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

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by lufcrazy, Oct 11, 2015.


Page 4 of 13
  1. Pugilist_Spec

    Pugilist_Spec Hands Of Stone Full Member

    4,937
    787
    Aug 17, 2015
    Byrd was shot when Wladimir beat him the second time around. He looked pretty bad against Williamson the fight before. If beating a guy like that is enough to be considered the undisputed champion...
     
    Pugilist_Spec, Oct 14, 2015
    Pugilist_Spec, Oct 14, 2015
    #46
  2. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,636
    16,329
    Jul 19, 2004
    Byrd didn't look spectacular in his bouts with Golota or McCline, either, but he was still universally viewed as one of the very best (and probably the best) in the division at that time following Vitali's retirement.

    Wlad's win over Peter + Vitali's retirement + Wlad's win over Byrd = Wlad becoming the clear #1 as I saw things at the time

    :smoke
     
    Rumsfeld, Oct 14, 2015
    Rumsfeld, Oct 14, 2015
    #47
  3. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,178
    Sep 15, 2009
    That's how Holmes did it against Ali tbf
     
    lufcrazy, Oct 14, 2015
    lufcrazy, Oct 14, 2015
    #48
  4. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,692
    9,898
    Jun 9, 2010
    True - but Ali was the recognised lineal champ; whereas Byrd was nowhere near to being considered such.
     
    Man_Machine, Oct 14, 2015
    Man_Machine, Oct 14, 2015
    #49
  5. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,636
    16,329
    Jul 19, 2004
    A strong case can be made that Byrd was the #1 or at worst #2 guy following Vitali's retirement. I believed that Byrd and Wlad were the two best when they rematched, given everything else that was going on in the landscape at that time (Vitali retiring, Brewster losing to Liakhovich who would go on to lose to Briggs, Wlad beating Peter, etc).
     
    Rumsfeld, Oct 14, 2015
    Rumsfeld, Oct 14, 2015
    #50
  6. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,692
    9,898
    Jun 9, 2010
    I'd agree that a case can be made, based on your points above.

    As to how strong that case is, given how far away Byrd was from being the lineal champ (despite being ranked number 2), is what makes it debatable. Add to this Vitali's return to the Ring and it does somewhat cloud the matter.

    In any event - what we can be sure of is Wlad's longevity; which has, if not back in 2006, eventually some time down the line led to him being considered the unquestionable HW champ.
     
    Man_Machine, Oct 14, 2015
    Man_Machine, Oct 14, 2015
    #51
  7. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,636
    16,329
    Jul 19, 2004
    I can live with that. :thumbsup

    As I recall thinking at the time, Vitali was the clear #1 post-Lewis. Byrd had re-emerged in his own right following earlier career losses to Wlad and Ike. While Vitali was having a series of bouts scheduled against Rahman that never happened - at that time, I thought Byrd was a pretty clear #2, and I'm pretty sure the majority view saw things the same way.

    So when Vitali officially retired late 2005, I had Byrd as #1. His wins weren't always spectacular, but he had a pretty nice run that included wins against Holy, Tua, McCline, an ugly debatable one with Oquendo, and a somewhat controversial draw with Golota.

    Wlad, meanwhile, had lost in 2003 and again in 2004. Prior to those, Wlad was widely regarded as the #2 guy (when Lennox and him were doing Ocean 11, or around then).

    So based on the losses, I can see not having Wlad #2. But with Vitali retired, and Wlad overcoming adversity to decisively beat Sam Peter - who was himself held in extremely high regard at the time - I think Wlad made a case for himself as #2 - with Brewster losing, Liakhovich subsequently losing, Vitali MIA for approximately 3 years following his official retirement, Sanders being out of the picture, and other guys who had a case largely being unproven.
     
    Rumsfeld, Oct 14, 2015
    Rumsfeld, Oct 14, 2015
    #52
  8. Nonito Smoak

    Nonito Smoak Ioka>Lomo, sorry my dudes Full Member

    53,088
    6,686
    Sep 8, 2010
    Any and every possible criteria was met in the Povetkin fight to crown a lineal champion.

