For how long do you consider Wlad to have been the true HW champ?

So are you saying the criteria for a Heavyweight to prove his worth is by beating former Light Heavies, or Cruisers?

Spinks L/ Heavy
Holy Cruiser
Haye Cruiser

That is a pretty pi ss poor way of becoming " established " in my book.

 

I think he got universal recognition when he beat chagaev in 2009.. I believe this to be reasonable. But I think he could have just as easily been granted lineage as early as 2007.. Lewis and Vitali were both long gone by that point. Wlad had avenged his most recent loss to Lamon Brewster. He had most of the belts, had beaten a good portion of the top guys and with no one around really contesting him.

 

This confirms you are about 12 or 80..either a little boy or scenile old man with what I suspect most on here...which is it?

 

What I DONT find amazing is the lack of boxing knowledge on here on Wlad,its a common and daily problem around here...ever heard of Don King? that's the guy who had Stiverne who would not fight Wlad after Wlads Brotherer retired...so you are blaming Wlad in short for not fighting ducks?



On that note you may also want to check resumes on what brother fought the better fighters and when MANY belts constituded who was the champ and who had more belts as long as Wlad had them . :good

 

You're missing his point.

For Tyson, Spinks was the man who had beaten the man (Holmes) and thus, when Tyson beat Spinks, he beat the man who had beaten Holmes, who had beaten Ali who had beaten Leon, who had beaten Ali who had beaten Big George etc....

Same with Lennox and Holy.

His point is about linearity, for whatever that counts.

 

Wlad has been the true champ ever since the first win over Byrd,...and despite his brotherly toleration of Vitali's presence in that title sharing thing that they did.

 

You could make a case for any of those three scenarios and you wouldn't be wrong (nor right) in any of the three cases.

It's pretty arbitrary, and depends , like so much else, on what criteria you use.


(Let me digress. When a man kills another man, and is sent up for trial, it can take years for a trial and verdict to be reached. And when, say two years later, he's found guilty and sentenced, he's officially a convicted killer.

But the historical record notes that he was a killer from the moment he killed. It just became official when he was convicted two years later. )



Wlad was ranked #6 or #7 when he beat Byrd (ranked #1).

The purists would argue that since Byrd was not facing the number two guy, then no new lineage was being established.


But in beating Byrd, who was # 1, Wlad showed himself superior to the ranked #1 (Byrd) and so, retroactively if you like, we had the two best fighters facing off. Wlad won, so there is as good a place as any to mark the beginning of his reign.



The only complicating factor here is the return of his big brother. Since they were brothers, they should never have had to face each other, but this leaves us with the unsatisfactory situation in that we don't know which one would have prevailed.

If we go by quality of competition, Wlad has the better claim.

At any rate, from 2006 till now, Wlad has been either the best or at worst, second best HW in the game.

If he was the best, his reign is 9.5 years.

If Vitali was better, no one can prove it , and it still leaves Wlad's reign at 9.5 years with an asterisk beside it in the record books.

And of course, cases can be made for other starting points to his reign.

 

According to his sweeping generalisation Holmes isn't even pi ss poor, he's a level below that

 

Option #4, when he beat Ibragimov. Two belts plus everyone saying he's #1 is enough.

I would say option #1.

 

It can't be #1.. That is the fanboi option.

The title was vacant at the time and would be for the next few years.

The only time Wlad defended against the #1 in the world was against Povetkin.

 

hes only been undisputed since Vits retired really.

povetkin wasn't important, that chubby boy wasn't beating no one or winning a title.

 

One of the few times I agree with you. Sure Byrd in 2006 was regarded as the best of the title holders but he hadn't really proved he was the best. When Wlad beat Byrd for the IBF belt, Valuev had the WBA belt, Rahman was WBC champion and Liakhovich was the WBO champion.

Byrd was simply deemed the best of a bunch of title holders because he was more consistent. Though some will argue he should have lost to Fres Oquendo and the best opponent he faced as IBF champion, Andrew Golota, he drew with, hardly the resume of a clear number one. But it was still better than Ruiz who had lost to RJJ and then Valuev and still better than Rahman who beat Barrett for a vacant title and then had a NC with Toney in a fight he was losing.

Beating Byrd still stands as one of Wlad's best wins but that win alone didn't make him the true heavyweight champion. The true title for heavyweight champion was vacant as nobody had clearly made a case for being the best, Byrd was simply the most consistent of a weak bunch.

 

aye beating former LHW byrd is def one of waldos best wins, possibly his best.


thoug it would be one of the worst wins of guys like lewis etc.

 

Lewis was still the true champion at the time of Wladimir's first win over Byrd and would remain such for another three years.. In addition, Klit's defeats to Sanders in 2003 and Brewster in 2004 put a stint on his claim to lineage... It wasn't until 2009 that he gained universal recognition as being " the one champ" though an argument could potentially be made for his sealing that claim as early as 2007.

 

Don't be silly.

Since then, he lost to Sanders and Brewster.

A case can be made for "since the second win over Byrd" but not the first.