If Wladimir Klitschko goes undefeated for 2 more years..

It may not make a difference for you, but the majority of people seriously consider longevity when they rate fighters. BHOP didn't beat any great fighter with Pavlik or Pascal, but are you honestly going to say that didn't matter? Every year you can hang at the top is another boost for your legacy.

 

atsch Shut up.

If he manages to break Joe Louis record it would be great! But he would have to start fighting 3 times a year, like he used to. I see him being 2nd and surpassing Larry Holmes for sure though. To beat Joe Louis' time he would need 6 more years, so he would have to fight until he's 42.

 

This content is protected

 

I wan't Wlad from now on fight's 3 times a year in the next 4 years. That would make him have 29 defenses.

 

Why not? If he breaks Louis' record (difficult, but possible) he will be on that level.

 

The downside of it is that wlads legacy is on the line with every fight, lets say some guy gets lucky in a few years and stops him. He will get 0 credit for all the things he has done up to that point.

 

yeah, sucks for wlad

 

Not really, if some guy beats him in a few years, so what? He's turning 36 this year, sooner or later he'll start slowing down. Holmes lost to a LHW twice when he was past his prime, Ali, Tyson both had embarrassing losses, etc. It means nothing.

 

atsch A few years ago the lads here were complaining that VLAD wasnt dominant enough . Now that he"s become in all liklyhood the most dominant champ in history its claimed the competition is bad ? They claim his chin is weak but wont give him credit for having a great defence ? They claim he doesn"t puch that haed dispite his awsome ko percentage ? Apparently he fights like a robot but barly loses a round ? Fact is guys this isnt a weak devision at all . The KLITS are simply that good . like it or not . :hi: PS For the record VLAD totally dominates a class of oponent that gave guys like ALI and HOLMs and FORMAN and FRAZIER ect fits . He also has somthing none of those guys had . that being extreme power and domianat size and boxing skill . A man with options in the ring not seen before .:bbb

 

Nice troll buddy, you almost had me there.

 

They didnt come from so far behind like wlad did, if he loses people will easily discredit him and link it to his previous losses.

 

atsch Those are facts bud . You on the other hand are a conformist thats convinced of any bull**** that the media spews dispite the facts .:deal

 

That will just show how biased and stupid people are, nothing more. Tyson was considered shot at 35. Same with Holmes. Holyfield was considered past his prime when he fought Lewis by many people (not that I agree with them, though) and he was 36, and in the Ruiz fights he was considered past his prime by practicallly everyone, and he was 38 in the one he lost.

If people tell me Wlad is still in his prime when he's 39-40 I'll just tell them to f*ck off.

 

Just look at Vitali to see how long Wlad could stay competitive. Even if Wlad lost 10-15% of his athleticism he'd still dominate his current opposition. It all depends on Wlad's heart and desire. If he has the fire, will and determination to stay at the top for the next couple years he can do it. It's his choice.

 

I'm not too high on longevity either but there's no doubt Wlad's stock will rise in the eyes of general boxing public if he continues his domination.