Wladimir Klitschko's Resume

Previously undefeated fighters (10)

Chagaev 25-0 (Wlad was the first and only one to knock Chagaev down)
Ibragimov 22-0
Brock 29-0 (Wlad was the first to knock Brock down
Peter 24-0
Castillo 18-0
Shaheed 16-0
Vujecic 14-0
Pianeta 28-0 (Wlad was the first and only one to knock Pianeta down
Povetkin 26-0 (Wlad was the first and only one to knock Povetkin down)
Wach 27-0

Plus many who had only ever lost once (Thompson, Chambers, Bostice, Barrett, etc)


Former, future or current world champions: (11)

Byrd (2)
Peter
Chagaev
Ibragimov
Mercer
Brewster
Rahman
Povetkin
Mormeck
Haye


The best statistic on Wladimir Klitschko, though, is HOW MANY OPPONENTS HE'S KOed WHO WERE NEVER STOPPED BEFORE. I believe he's the best of the past 50 years in this category. There are so many:

Thompson (Wlad was the first to knock Thompson down)
Chambers (Wlad is the only one who has ever knocked Chambers down)
Bostice
Barrett
Shultz
Pianeta
Chagaev (Wlad is the only one who has ever knocked Chagaev down)
Shufford
Mercer
Vujecic
Brock
Castillo
Shaheed
Wolfgramme

and several others.

Some who are considered bums now, were highly regarded before Wlad beat them.

Axel Shultz had only close decision losses, and had never been knocked down in his fights against Moorer, Foreman, etc.

David Bostice was regarded as one of the top American heavyweight prospects at the time he fought Wladimir, and had never been stopped or even knocked down before. Wlad put him on the canvas twice in the first and twice in the second. Bostice openly wept in his corner after the fight, and was never the same fighter afterwards.

Paea Wolfgramme had an excellent amateur pedigree, and was physically bigger than Wlad at about 280 pounds. He had never previously been stopped or even knocked down, and had lost only one close decision. Wlad knocked him out in the first round.

Monte Barrett, who was highly regarded at the time, had never previously been stopped or even knocked down, but he went down five times in the fight with Wladimir.

The underrated Tony Thompson had never been stopped or even knocked down before he fought Wlad in 2008 (he had only one close decision loss in a four round fight).


And of course, Wladimir Klitschko won Olympic Gold in the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. :)

i considered them all bums before wlad fought them

Wlad will go down as 1 of the atg HWs once he retires. Sure, I find his style to be boring and only watched his matches once and never watch them again, but he's effective, very effective. He'll be missed as the dominant hw champion that he is once he retires. Imagine just how bad the HW division would be without him.

its a record!

Its as good as it can be pretty much and Im sure by the time he retires there wont be anyone missing on it that were willing to fight him.

Nice stats, but fact is they were all dog shit and his best wins are Chris Byrd and Sam Peter, which is pretty sad. He could be one of the greatest ever, but we'll never know because (no fault of Wlad's) this era is so so so bad!

Yea.... Wlad did have a good run. But his opponents were al tailor made, and many of them hyp-jobs or feather fisted HW's.

I respect the wins over Haye and Brewster, foremost- but he had to come back the second time for Brewster, Brewster being the liveliest fighter on this resume aside from Haye. He did slow Haye down to a snail's pace. Brewster the second time around was already showing damage and was shot....

But the other fighters were slight hype jobs, all but the exception of Povetkin who was a legit fighter- but clearly not ready as a professional for the Wlad fight.

Ibragimov was too small... Chagaev wasn't all that. Bostice? GTFOOH! Byrd? Fighting Chris Byrd was like Golovkin fighting Paulie Malinaggi at Middleweight... sooner or later, the shots would have told.

Thompson was a slug. Hard hitting and did have a killer instinct, but he was a tall slug. He couldn't land a punch on me.

The rest of those guys were all out hype jobs, or just didn't deserve to be in the ring with anyone with a pulse. Wlad has a pulse.

It's getting to the point where it's comical how far people will reach to discredit Wlad. They make themselves look bad. I wonder if they even realize it. There are legitimate negative points to make though.

This is a weak era, anyone denying that looks as foolish as Wlads detractors.

