Heavyweight champions successful defences – The numbers

Wlad beat Peter and Byrd who were the best in division..

 

...and the significance of these numbers is?

 

This is pretty much how I see it.

This list is basically pointless, the two records worth a grain of salt is the CONSECUTIVE wins (25 for Louis, not to mention the time) and undefeated (49 by Marciano) Larry Holmes was the only one to come close at both. Wlad might pass Larry but will not catch Louis

 

Marciano only had 7 or 8 world title fights, all wins of course seeing as he was undefeated....but I thought it was more than that really till I looked on his record.

 

patsch Read the post properly & then form a cogent response

 

That's completely different though, mate. Lennox was the universally recognized champion for years when and while Volo got the WBO title. Holmes however took up the IBF title after he'd been the universally recognized champion for years and simply switched from the WBC title to the IBF. He was defending the title, not just the IBF title. And he also was a huge part of legitimizing that title because of the fact that he was the recognized champion and threw his weight behind that organization.

 

Well vitali was number 1 after beating sanders so he gets 1 defence right?

Your comment about linear defences being the only ones that count is why I brought up the arguello/serrano and the briggs/lewis scenarios.

In the case of vitali, I agree with you. As a general statement about perception, I do not.

 

Ezzard Charles won the Vacant Title by beating Jersey Joe Walcott after Joe Louis retired. He then had 9 successful title defences, including a 'unification' fight with Louis himself.

 

I said that lineal defenses are more significant, not that non-linear defenses dont count. The number of defenses should be put in relative context.

Even when Vitali was #1 in the ring ratings the other champs (Byrd, Ruiz & Brewster) make that ranking far from clear or conclusive imo

 

That's where I disagree.

Foreman v briggs was nowhere near as historically significant as tyson v holyfield.

It's not conclusive, I agree. Neither was holmes, burns, johnson, tyson nor frazier.

It's better to be undisputed or universally recognised but I still count any defences were the guy is number 1 in the division.