Wladimir Klitschko is now the 2nd longest reigning Heavyweight Champion of all time and has the 3rd most consecutive title defenses at 14.
Longest reigning heavyweight champions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Printable View
Wladimir Klitschko is now the 2nd longest reigning Heavyweight Champion of all time and has the 3rd most consecutive title defenses at 14.
Longest reigning heavyweight champions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well well well how about that
He has got to win THE title first!;)
And if we are talking 'alphabet crap', well I have had a claim since July 1988...;D
I think number of title defenses is more impressive than actual length... Larry still has 6 over Wlad!
Quantity vs quality.
Thats what it comes down too.
Some think this is the weakest era in heavyweight history.
Some think that this era is just as good and wlad is as good as it gets.
As much as i dont think Wlad is better than larry, i really believe if Wlad was american there would be a huge difference in the way he was viewed.
Wlad is dominating this era and you just cant blame him for that.
Theres no more lennox lewis.
We just got to deal with what we have and perhaps fury and wilder might surprise us all.
Have to agree with this. Wlad is great, and you can't expect the guy to fight his brother, but he was never clearly the best heavyweight in his time. Let alone the lineal undisputed champion, which he never became as you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Thats the thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pkingHave to agree with this. Wlad is great, and you can't expect the guy to fight his brother, but he was never clearly the best heavyweight in his time. Let alone the lineal undisputed champion, which he never became as you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
The fact there brothers we dont know who the top dog actually is.
it's quality over quantity but in Wlad's case, he can only beat the best that are available to him in this era and dude has been consistently doing the job for years now. He needs to be commended.
Hopkins' reign at 160 wasnt much different but people give him shitload of credit for what he accomplished..
Wlad deserves praise for consistency.
He sure does, but the fact remains he has never fought by far his biggest threat, and never actually won the lineal title in the ring, which Vitali did. As I say, of course you can't expect them to have fought. It's just what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita
Wladimir Klitschko has been The Man for so long now, ya can't knock him anymore.
Over a thousand licensed pro heavyweights from around the world, international open competition, and the brass ring at the top is 12 million dollars or more per fight. And the thousand cruiserweights too with many of them with aspirations of going up to Heavyweight.
Wladimir has turned them all back.
Plus he came back from the greatest of adversities, and was not psychologically destroyed by losing. In fact, he became a better fighter and dominant Champion for it.
I would love to see wlad vs wilder.
Fighters dont usually like fighting their ex sparring partners.
Wilder has many things to learn but an aggressive hard hitting tall fighter is something Wlad would rather avoid especially as theres so many other easy pay cheques he picks up in his country.
If deontay improves, hopefully the pressure will and it happens before end of 2014 as wilder has a great chance.
Deontay Wilder needs to fight a few live opponents first.Quote:
Originally Posted by imp
Wladimir would be ridiculed by his haters if he fought Wilder now.
After watching lennox school wilder on basic jabs, I'm convinced that he won't be ready to take on Wlad for awhile.
As freedom mentioned, wilder needs to mix it up with some live bodies before taking on the best of the division.
Unless he wants to turn out like Jeff Lacy.
I agree.
Thats why i mentioned he needs to improve and hopefully within the next two years he gets a shot.
Even though he might not be there yet i would rather see a wild dangerous wilder for 3 rounds than another jean marc mormeck or tony thompson 3.
Wlad is the top dog and it is ridiculous to say he is not the best just because he does not fight his brother. That fight should not happen anyway that would be sick.
Like others have pointed out, until hes undisputed he is no where near.
Who has had the most successfull undisputed title defences? That would be more truthfull. To be able to hold on to the titles and defend them is a major feat given the schedule youd have to fight to sort your mandatories etc.
In fact, Holmes never held more than one title even though they were all abailable to him, so he shouldnt be credited with his reign either. Fighting only one organisations ranked fighters isnt the same as having to fight everyone to hold on to your titles. The first time he fought for all 3 was when he was knocked out by Tyson.
Any day now.......
Larry will go on record saying that Wladimir Klitschko couldn't carry his jock.
Then he'll go on to say the Klitschko's only get all the attention because they're white.
Gotta give credit where credit is due.
Wlad is now easily within the top 7 and arguably top 5 all time.
Wlad has never even been undisputed and until he beats his brother or his brother retires, he cant be regarded as the undisputed best of this era.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonBomb
It would be better for Wlads career if Vitali just retired and let Fury, Pulev, Haye etc fight for the vacant title and then try and win that title. That would be the cherry on top for his career.
As it is, he's just been one of the belt holders, he's never been the only belt holder.
Mike Tyson gets shit but he managed to unify all the titles and keep them together for 6 successfull defences, he lost them in the 7th.
Absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
The thing is, vitali might have more fights left in him and might not want to retire just yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossWlad has never even been undisputed and until he beats his brother or his brother retires, he cant be regarded as the undisputed best of this era.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonBomb
It would be better for Wlads career if Vitali just retired and let Fury, Pulev, Haye etc fight for the vacant title and then try and win that title. That would be the cherry on top for his career.
As it is, he's just been one of the belt holders, he's never been the only belt holder.
Mike Tyson gets shit but he managed to unify all the titles and keep them together for 6 successfull defences, he lost them in the 7th.
When was Holmes ever undisputed?Quote:
Originally Posted by rossWlad has never even been undisputed and until he beats his brother or his brother retires, he cant be regarded as the undisputed best of this era.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonBomb
It would be better for Wlads career if Vitali just retired and let Fury, Pulev, Haye etc fight for the vacant title and then try and win that title. That would be the cherry on top for his career.
As it is, he's just been one of the belt holders, he's never been the only belt holder.
Mike Tyson gets shit but he managed to unify all the titles and keep them together for 6 successfull defences, he lost them in the 7th.
They aren't going to fight and I agree that Vitali should just retire ... then Wlad would get a chance to become undisputed.
This is what iv just been saying.....Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonBombWhen was Holmes ever undisputed?Quote:
Originally Posted by rossWlad has never even been undisputed and until he beats his brother or his brother retires, he cant be regarded as the undisputed best of this era.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonBomb
It would be better for Wlads career if Vitali just retired and let Fury, Pulev, Haye etc fight for the vacant title and then try and win that title. That would be the cherry on top for his career.
As it is, he's just been one of the belt holders, he's never been the only belt holder.
Mike Tyson gets shit but he managed to unify all the titles and keep them together for 6 successfull defences, he lost them in the 7th.
They aren't going to fight and I agree that Vitali should just retire ... then Wlad would get a chance to become undisputed.
Holmes hasnt been the undisputed best. Tyson is the only fighter to have to have as many as 6 successfull defences of all the belts since Ali.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
To be 'Undisputed' by definition you need to be unchallenged. To the best of my knowledge, NO fighter has been 'Undisputed' Champion.
What Holmes was, what Tyson was, what Douglas, Holyfield, Bowe et al were, are 'Generally recognized' World Champions.
When Holmes beat Ali, with his W over Weaver to back it up, The Black Cloud became the 'Generally recognized' Champ, a Lineage was formed, and when Tyson beat Spinks, he won the mantle. Tyson also had the WBA, WBC and IBF belts at the time, but even then the WBO were making money selling their trinket to the likes of Damiani...
Bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidQuote:
Originally Posted by ross
To be 'Undisputed' by definition you need to be unchallenged. To the best of my knowledge, NO fighter has been 'Undisputed' Champion.
What Holmes was, what Tyson was, what Douglas, Holyfield, Bowe et al were, are 'Generally recognized' World Champions.
When Holmes beat Ali, with his W over Weaver to back it up, The Black Cloud became the 'Generally recognized' Champ, a Lineage was formed, and when Tyson beat Spinks, he won the mantle. Tyson also had the WBA, WBC and IBF belts at the time, but even then the WBO were making money selling their trinket to the likes of Damiani...
We all know how hard it is for a fighter to keep just one title nowadays because of mandatories being forced. Imagine having the 3 main belts and managing to fullfill all your obligations to be able to hold on to the titles and make 6 defences of all 3 titles. This is why people will always say "we need another Mike Tyson" you want hear people begging for another Holmes...
The lineage means nothing when the lineal holder was beaten in 91 seconds. Holding on to something after winning it is just as impressive as the win. Look at Douglas, he was a flash in the pan for 1 fight where the opponent was infamously not training. Beating 6 random, vague fighters because they are in one sancioning bodies rankings is nothing compared to having to clear out a division while holding all 3 major belts
Agreed...Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
Now Holmes after beating Ali made 12 defences before losing. Tyson made how many after beating Spinks before losing to that "flash in the pan"?
I wonder if he will overtake Louis
Holmes only held one title, there was 2 others available to him;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidAgreed...Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
Now Holmes after beating Ali made 12 defences before losing. Tyson made how many after beating Spinks before losing to that "flash in the pan"?
He dropped the WBC to fight for the new IBF but even then he still had 3 titles to fight for. He also could have won the WBA but he didnt. Mike made the effort to clean it all up. He could probably gone on another few wins had he picked and chosen easy mandatories like Holmes did rather than clean up the division and leave it with one champion with no arguments.
He cant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tam Seddon
Whos better Vitali or Wlad?
No one knows, they wont fight each other. Ntil Vitali fucks off and Wlad can win all 3 titles, hes not proper unified and his defences are as worthless as Holmes.
There was more than two titles available to Holmes, what about the WAA crown?Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
You say Tyson 'made the effort' to clean up the division, but I see no WBO or WAA crown on his resume. And why was that? Because the titles were pointless to him, as after beating Spinks, most knew he was Champ. Same with Holmes, once Ali was beaten most knew he was Champ, there was no point fighting for more alphabet rubbish.