Records don't tell a complete story. Peter McNeely was 36-1 when he fought Iron Mike. Quality opponent, hell no, not even remotely close. McNeelys manager will tell you he had to protect Peter even on the local circuit level. Records can be made to be very fraudulent.

All that said Wlad has beaten those in front of him and some good fighters in dominant fashion along the way.

wlad will never be an all time great because of the way he fights


regardless of whether you think he fights within the rules or not and whether or not you believe he allowed to get away with the tactics he does due to the money he generates


a fighter will never be an all time great if he fights are so very dull every time


there are a list of champions who had such a dull style who were champions for years but will never be remembered or considered an all time great


Johnny nelson was world champ for 10 or so years, no one ever remembers his reign because of the way he fought


if he had have been on the front foot knocking people out every fight with the same record then he more than definitely would be remembered a lot more foundly


btw, it is an insult to Johnny to put his fights in the same dullness category as wlads

Everybody is undefeated these days. And if you are fighting in an era where David Bostice is considered- ever, at any point- a prospect, it does not say a lot for your era. I saw him in the gyms at a few different stages and he was never any good. Wlad has learned to fight a bit, though.

Wlad and Chagaev was a fight where both fighters should have been congratulated because it happened on short notice. Haye backed out of a fight vs Wlad and Valuev refused to fight Chagaev due to Ruslan's hepatitis (or the fact that Chagaev beat him once before, either way) and so both of those guys having put in full training camps decided to make the fight happen.


Chris Byrd is NOT a bad heavyweight and NOT a bad champion. Byrd put together some very good fights despite not having that much power. Sam Peter was ruined by Wladimir, I believe had Sam Peter not fought Wladimir he would have been champion for longer, that loss devastated his career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

wlad will never be an all time great because of the way he fights


regardless of whether you think he fights within the rules or not and whether or not you believe he allowed to get away with the tactics he does due to the money he generates


a fighter will never be an all time great if he fights are so very dull every time


there are a list of champions who had such a dull style who were champions for years but will never be remembered or considered an all time great


Johnny nelson was world champ for 10 or so years, no one ever remembers his reign because of the way he fought


if he had have been on the front foot knocking people out every fight with the same record then he more than definitely would be remembered a lot more foundly


btw, it is an insult to Johnny to put his fights in the same dullness category as wlads

---

You're wrong

Wlad has done all that has been asked from him after his last defeat. He is a good champion and he can not do any more except maybe entertain the fans and take a few more chances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

its a record!

---

I hear no sound coming out of it.

Either way it's an outstanding record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

wlad will never be an all time great because of the way he fights


regardless of whether you think he fights within the rules or not and whether or not you believe he allowed to get away with the tactics he does due to the money he generates


a fighter will never be an all time great if he fights are so very dull every time


there are a list of champions who had such a dull style who were champions for years but will never be remembered or considered an all time great


Johnny nelson was world champ for 10 or so years, no one ever remembers his reign because of the way he fought


if he had have been on the front foot knocking people out every fight with the same record then he more than definitely would be remembered a lot more foundly


btw, it is an insult to Johnny to put his fights in the same dullness category as wlads

---

Johnny Nelson was a fucking joke. The only name fighter he beat during his reign was Carl Thompson. And Thompson really was never even that good of a fighter. Without the judges gifts Nelson loses 3 of his last 4 fights.

He's done all he can do in a less than competetive era but its his longevity makes him an all time great for me. Staying at the top is a great accomplishment. Everyone knows his weakness is a chin, well no ones really managed to outbox him and land on it for about a decade now. Sure some of his voluntary defences have been poor but if he beats the latest crop of heavyweights (Wilder, Fury, Pulev) then I'll forgive him for it.

Listen Tyson's era was almost as weak as this one just a tad better and he ended up losing to fucking Buster Douglas. Bryde had a pretty good wins at hw and was champ for good amount of time. Wlad wins over Haye, Peter, Thompson and Chageave are legit i fell not best but better then some eras.

i agree that its not wlads fault that the division is so bad, but he proved that he wasnt that great before the division turned into the worst HW era in history. he wasnt dominant until the earlier generation of HWs retired or at least fell into obscurity. my question is how much did steward help him? honestly, wlad was pretty good before he got steward as a trainer but i believe that after he got him as a trainer, his level of opposition also went down. so im not sure how much of his success since then has been a new trainer and how much was the level of opposition which made him look good.

