Langford v Wlad?

hawd oon, you've taken that too far.

"Wlad is a good fighter, a solid champ, and he has beaten some decent fighters"

perfect:yep

 

Here's the truth. Outside if his brother who McGrain somehow thinks should count, who are the best five heavyweights for Wlad to fight from 2006 to present?


Ante up naysayers, and Mcgrain I hope you reply. I'll go first. They are Chagaev, Povetkin, And Haye. I would say Ibragimov also belongs. Wlad has beaten four of them, and will have a clean sweep if Povetkin makes it into the ring with him. Four of these matches are title unification fights!!!

Hence he has cleaned out the best five in the division outside of his best friend and brother who should not count.

 

The division has been so weak the last ten years, especially a few years ago, around 2006-2009 ... that it's almost meaningless to talk about the status #1 and #2 meeting in the division.
Rankings are subjective and much of the time in these recent years there's been nothing much to distinguish #2 from #5 or #6.
Seriously, people are saying Wlad would have been real champion IF ONLY he'd faced Maskaev in 2007 or beaten Sam Peter (a fighter he has beat twice) in 2008, or whatever.
I don't buy into it. It's making a fetish out of rankings, like their holy scripture or something.
But that's just my opinion.

 

Interesting .point.

In stronger eras there tend to be two or three contenders who are standouts, while in weaker eras the top seven can be almost interchangeable.

 

Exactly, that's the point I was trying to make but in so many more words.

Again a great observation. Wlad beat superior versions of Peter than the 2008 version who had grown fat, lazy, and inactive while waiting for Oleg. Yet if you follow the rankings strictly, Vitali's 2008 win over Peter is better because he was ranked technically higher than he was in 2006 or 2010. Rankings are a guide but not an exact science.