lower than #2, and Wlad, after Peter, #2, no lower then #3.

That's a pretty solid platform for establishing new lineage, honestly.

[Rumsfeld]

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

This is my stance. Chris Byrd was almost universally recognized as #1, no lower than #2, and Wlad, after Peter, #2, no lower then #3.

That's a pretty solid platform for establishing new lineage, honestly.

I just can't see who would be considered "consensus" #1 or #2 in place of either Wlad or Byrd at the time they fought.

Byrd was a great fighter, and he did well in fights against bigger guys like Golota and McCline - but the set of tools that Wlad best utilizes were like Kryptonite for Byrd. Wlad was simply all wrong for him. So in that sense, it didn't possess the normal anticipation a match-up between consensus #1 and #2 would normally warrant.

That said, they were still (at least to me) clearly the two best heavyweights out there at that time.

[Hands of Iron]

Wlad gets shafted a bit, I think. Especially in regards to this lineage dispute-- Byrd will suffice for me, and he's been the 'legitimate champion' since and almost inevitably going down as a Top 10 Heavyweight if he isn't right there already. That doesn't hurt one bit either, he's 100% class and credit to the sport.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIqgViSn3IA&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIqgViSn3IA&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by Rumsfeld

I just can't see who would be considered "consensus" #1 or #2 in place of either Wlad or Byrd at the time they fought.

Byrd was a great fighter, and he did well in fights against bigger guys like Golota and McCline - but the set of tools that Wlad best utilizes were like Kryptonite for Byrd. Wlad was simply all wrong for him. So in that sense, it didn't possess the normal anticipation a match-up between consensus #1 and #2 would normally warrant.

That said, they were still (at least to me) clearly the two best heavyweights out there at that time.

Only legit argument that I can see is that Lamon Brewster was the best heavyweight not named Chris Byrd, and was then beaten by Liakhovich.

You could only argue that Liakhovich should have been ranked higher then Wlad, imo. And even then, Wlad had the superior resume; I don't think you deserve to simply fill the rank of the guy you beat unless you have a resume that can close to match your vanquished foe. Sergei punched his ticket into the top 5 or 6 with his win over Brewster, but Wlad and Byrd were 1 and 2, I absolutely agree.

[Rumsfeld]

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

Only legit argument that I can see is that Lamon Brewster was the best heavyweight not named Chris Byrd, and was then beaten by Liakhovich.

You could only argue that Liakhovich should have been ranked higher then Wlad, imo. And even then, Wlad had the superior resume; I don't think you deserve to simply fill the rank of the guy you beat unless you have a resume that can close to match your vanquished foe. Sergei punched his ticket into the top 5 or 6 with his win over Brewster, but Wlad and Byrd were 1 and 2, I absolutely agree.

I kind of drew out a blueprint for the post Lewis unification lineage when I was trying to evaluate the alphabet titles as pertaining to the HW division a fcoupleyears back.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

--You got me on that contradictory notion. That's a good point. I would say that the recognized body is recognized so long as it is reasonable. Now that of course, carries a risk of being arbitrary. But there are other examples I could offer where The Ring (pre-Collins) failed to recognized the result of a 1 vs. 2 and instead recognized someone else and so were corrected.

The rise of the racketeers demand that we tighten up the criteria in the face of their chaos. And I fail to understand how or why some accept a fighter avoiding the #2 and still earning recognition.

But to heck with what I think about Wlad. Try this guy!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

--What a bold font of wisdom he is!

Good article.

I agree entirely with what you are saying about The Ring's decisions, held up to the standards they themselves professed. They copped-out.


But my own view, is that I now recognize Wladimir as the real champion, not through any particular single result or any belt he might hold, but by the fact that he has dominated for so long.
On the other hand, perhaps I under-rate his brother and closest rival.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

On the other hand, perhaps I under-rate his brother and closest rival.

Yeah, see, that's troubling. I agree that Wladimir is the world's premier HW and I disagree with Springs that he should be expected to fight Vitali, but it still troubles me that he has shared this period of "domination" with a fighter who is his near equal and may have even been better for a part of the reign. At the very least he's very, very clearly the next best HW of the era for much of the duration of Wlad's dominance. Whatever the reason, i don't really care for that.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

'Unify' what?!

Belts are title claims. Those claiming to be champions should fight each other to determine a champion who is unified and undisputed.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Yeah, see, that's troubling. I agree that Wladimir is the world's premier HW and I disagree with Springs that he should be expected to fight Vitali, but it still troubles me that he has shared this period of "domination" with a fighter who is his near equal and may have even been better for a part of the reign. At the very least he's very, very clearly the next best HW of the era for much of the duration of Wlad's dominance. Whatever the reason, i don't really care for that.

Its like dempsey-wills in that respect. Two guys head and shoulders above their peers.