Langford v Wlad?

Correct

While Wlad did not get a chance to fight Valuev ( WBA champ who wanted to keep his bet by avoiding the Klitschko's ) Chagaev did, and beat Valuev.

While Wlad did not get a chance to fight Dimitrenko, Chambers did.

Of course Wlad beat both Chambers and Chagaev via TKO, so missing Valuev or Dimitrenko does not mean much.

Pulev might get a shot at Wlad in the next two years.

PS: Good luck trying to talk sense into McGrain. If Wlad were Irish or UK based, I bet his bigotry on this topic would be reversed.

 

I think a more important question would be who can we agree "cleaned out a division?"

Based off some of the standards being applied to Wlad, I'm struggling to make a case for any Champion. Even 73-77 Ali, who was climbing in the ring with just about everyone still missed top 5 regulars, Bobick and Holmes.

 

Mcgrain....Arreola? Really? Wlad missed out on that fat pretender? Arreola never earned a top 10 ranking in his life without the help of politics. He never beat anyone of note. He lost to Adamek and got schooled by Stiverne. He has never ever proven himself to be world class.

 

Yes he has. Chris Byrd # 1 rated in 2006.

 

Mcvey,

Wlad has fought mostly Ring Magazine top 10 guys, a lot of top 5 guys too.

 

I would argue Holmes and Dokes were far closer to a two headed monster during their little reign, as they were both sharing the top contenders.

In this case we have Wlad facing all the top guys while Vitali has mostly beat up mandatories that are below or barely on the radar.

He makes a strong case, as does Povetkin.


It is no way extreme. Wlad, for reasons that are fair, has never met a #1 contender.

Can you really not see the meaning this carries, regardless of the circumstances? He has never met the best heavyweight in the world aside from himself - it is hugely significant.[/quote]

As long as he fights all the guys that have been ranked directly below the brother it has been made clear time and time again he will not fight: Povetkin, Haye, Chageav, and Chambers.

In this case, over 4 years. And I don't think its fair, Charles wasn't recognized but that's another argument.

And I maintain Adamek is the only guy Vitali fought, Wlad could have used.

 

-He was but he at least fought Marco Huck, Vitali declined the offer but hasn't found another opponent in over a year . He also beat Chageav, Chambers, and Byrd. Those wins stack up pretty well against Peter, Arreola, and Adamek. Povetkin also went on a 2 year bum tour with Atlas, but Vitali's mandatories haven't been much better. The gap isn't as huge as we would like to think.

-Well, he has to beat them too.

-If the supposed second best fighter of his generation is his brother who has vowed to never fight him. Yes. Vitali is not a potential challenger to Wlad, you either accept that or you don't. If Vitali vanished does all the men below him suddenly become more meaningful? This is technicalities, a numbers game, nothing more.

 

I disagree regarding lineage and fighting unretired champions. Holmes beating Ali cemented his championship but he did not need to fight Ali to have his championship. His victories over Norton and Shavers were enough to show he was the most deserving of all contenders to be called the next champion in a world of multiple titles and corrupt boxing commissions.

 

-I think it would need to be huge to be obvious. But either way, it is clear that Vitali does not have the same distance between himself and the other contenders as Wlad, not even close.

-No, I like my wording better.

-Of course If Wlad actively refused to defend his title against a ranked Povetkin, it would be a huge black eye on any claim.