and also like i always say, anybody who brings up his style being boring needs to stop. that has no relevance on how good he is or will be. if he is good, his excitement doesnt matter. wlads tactics mainly work because his opposition is so bad. like ive mentioned in another thread, fighters usually allow their opponent to hold. just watch corrie sanders. when wlad tried to grab him sanders just pushed him and kept swinging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Swanson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

wlad will never be an all time great because of the way he fights


regardless of whether you think he fights within the rules or not and whether or not you believe he allowed to get away with the tactics he does due to the money he generates


a fighter will never be an all time great if he fights are so very dull every time


there are a list of champions who had such a dull style who were champions for years but will never be remembered or considered an all time great


Johnny nelson was world champ for 10 or so years, no one ever remembers his reign because of the way he fought


if he had have been on the front foot knocking people out every fight with the same record then he more than definitely would be remembered a lot more foundly


btw, it is an insult to Johnny to put his fights in the same dullness category as wlads

---

You're wrong

---

o right good


you pose a very solid argument


im not sure I have any kind of comeback to that detail

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

wlad will never be an all time great because of the way he fights


regardless of whether you think he fights within the rules or not and whether or not you believe he allowed to get away with the tactics he does due to the money he generates


a fighter will never be an all time great if he fights are so very dull every time


there are a list of champions who had such a dull style who were champions for years but will never be remembered or considered an all time great


Johnny nelson was world champ for 10 or so years, no one ever remembers his reign because of the way he fought


if he had have been on the front foot knocking people out every fight with the same record then he more than definitely would be remembered a lot more foundly


btw, it is an insult to Johnny to put his fights in the same dullness category as wlads

---

Johnny Nelson was a fucking joke. The only name fighter he beat during his reign was Carl Thompson. And Thompson really was never even that good of a fighter. Without the judges gifts Nelson loses 3 of his last 4 fights.

---

I completely agree


ive seen johnny nelson lose but get the verdict more than once


they were still wins tho, and he was still champion for 10 years or whatever


very similar to wlad, he should have been disqualified in 8 of his last 9 fights, they still go down as wins tho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

i agree that its not wlads fault that the division is so bad, but he proved that he wasnt that great before the division turned into the worst HW era in history. he wasnt dominant until the earlier generation of HWs retired or at least fell into obscurity. my question is how much did steward help him? honestly, wlad was pretty good before he got steward as a trainer but i believe that after he got him as a trainer, his level of opposition also went down. so im not sure how much of his success since then has been a new trainer and how much was the level of opposition which made him look good.

and also like i always say, anybody who brings up his style being boring needs to stop. that has no relevance on how good he is or will be. if he is good, his excitement doesnt matter. wlads tactics mainly work because his opposition is so bad. like ive mentioned in another thread, fighters usually allow their opponent to hold. just watch corrie sanders. when wlad tried to grab him sanders just pushed him and kept swinging.

---

After reading this it made me want to go back and watch the Wlad - Sanders fight. Ironically, the first time Sanders dropped Wlad, it was while Wlad was attempting to hold him. Haha I think Wlad may have improved his holding technique a bit since then though.


On a side note, it was sort of odd seing Wlad fight in that style/stance. He doesn't use that style anymore, but it was sort of fun to watch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

i agree that its not wlads fault that the division is so bad, but he proved that he wasnt that great before the division turned into the worst HW era in history. he wasnt dominant until the earlier generation of HWs retired or at least fell into obscurity. my question is how much did steward help him? honestly, wlad was pretty good before he got steward as a trainer but i believe that after he got him as a trainer, his level of opposition also went down. so im not sure how much of his success since then has been a new trainer and how much was the level of opposition which made him look good.

and also like i always say, anybody who brings up his style being boring needs to stop. that has no relevance on how good he is or will be. if he is good, his excitement doesnt matter. wlads tactics mainly work because his opposition is so bad. like ive mentioned in another thread, fighters usually allow their opponent to hold. just watch corrie sanders. when wlad tried to grab him sanders just pushed him and kept swinging.

