Why isn't this fact getting any media attention? He will tie Joe Louis for the record at Heavyweight if he wins (I think he will win). I know it's over 2 different reigns and the first reign was 6 fights in WBO title fights... but damnit, it still counts. Ali had 22, Holmes had 21, this is significant and deserves some attention by mainstream media.
The # the media is focusing in on is the 19 consecutive title defences. It's on the Comcast info button for the event.
It doesn't count. I'm not even sure his 19 count. Louis was the champion. Undisputed. One and only. His defenses were of the true heavyweight title. Wlad held the WBO when it was a paper belt. He wasn't Ring champion until he beat Chagaev. As far as I'm concerned his title defenses should matter from that point on.
Stupid argument. Apples to oranges comparison. Wlad beat the #1 rated HW in 2006 and has beaten everyone since including unifying 3 of the 4 main belts. Why is the HW division the only one where people complain about this. Go look at how many "beltholders" have unified in boxing. It's very few. What is less than that is champions that have 3 of the 4 major belts. Do Hopkins' record 20 Middleweight title defenses not count since he wasn't "The Champion" since the 1st defense? Learn about the history of the sport before you mention stupid ****.
Its good no one asking you. Everyone count all of his defence. Cause he was World Champion, whater you like it or not.
How is it stupid? There were several fighters trading belts after Wladimir beat Byrd and he only fought Ibragimov. Briggs, Liakovich, Valuev, Maskaev, and later Vitali. These were the top guys around. Wlad fought few. How is this comparable to Louis defending against the best challengers available for the most part? He started beating everyone since Chagaev, and that's worthy of all respect...but to consider him the champion when he held 1 out of 4 titles...a stretch.
What's your point? He beat Iggy in '08 (less than 2 years when he became champ) who beat Briggs, who beat Liakovich. Then he beat Chagaev and Haye who both beat Valuev. And in the middle of that, he beat Peter who beat Maskaev. You act like he's defending against unworthy challengers when he is constantly fighting the mandatories or the best opposition that are willing to deal.
As far as i recall Lewis duck some guys and even 2 time was stripped from the title. Its not Klitschko fault that there is so much belts around. Your defences start to count when you become Champion. And Klitschko unify all but one of the belts. So he have 25 defences, if he beat Fury he will have 26 and will stand alone !!! You can cry as much as you want ...
I can accept 19, sure. The politics are messy and I don't want to get into a discussion about that. But he does NOT have 25 defenses. The WBO title was NOT a recognized belt when Wladimir held it. And he LOST in-between his 2 reigns...twice.
your comparison is invalid, the IBF title was fully recognised from the first day Hopkins won it. The WBO was still struggling for legitimacy through the 90s. Yet you double shoot yourself in the foot, by claiming the OP is the one who isn't learned of boxing history. this makes you doubley stupid.
Its a raw fact. However, its really 19. Larry Holmes also has 19 (the fight against Marvis Frazier wasn't an official title defense).
Pay attention to what he/she responded with. "He wasn't Ring chapion until he beat Chagaev. As far as I'm concerned his title defenses should matter from that point on." This has nothing to do with if the WBO was viewed as a legitimate organization or not. It has to do with Wlad beating the # 1 ranked HW and defending since then. Doubley? Learn how to spell moron.
