Can Wlad Break Louiss Record Of 25 Title Defences? Manny Steward says he can!!!

Don't believe I'm gonna be one of those Negative Nellies (or Nicks) :bart but "Who cares?"

Still, voted No

 

I don't think he'll have enough time to have 15 more defences.

His WBO defences don't count because Lewis was champ but I think it's only fair to count his defences since Byrd who was number 1 at the time. It would be unfair to compare lineal defences from Louis' time to now when it's there's no organization forcing a lineal title fight. He's had 11 defences.

 

If we want to be justifiably picky, all rival ABC beltholder title defenses occurring before World Champ Lennox retired are void with their cute counter claims of being "The Champ". Wlad unified in '09 against Chagaev, despite what crap the WBA pulled. So from that point on, as Ring, IBF, WBO, & rightful WBA champion, Wlad was surely The Man. I know he really should've fought Vitali to leave no doubts, but if their mum absolutely won't let them fight, we've got to respect that as a insurmountable barrier to them fighting. Basically then, it's basically impossible for Wlad to rack up 26 title defenses as The Champ. However, can Wlad compile a greatly respectable 26 defenses as a beltholder, with 14 of those being The Man? I would confidently say yes, provided he heeds Stewards' advice & defends three times a year from now until retirement, rather than once or twice a year. I would also hope he snaps up the WBC belt the moment Vitali retires, even if it means facing Stiverne, who is surely less pathetic a challenger than a 40 year old Shot Mormeck.

 

If you count Wlad's WBO defences, you might as well add Louis' 2 post-Savold wins, seeing as Savold held an equally spurious version of the world title at the time Louis beat him.

 

WBO is no worse than WBA these days... in fact it's less corrupt, & less crappy.

Besides, Savold was only the BBBC (British) Champion.

 

The WBO heavyweight belt took a while longer to gain respectability, due to its shitty lineage. It was clear who the man was when the title was established, and no fighter was able to make the belt mean anything of consequence. 3 fighters (Moorer, Bowe and Akinwande) voluntarily relinquished the belt, which shows how lightly regarded it was at the time. It was only after Lewis and then Vitali retired that a void was created, and essentially each belt was more or less on the same footing.

It isn't completely apples and apples, but Savold's claim was on the same level as most of the WBO champs of the 90s (ie a **** poor one). No-one took the BBBC stance seriously, but they may well have done if circumstances had been different and their champion had a serious claim.

The point wasn't to compare the WBO to the other bodies, but mainly to emphasise that it isn't a level playing field if you're comparing "title defences" to "championship defences". If you applied the same standards to the pre-alphabet era, the numbers for defences would be inflated for most champions.

 

Wlad became the number 1 heavy for everyone when he beat byrd, 11 defences is the most fair current situation, i dont think he beats louis record but there is no need to minimize his accomplishments.

 

Have to agree. It is much harder to be true lineal champ these days but too easy to be a titlist. Being number 1 is the best comparison so that is Wlad since Byrd.

 

I say yes, but not hell yes. there is along way to go yet. did not vote in poll