Wladimir Klitschko is the longest reigning Heavyweight Champ - Not Joe Louis

Longevity was also easier with the artificial means of extending a prime during Wlad's era, for what its worth.

 

I could see an exception being made for brothers or other close family, though (assuming they don't both hate each other.)

I wouldn't expect the Baers to fight each other for the title in the unlikely event that they were unquestionably #1 and #2 at the same time.

Although I would expect whichever one gets the crown to beat everybody else.

 

Who cares? Byrd was #1 ranked when Wlad beat him and far better than Braddock coming off a 2 year layoff. Beating the #1 ranked guy when there is no Champion is the same as Lineal in my book and like I said he beat the better fighter. Besides although we will l never know Barddock's win over Bear could have been fixed. When you watch it that plausible. Baer for whatever reason looks like he tanked if he fit the wise guys clean up on the Braddock. Losing was a sport that had it's share of fixed fights back in the day.

 

That is OK, but you are changing the definitions somewhat.

Byrd was only a belt holder before Wlad beat him, and Wald was only a belt holder after he beat him.

 

Conditions matter. Which line champ wouldn't beat the Braddock coming off a two year layoff? Besides there was only one belt back then.

I rest on Byrd was a champion and the #1 rated bloke around. Besides if we are talking lineal to be technical Tunney took that title to the grave. After him there was no lineal title.

 

And how many fighters beat the number of top opponents Louis did, before getting a title shot?

 

I'm not saying to change the definition of lineal, that is what it is.

But I think in modern times using "not lineal" as a criticism deserves some context.

In this case we know Wlad isn't Bruce Seldon with a trinket, he was considered the #1 guy for most of his reign even if he wasn't lineal. We know that he went through a succession of three men whom RING ranked as #2 that absolutely would not face him, one being his brother, one being injured with other obligations (Oleg), and the other a man he already beat with other obligations (Peter).

Wlad and Louis' reigns absolutely can be compared as both were on top of the hill, regardless of technicalities. Dismissing Wlad's reign as inferior or incomparable based on that alone as I'm seeing just strikes me as lazy.

 

Good point.

 

Joe Louis had 25 defenses of the undisputed title and could have had more but for serving his country.

Wlad had six of at-the-time lightly regarded WBO belt, and another 17 in his unifying reign, but not all unified. I can't remember the details and and not even bothering to look it up. The point is...

Louis>>>>>>>>Wlad

 

People are mad as hell at how good Wlad's reign was. There would be an absolute shitstorm around here if he managed to become champ by beating someone as crappy as Braddock.

 

Well if Braddock had been the undisputed champion at the time, then he wouldn't exactly have had much choice.

 

And Wlad's reign starts with Byrd. Anything else is silly gymnastics.

 

I disagree.

If you are comparing him to lineals, then it starts when he becomes lineal.

 

And if you’re using the current definition of a heavyweight, you have to get rid of most of Louis’ title defenses.

 

I don't see why.

You can hardly measure them against a weight that had no meaning at the time.

The heavyweight weight class of Louis's day would not have excluded any of Wlad's challengers.