resume by age 30 - AJ, Pov, Wilder, Fury

you may do, but peter was a 6 round fighter who struggled to stay on his feet past 8. No way should he have had a shot at a title in any other era.

It was a weak win, and not significant in the title world -that remains the truth.

 

wlad NEVER had the easy ride?? he had the frekin WBO unrecognised title for ages. That was a MUCH easier ride than going about unification.

You have it the wrong way round, look -
- AJ got his shot in his mid20s sure,
- so did Parker,
- WIlder did just before turning 30
- Lennox too
- Fury also
Were they all gifted these shots?
no - the issue is with wlad progressing as a boxer very late, not everyone else getting it early.

Wlad also had the international belt around the same time of prgression as AJ but wlad elected to remain at that level, defending it for ages. "Int" belts were for contenders to move up, not for people to stick at defending.

I can of course understand that Wlad might not want to go anywhere near elite men like holyfield and lewis who held the other titles in that period, if thats what you mean. unless it was in a movie.

 

true absolutely. I could have put holyfield in, but I wanted to keep it contemporary, and only include Lewis as a "benchmark". He shouldtn really be there, this is about fighters recently.

You are spot on though, cheers.

 

he beat arreola whom many feel is a better one of Klitto's defences. He wasnt terrible unless Klitschkos defneces were largely appaling. HOw do you want to call it - terrible Klitschko resume or Stiv wasnt that bad?

It goes without saying that I am definitely not saying its a good or great win, just significant in title terms. Noone can say its not.

 

no he wouldnt, it would be a 50/50 fight until Peter gassed and gets clubbed out. Sams best win is Oleg, for goodness sake.

u need to stop apotheosizing a 6 round fighter.

 

its a pretty impressive rise to power given the relative shortcomings of his resume for a unified champ. That said he now has the best resume of the champs/former champs.

 

yeh though i am not sure you can have wlad above wilder and fury when both wilder and fury were/are actual world champions, whereas wlad was yet to fight for a recognised world title at 30 so he was way behind wilder (single title) and fury (unified champ).

Moreover wlad was picking up serial losses to nobodies, whereas wilder and fury were at least beating the nobodies they fought.


thank for the input.

 

not sure i agree with that.... he has the monte barretts and axel schulz as his best after byrd. thats equivalent to furys cunningham and del boy, but fury has older wlad too. its clear that furys is better. not to mention a trio of titles as topping, compared to wlads zilch.

even wilder has his champ, ex-champ and del boy type, more than wlad in other words at 30.

 

i think you forget that wlad was a paper champion during that time, albeit with an unrecognised title.