I was thinking about this the other day, its pretty impressive having 18 defences of the heavyweight title. Granted not all were whilst being lineal or undisputed but then if we play that game Larry Holmes a great fighter never unified the title and we have to take several off his lineal one aswell. J. Louis 25 defenses L. Holmes 20 defenses M. Ali 19 defenses W. Klitshcko 18 defenses The next one is L. Lewis on 14 defenses. Any thought> Can we call him a great fighter ? Or he is just good?
No we can't call him a great fighter. We can't even say he has a great legacy. His only fight with Haye and perhaps one or two others have been the only defences that were even remotely meaningful. Everything else has been awful, just bums who come for money. This era will surely go down as the worst in heavyweight boxing history.
You can only beat who's in your era, and he continues to do just that. He has ducked nobody, and faced almost everybody he could The only reason why he never faced Holyfield, is because the Kiltschko brothers look upto Evander Holyfield.
Wlad doesn't have 18 defences. He became champion when he beat Chagaev, so he has 6 defences. There's a huge difference between defending an alphabet title against guys like Jefferson, Sufford and Botha, and being the real champion. Joe Louis didn't have the luxury of multiple world titles to defend in anonymous fights. If he did, I'm sure he'd have had more than 25 defences.
Its not a strong era, but if you go throughout history say the 30s, well that was not a strong era, only the 1960s,70s and 90s were strong or had numerous top level fighters. So in the grand scheme of things 30 yrs out of 120 years isnt great.
But he does have 18 defences, if thats the game then surley Clazaghe numerous defences dont count or L. Holmes really only has 12 defences...or M. Tyson only has 2 defences or L. Lewis only has 5 defences>
true the WBO wasnt legit only since 05 has it really had a legit feel just after Lewis retired BUT AGAIN boxing is like this, IBF came into being and isntalled Holmes as champ surely it dosent mean he was with a real belt. As far as im concerned Holmes has 20 , Wlad 18, Ali 19, Tyson 10, Lewis 14, Burns i think had 14 too. For me Wladimir qualifies as a top 20 all time great heavy.
How do we gauge greatness, Patterson was involved in more titles fights but we know liston was better or greater>
Holmes was defending the Ring title and was the premiere heavyweight when he switched over to the IBF. That's a bit different. He still would've been every bit as much champion as Hopkins and Calzaghe were at light heavyweight because of that. Burns had eleven, I thought? I disagree. When you hold titles, you're under a microscope, on the big stage. There are people who want what you have and fighters and trainers are working to study you and defeat you. Holding onto the titles does mean something. It does put more weight onto fights and fighters. There's more at stake, clearly. And historically, regard for fighters tends to reflect that and hold it in high regard. Rightly so, I'd say. I certainly don't rate it as highly as beating great fighters. But, I do consider it when reflecting on what feats a fighter accomplishes. Not dropping the ball all this time while holding what other class athletes getting serious support are coveting is far from meaning little, in any era, for me.
he will break loius' record with the young crop coming through like... Fury Price Pulev Povetkin Helenius He could make some good defenses, we just have to wait to see if he fights them. Cant really see any one of them beating him. One of all time greats by the end of his career but dont think hell be considered right up there. Maybe top 10 by some people but deffo in the top 20 in my opinion. We have to just see how he ends his career. If he keeps winning then i can see him haveing another 6 to 8 fights.