How Harmful Will Wladimir Klitschko's Unavenged...

WOWW You don't say. You are clearly in a different league than the rest of us on the forum.

UNBELIEVABLE!!! what fine institution did you go to study your college work? Im sure it was the finest.

All 4 bodies of what? the Fat Golfers Tour?

O I forgot, we are talking to Boxinginsider.com here. Yes anything you say sir is bull**** must be bull**** I mean after all you got paid to meet a man with 6 bullets in his head. I mean your the one who owns your own magazine and publishes yearly world ratings that the general public read right? Ring Magazine must be a joke compared to the Magazine you and your company runs.

Can I have your autograph? its an honor to be talking to such a prestige figure in the boxing world like yourself.

This content is protected

Im sure every fighter and Champion in the gym trained to look just like this guy. What a Role Model.

 

Thanks Brockton.

A thought came to me that maybe the WBA, WBC and IBF gave Sanders the boot from their rankings once he signed for the WBO fight with Klitschko, so I went back and looked at a few more issues like Feb 2003, Nov 2002, and even back to May 2002, but Sanders name once again doesn't show up in any of The Ring's monthly rankings from those issues, nor is he listed in any of the three main alphabet rankings from those months either.

 

Ya, Simply put he was never a Ring Magazine rated contender. He had one shot to prove himself in 2000, but he was knocked out by Hasim Rahman. He went into the wlad fight unrated and considered a big underdog.

 

Why is Ezzard Charles on this list?--fighters he avenged losses to include Jimmy Bivins, Lloyd Marshall, Elmer Ray, Rex Layne, and John Holman. Most ringside writers thought Charles deserved his fourth bout with Walcott which would have avenged the 1951 ko loss as well.

Charles did very well avenging losses until he really began to slip. He couldn't avenge his loss to Valdes because Valdes refused a rematch, even though the winner would get Marciano.

Jersey Joe Walcott also avenged losses to Allen, Ray, Maxim, and Charles that I can think of off the top of my head.

Seriously, you often make negative comments about Charles and Walcott that are not factually accurate.

 

I have been plowing through old boxing mags also checking the ratings and found a World Boxing which includes ratings for Feb, 2003. They don't rate Sanders themselves, nor does he appear in the top 12 of the WBA or IBF ratings, or in the top 30 of the WBC ratings.

My take would be that he was at best a fringe contender who popped into the ratings here and there but couldn't sustain holding a high position, hence never appearing in the yearly Ring rankings.

 

At the end of the day great fighters somtimes have ugly losses early in their career and then go on to strut their stuff.

As far as I am concerned Wlads winning streak started when he beat up Peter and is ongoing.

If he keeps it up I am prepared to dismiss his early losses as teething troubles.

Nobody criticises Max Schmeling for not avenging his loss to Gypsie Daniels.

 

Sanders is a Buster Mathis Sr figure, would have been excellent if he could have got himself into shape

 

I am not saying that at all. But I attended his fights, talked to his promoters and guys who wanted to promote him. That's all.

I'm just saying I was "on the scene" in the '90's and you weren't. I don't know anyone from those days anymore. I am not pretending to be some great insider, but I was inside enough to know about this particular era.

University of Washington International Studies, if you must know. Masters degree at Ohio State in the same.

No, all four legit ranking bodies at the time.

It's all garbage as far the rags were concerned a decade ago. It was their final death spasm. Now, the internet runs the show in boxing media. But Farhood's Ring in the 90's was one of the worst sources, especially for ranking non-US fighters. Alex Zolkin better than Sanders?

Yes. Paypal me $50.

I think you are taking me too seriously. All I'm saying is that I was around the scene in those days. It is or was surprisingly easy to get the lay of the land from promoters, trainers and fighters. I know what the estimation of Sanders was amongst those guys, pretty ****ing high.

Keep up the good work.

 

How young are you people? He was on the cover of Ring Magazine in 93/94! He was ranked throughout the 1990's, not after the Tubbs loss but certainly after the wins over Cole and Czyz.

 

Are you questioning the age of the FOGEY?

 

Maybe his memory. Sanders was a much hotter commodity in the early-mid nineties than in the 2000's/pre-Klitch fight.

 

After checking the two years you gave and every other year throughout the 90's, I'm sorry, I don't see him;

http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine_Covers:_1993

 

I think that's the biggest negative that I can think of concerning Wlad. It's very bad when a fighter does not try to avenge a loss, especially a ko defeat. All the greats like Carlos Monzon, Lennox Lewis and, early in his career, Joe Louis. Joe, after winning the title from Braddock, said he wouldn't feel like a champion until he got revenge over Schmeling. That's what a great champion is all about. As highly as I regard Wlad, and I think he's the cream of the crop today, I really think that it was a mistake, legacy-wise not to have avenged the Sanders defeat. Who knows, maybe Sanders would have ko'd him again, but the right thing would have been to fight Sanders again.

 

OLD FOGEY, the comments were amined at SuzieQ. But Wlad really did not have a good chance to re-match Purrity. Purrity turned him down. Sanders was not rated high enough and had injury issues after he lost to Vitlai, which is a reason why Wlad never re-matched him.

In the end, Wlad only has 2 un-avenged losses. Anyone I posted on the list has more. This includes Charles and Walcott. That was my point. If un-avenged losses are part ot a rating mix, then Wlad is going to do well on that part of the equation.

 

Let's just say I am old. When exactly was he ranked and how high? I said fringe contender because he never sustained a ranking long enough to make the Ring's yearly rankings. If he was a top contender, he should have.

I am not maintaining he was never ranked. I found an old magazine which listed the alphabet rankings, and the IBF, I believe, ranked him #8 contender in 1995.