    I used to say Chagaev all the time but I'm starting to think not. I love Wladimir but it doesn't matter if #2 was his brother, he never fought #2 until the Povetkin fight and a lineal champion cannot be crowned without that.
     
    Nonito Smoak, Oct 14, 2015
    Nonito Smoak, Oct 14, 2015
    #53
  9. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,636
    16,329
    Jul 19, 2004
    Who did you have as #1 and #2 in the first quarter of 2006?
     
    Rumsfeld, Oct 14, 2015
    Rumsfeld, Oct 14, 2015
    #54
  10. Nonito Smoak

    Nonito Smoak Ioka>Lomo, sorry my dudes Full Member

    53,088
    6,686
    Sep 8, 2010
    Not Wladimir Klitschko.

    He was on an awful stretch in the 3 years prior to the 2006 match you are referencing. No way was he ranked #2.
     
    Nonito Smoak, Oct 14, 2015
    Nonito Smoak, Oct 14, 2015
    #55
  11. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,636
    16,329
    Jul 19, 2004
    Again I ask, who did you have at #1 and #2?

    :smoke
     
    Rumsfeld, Oct 14, 2015
    Rumsfeld, Oct 14, 2015
    #56
  12. Nonito Smoak

    Nonito Smoak Ioka>Lomo, sorry my dudes Full Member

    53,088
    6,686
    Sep 8, 2010
    At the end of 2005, so December 31st, The Ring HW rankings were:

    C. VACANT
    1. Byrd
    2. Rahman
    3. Toney
    4. Brewster
    5. Ruiz
    6. Barrett
    7. Brock
    8. Wladimir Klitschko
    9. Peter
    10. Valuev
     
    Nonito Smoak, Oct 14, 2015
    Nonito Smoak, Oct 14, 2015
    #57
  13. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,692
    9,898
    Jun 9, 2010

    Indeed, if one goes by The Ring Ratings - Wlad would hold the number 1 spot by the end of 2006 (supplanting Byrd), having been placed at Number 8 in the top-ten, the year prior. From there, it's perhaps worth noting that he then bypassed Maskaev (#2); Peter (#3); Briggs (#4) and Lyakhovich (#5) to rematch Brewster (#6) in 2007. In 2008, Wlad would overlook Peter (#2) again; Maskaev (#3) again; Chagaev (#4) and Valuev (#5) to offer the recent entrant into the top-ten, Ibragimov (#6) a unification bout.

    Vitali had returned and was Number 2 by the end of 2008, having supplanted Peter. Chagaev was placed at Number 3. Despite all this, Wladimir was made Ring Champ in 2009 on the strength of beating Chagaev. Does this hold as legitimate? Possibly but I don't think so.

    Only at the point he fought Povetkin is this clarified once and for all, in my view. But, it's just one view.
     
    Man_Machine, Oct 14, 2015
    Man_Machine, Oct 14, 2015
    #58
  14. Baba Duke

    Baba Duke Guest

    The lineal title died with Marciano
    I know, I was there
     
    Baba Duke, Oct 14, 2015
    Baba Duke, Oct 14, 2015
    #59
  15. cuchulain

    cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

    37,047
    12,000
    Jan 6, 2007
    That's entirely a matter of opinion.

    The # 1 ranking is subjective as is the # 2 ranking.

    There is no linear champion when the linear champ retires without being defeated.

    What you have is a whole new line being established.

    There are different and conflicting views as to how such a line can be established, and even if everybody agrees on the 'how,' they still have to agree on the 'who' (the rankings).

    So, there is no correct answer.

    Most agree that Floyd established a legitimate lineage after Marciano, and that Holmes established a legit lineage after Ali.

    (Though, did he establish it by 'beating' Norton or by beating the Parkinsonian Ali ?)

    Anything other than the man-who-beat-the-man calculation is by necessity, subjective.
     
    cuchulain, Oct 14, 2015
    cuchulain, Oct 14, 2015
    #60
Page 4 of 13