Wladimir Klitschko to beat Joe Louis Record?

Well hes nearly there anyway.

Im sure Chambers used to be hot dog salesman

 

yes but truth accounts for something

- Calzaghe nearly matched Marciano, but No _ucken Comparison!!!

 

Vitali Klitchsko?

 

:tong

 

I think you are over observing things. ElizabethII lineage comes from GeorgeI in 1714, yet lineage wise, GeorgeI was way, way down the list (at least 50 people in front of him) yet ElizabethII is Queen of England.

Jeffries, Tunney and Marciano calling it a day was not an issue per se. General consensus led to new Champions, but sadly since Lewis' retirement, there has been no clarity, the division is in a state of flux and unlikely to have a new champion anytime soon...

But maybe one day, like when Cromwell's reign was struck out, or more relevantly, the Ali/Frazier thing from 67 to 71 was sorted, we can rewrite lineage. But I see no reason at the moment for that to happen.

 

In defense of Vitali, nobody's been better than either Klitschko brother for the past 5 years. Wlad and Vitali are always in very good shape and they have good skills for big men. Both have amateur kick-boxing backgrounds, so it's not like they don't have foot work.

There's a reason why Joe Louis' reign was known as the "Bum of the month" club, but he once said Ali would have been one of those bums and few disagreed with him at one time. Also forgotten is the fact that Joe was the undisputed heavyweight champion. Universally recognized and respected by other atheletes in other sports.
If Vitali lasts long enough to break the 25 title defence record it still won't be considered as a great achievement with Joe Louis' 25.

 

jokes aside this is a reasonable argument:good

however the issue of general consensus is a little vague and hard to define. who and how many constitute that? most people acknowledge wlad as the champ, at least the majority do with a small minority considering vitali to be the best

if we're going by general consensus, we can go with the ring belt which is STILL the most valid one

the ali/frazier analogy works though and unlike johnson/jeffries, when ali came out of exile there were legitimate questions as to who the champ was

wlad was the #1 man but when vitali returned, there were questions as to who the champ was. however, by this point the majority acknowledge wlad to be the man

 

Yes and no.

Vitaly's presence alone complicates matters more so than any other champion in history.

Frazier and Ali both had legit claims to the title and they were ultimately solved.
Tyson and Spinks' legit claims to the tile were also solved.
Lewis and Holyfield's legit claims to the title were solved.

Wlad and Vitaly in this instance; not solved. While I understand they are brothers and therefore this kind of resolution isn't likely; minus the blood connection this fight would have happened back in 2008. Do we hold it against him? I've managed to give him a pass and say that minus Vitaly he has taken on the division's best (despite the lack of talent) and has been successful in the process.

So again if he does manage to reach it I would give him alot of credit but I would have to put an asterisk next to it.

 

People are missing two key points here.

1) wlad has been the highest ranked heavyweight for 6 years running.

2)vitali does not dispute wlad's claim to the throne at all.

It's not really debatable; wlad is the man.

 

I hope not.

 

-What truth?

-If Calzaghe in fact matched Marciano, it would have still been impressive. Something only one other fighter in history managed to do. And if we are going theoretical, it depends on the three names. If say he beat Froch, Dawson, and Hopkins II in his last three fights...you would have a decent comparision I think.

 

First, it's undeniable that Wladimir Klitschko has been then man for approx. 6 years. Only Louis, Ali, Dempsey and Jack Johnson had longer reigns at heavyweight. However, Dempsey did nothing between the 1923-1926 three-year period. (Wlad's longevity can be compared to Jeffries', Holmes' and Lewis'.)

How much relevance do you give to that fact? It depends on your criteria. But I think dominance is the most important factor after quality wins and, also, loses.

Can Klitschko beat the Joe Louis record? Can he get to 26 title defenses? He would need to beat Mormeck and then, since the start of 2012, defend the title FIFTEEN MORE TIMES. In six years, Wlad has done 11 title defenses. Following that pace, he would have to fight approximately until 2018 to complete 26 title defenses.

Can Wladimir win all his fights until 2018? You have to be delusional to think he will be able to do so.

I think Wlad has a couple more years to capitalize. Maybe 3 or 4 more title defenses, after Mormeck. In the best case, he will retire after being 7 years on top, with 14 title defenses. More or less like Marvin Hagler. Not bad. But won't break Joe Louis' record.

 

He won't break the record due to time.

I think he'll crack ten years at the top and retire age 40 probably with with 20 defences of the championship.

This should see him become a consensus top 5 hw.

Everyone worth beating has been defeated by him in terms of top 5 opponents and belt holders. The only man missing is his brother who repeatedly backs up wlad's claim to the throne by refusing to challenge him.

I believe the only danger to wlad's reign is vitali. Over the last couple of years the opposition level is fast levelling up and if vitali begins defeating better opponents than his brother then people will acknowledge a usurpation of lineage (much like bowe and tyson in 95 and 96)

As it stands right now, however, there's no reasonable argument against wlad being top dog.

Anyone mentioning that 1 v 2 bollocks can just look up robinsons's reign at ww.

 

Byrd wasn't number 1, I don't care what Rign Magazine say, I saw him get beat by Oquendo and Golota

That's the problem really 'when do you consider Wlad being champion from'??? Beating Byrd? Unification with Chageav/Ibragimov? Ask yourself what put Byrd above Ruiz or Toney or Brewster exactly?

It's all semantics really as he has proved he was the best in his own time - bar his brother which you can't hold against him. You can to a degree hold the Sanders loss and lack of a rematch against his legacy though, which his brother took care of

He won't be consensus, that would mean everyone would agree he's top 5

He didn't beat Lennox, Tyson, Holyfield, Sanders, Ruiz, Valuev, Maskeev or Toney who were certainly worth beating during his time

 

I saw byrd beat oquendo and draw with golota. I saw ruiz lose his rubber match to holy and lose to jones, toney and golota... So I class wlad as number 1 since beating byrd.

Well if he's still champ up until 2016 I think he will be consensus, most certainly.

Sanders loss I class wlad as pre prime. The brewster loss holds against him and he avenged it.