So this brings us back to how many succcesful defences both made; Holmes made 12; Tyson 2...
But still, that is two more than Wlad!
No, fuck off! Those other titles are worthless compared to the main 3 and you know that. If you are going on singular title defences, Mike successfully defended 3 titles 6 times, so thats 18 defences and fuck you everyone else;DQuote:
Originally Posted by BritkidThere was more than two titles available to Holmes, what about the WAA crown?Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
You say Tyson 'made the effort' to clean up the division, but I see no WBO or WAA crown on his resume. And why was that? Because the titles were pointless to him, as after beating Spinks, most knew he was Champ. Same with Holmes, once Ali was beaten most knew he was Champ, there was no point fighting for more alphabet rubbish.
So this brings us back to how many succcesful defences both made; Holmes made 12; Tyson 2...
Alphabet crap is alphabet crap to me. Dog crap; cat crap, WBC crap, WAA crap; it might all look a bit different, but it is still stinks like crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
;)Quote:
If you are going on singular title defences, Mike successfully defended 3 titles 6 times, so thats 18 defences and fuck you everyone else;D
I know, if only Louis, Marciano, Dempsey et al had Senor Suliman, Mendoza and Lee's blessings, they would of been so much more respected!:p
The problem is now that there are so many sanctioning bodies the only way to be ragarded as the best is to win and defend them all. When you have the 3 main most respected titles and can defend it you have to be reagrded as the most respected and top fighter in that division. How respected can you be when you fight people with 7 or 8 losses just because that one organisation has them in their rankings, when you could be wiping out 3 organisations ranked fighters and the general top 10 in the world...Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidAlphabet crap is alphabet crap to me. Dog crap; cat crap, WBC crap, WAA crap; it might all look a bit different, but it is still stinks like crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
;)Quote:
If you are going on singular title defences, Mike successfully defended 3 titles 6 times, so thats 18 defences and fuck you everyone else;D
I know, if only Louis, Marciano, Dempsey et al had Senor Suliman, Mendoza and Lee's blessings, they would of been so much more respected!:p
You are giving too much credit to the WBA, WBC and IBF. You know, they have shown time and again, they do not deserve your respect or time. Treat them with contempt, and be sceptical of any populist thing they do, as they will screw you otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
You have been around this sport long enough to know this. Whenever alphabet titles are spoken of, always bring out your cynicism.
The belts dont mean alot in the grand scheme of things no but when you have the only 3 that matter, to hold on to them you have to fight EVERYONE that means anything in the division.
This is why I believe that Vitali hasnt retired because the brothers realise that if Wlad alone had all the titles there are fighters that Vitali has faced that Wlad may struggle with and he would not keep up the schedule of defences for long.
The one thing that cannot be denied about Mike Tyson is he cleaned the division up and was willing and able to hold on to all the titles until King ruined him as a fighter.
I think we'll see Vitali retire soon, and then we'll see an undisputed heavyweight champion. What I don't really understand is why that will make Wladimir more impressive if only to add another credential to his already deep CV. Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
If you look at the active heavyweights, Wladimir should face Povetkin and Pulev (assuming he beats Thompson). I guess I wouldn't be mad at a fight with Solis either, if he could string together some solid wins.
Also Tyson Fury should he beat David Haye.Quote:
Originally Posted by RantcatratI think we'll see Vitali retire soon, and then we'll see an undisputed heavyweight champion. What I don't really understand is why that will make Wladimir more impressive if only to add another credential to his already deep CV. Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
If you look at the active heavyweights, Wladimir should face Povetkin and Pulev (assuming he beats Thompson). I guess I wouldn't be mad at a fight with Solis either, if he could string together some solid wins.
"The only 3 that matter"....why only 3? Why not 15 why not just 1? Face it ross Wlad is THE MAN of the division end of story.Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
Vitali has 1 fight left and he will retire...who that Vitali has recently fought do you think would have been trouble for Wlad?
FOR FUCKS SAKE ENOUGH ABOUT TYSON
Just think if they werent brothers.
Who do you think would win?
We all know the answer..
I think Chisora would have troubled Wlad. He's not used to someone being in his face. He needs that distance to be effective. He certainly didn't want to fight Sam Peter again to win the WBC title. Thtas probably the only reason Vitali came back.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong"The only 3 that matter"....why only 3? Why not 15 why not just 1? Face it ross Wlad is THE MAN of the division end of story.Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
Vitali has 1 fight left and he will retire...who that Vitali has recently fought do you think would have been trouble for Wlad?
FOR FUCKS SAKE ENOUGH ABOUT TYSON
You dont like that Tyson held the titles together and defended them as much as he did because no one else has been capable including the Klitschkos.
If Vitali retired now, there is no way Wlad would hold on to all three titles for 6 fights.