If Wladimir Klitschko goes undefeated for 2 more years..

Here is the big ****ing difference that the Klit dipshits forget.

Joe Louis was the undisputed MAN at the heavyweight division during his time.

He routinely beat the number one ranked guys, and an annual basis.

Wlad is not undisputed and hasn't fought the next best guy in the division since he became champion.

Comparing the two is laughable.


Keith

 

Keith you're wrong there buddy.

Wlad beat byrd to become number 1. Since vitali returned he's made it crystal clear he isn't challenging wlad's position at the top.

In recent times that's meant the top challenger has been peter, ibragimov, chagaev and haye all of whom were undefeated at the weight when wlad defeated them.

The top challenger to wlad now is currently povetkin and hopefully he'll take the fight with wlad eventually.

It isn't about lineal championships anymore because they are getting increasingly hard to define. It's about being the number 1.

For a comparable example, jones never beat the lineal champ at lhw, nor did he beat dm who was ranked in the top 2 alongside jones for about 6 years. However I wouldn't take it away from jones because despite never fighting the number 2, it was clear he was the number 1.

 

Good post. I pretty much agree with everything.

 

Lennox didnt have WBO title.

Its not counted because it wasnt major title, back when Wlad won it. More like IBO now days

 

First part I can understand but surely that second part should be factored to every other champion aswell.

 

Good post :thumbsup

 

it wont count for much to me. It isnt all input longest reigning, but moreso what level of competition he faced. the heavyweighy division is exceptionally poor goes without saying

 

David Haye has an exceptionally poor toe. Don't know about the rest.

 

It certainly should.

As well as that if a fighter deserves to lose but gets the decision I count the reign as over.

So, for example, ali gets his defences from liston to folley (all were ranked I believe) and then gets his defences from his second reign up until the norton rubber match which I believe he lost. So I don't count any result after then as a title defence.

I don't see the point in paper defences against meaningless opposition. Nor do I see the point in multiple people claiming to be defending a title at the same time. More than that i'm not a big believer in the sanctity of the lineal title in the post 80's era.

 

Holmes, Louis gathered a ****load of defences against poor competition aswell, no one seems to be bothered by that

 

:think..interesting...how high do you rate Holmes?

 

He's not even the clear #1.

 

I had him at 4 but i'm completely reevaluating so i'd have to come back to you on that.

I had him beating norton, spoon, spinks rematch and mccall but obviously losing to tyson and holyfield. So his 7 year reign is legitimate in my eyes.

However i've not looked into his resume in as much detail as i'd like so i'm not sure how many defences of his I include as legitimate defences.

 

Alien, he is.

Pretty much the whole boxing media ranks wlad as number 1.

He's unified 4 of the 5 belts plus he'd beaten the wbc champ before big brother did.

As well as that vitali himself says he doesn't dispute wlad's position as number 1.

 

edit..nevermind