Who was the last champion that participated in 20 title defenses, and had 50 knockout

I would have to say not.

If there had been alphabet titles in Joe Louis's day then fighters like Paulino Uzcdun, Bob Pastor, Lou Nova and Jimmy Bivins might have held them at one time or another.

This makes comparisons hard.

In fairness to Louis, we can only compare lineal title fights, and some people do not regard Wlad as the lineal champion even today.

In fairness to Wlad, we have to recognise that there was no single title in his era, for him to chase, and force a fight for.

The best that we could do for Wlad, would be to consider the period from his second win over Chris Byrd, to be analogous to Louis's title reign.

 

WBA/WBC ftw.

Boxing never needed the IBF, and still doesn't. The WBO takes it to another level.

 

Hide and Bentt were before Wlad's time as a champion. Since then the WBO has had champions like Bowe, Morrison, Mercer, and Byrd. Right now I would say the WBO belt is worth more than the WBA at heavyweight.

 

Janitor, if you want to be technical Gene Tunney took the lineal championship to his grave.

 

By that logic, you could argue that Jem Mace took it to his grave, and was the only lineal champion.

I do not regard any of the main four sanctioning bodies verry highly. I consider their titles to be of less historical significance than the coloured heavyweigh title that Sam Langford held.

 

I might think that some of them, placed outer side down on the table, would make a nice peanut bowl?

 

McGrain, We are talking about Wlad here.

 

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Aye. We need to be putting that first reign, with those title fights in context, considering the organization at the time. I DO count the WBO of now, as frankly it is far less ridiculous than the WBA and WBC, if you've been looking at the silver, diamond and emeritus hilarity of the WBC and the single worst horsebollocks of them all, the "regular" and "super" title splits of the WBA. Granted, they're all ridiculous, but sadly, the WBO and IBF are now not only as legit as, but more legit than the WBA and WBC, in my opinion. They're getting increasingly more absurd, over the past few years. Yes, so much more so that they've allowed the younger orgs to surpass their respectability, while still being bad in their own right. :? I don't however regard Wlad's first WBO run as a legit part of this discussion, even for statistics sake, because it wasn't regarded then, as a major belt, equal to the unholy trinity of the time. That said, I regard it as something, just not on par.

 

This completely.

The concept of linearity is too simplistic and requires no depth.

Just consider that from this fight wlad was considered the best heavyweight in the world and that's what being a champ is all about.

I believe it'll be number 12?

Wlad, in a way has had two careers. Pre steward and post steward.

First he was an aggressive heavyweight with poor stamina and chin but then he got with steward and became a calculated defensive boxer.

It's almost certain he was physically at his peak in an overlap between these two careers but it's undoubted that the steward version of wlad is the reason he's gonna go down as great.