---

wlads boring style has everything to do with his success


he is boring because he holds


holding is against the rules


I don't think there has ever been a champion of any weight that holds and breaks the rules even a fraction as much as the extreme amounts that wlad does

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=W7_yQy68cWI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninjaspy3

After reading this it made me want to go back and watch the Wlad - Sanders fight. Ironically, the first time Sanders dropped Wlad, it was while Wlad was attempting to hold him. Haha I think Wlad may have improved his holding technique a bit since then though.


On a side note, it was sort of odd seing Wlad fight in that style/stance. He doesn't use that style anymore, but it was sort of fun to watch.

---

Wladimir's style used to be nothing but offense look at his fight vs Ray Mercer, look at his fight vs Monte Barrett. He threw a TON of punches

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAKJx5jArVw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjqCw-wPE1k


There's no way he could have continued fighting in that style just because he was throwing pressure fighter amounts of punches

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninjaspy3

After reading this it made me want to go back and watch the Wlad - Sanders fight. Ironically, the first time Sanders dropped Wlad, it was while Wlad was attempting to hold him. Haha I think Wlad may have improved his holding technique a bit since then though.


On a side note, it was sort of odd seing Wlad fight in that style/stance. He doesn't use that style anymore, but it was sort of fun to watch.

---

Wladimir's style used to be nothing but offense look at his fight vs Ray Mercer, look at his fight vs Monte Barrett. He threw a TON of punches

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAKJx5jArVw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjqCw-wPE1k


There's no way he could have continued fighting in that style just because he was throwing pressure fighter amounts of punches

---

Mercer was old and slow and Barrett was a punching bag for all of his career.

Again, this is not Wlad's fault, but I ask the question is there one single name on his resume that the top 25 HWs of all time would not also have beaten? Really think about it objectively!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ykdadamaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninjaspy3

After reading this it made me want to go back and watch the Wlad - Sanders fight. Ironically, the first time Sanders dropped Wlad, it was while Wlad was attempting to hold him. Haha I think Wlad may have improved his holding technique a bit since then though.


On a side note, it was sort of odd seing Wlad fight in that style/stance. He doesn't use that style anymore, but it was sort of fun to watch.

---

Wladimir's style used to be nothing but offense look at his fight vs Ray Mercer, look at his fight vs Monte Barrett. He threw a TON of punches

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAKJx5jArVw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjqCw-wPE1k


There's no way he could have continued fighting in that style just because he was throwing pressure fighter amounts of punches

---

Mercer was old and slow and Barrett was a punching bag for all of his career.

---

YK I hope your post was followed by a self inflicted gunshot wound to the head because that is one of the DUMBEST things I've ever read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Again, this is not Wlad's fault, but I ask the question is there one single name on his resume that the top 25 HWs of all time would not also have beaten? Really think about it objectively!

---

Good post and wide ranging. I think guys like Jimmy Young and Ron Lyle would roll roughshod over any of Wlads opponents. But I also say the same thing against Louis's and Marcianos with the exceptions being say Charles, Walcott and a handful of others. I also think that guys like Wills, Mcvea and Jeanette that came around after the turn of the 20th but were frozen out could come forward and essentially do the same as Lyle and Young and perhaps even get further. I also think all 5 guys would have beaten anyone in Holmes era or Lennox's.

One thing that has seemed to have stayed the same since boxing was an infant through the change from 8 to 17 is the downright mediocrity of the heavyweight division. Truthfully when I said mediocrity, I was being generous. The glaring weakness of today's crop is the complete lack of elite's.
The competition level in the division has always been sad but there have at least been a few elites around that fell short or were a real threat as above average gate keepers. Still, I dont see this era being any weaker fundamentally then Marciano's time or Larry Holmes and is just a notch below Lennox Lewis. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there really isn't that many degrees of separation between Wlads run and just about any others since John L.

The hev division to me has always been a magicians trick since its opening in testosterone filled tents.
What made it the premiere division was the size of the fighters not pugilism. A classic early example of quantity verses quality and that odd behaviour carry's on to this day. Whats strange is that it was not effected by division expansion and mankind has been getting bigger faster for more then a century along with the population. One would think these contributing factors would provide the best competition in history by far.

Thing is i feel most guys today would beat the older guys from the 50's back pretty easy just on size. I mean hw has 70's and 90's that's about it nothing more or less the 80's were fucking bad. Most of the guys Tyson beat were even worse then ones Wald was beating he even lost to Buster fucking Douglas. I mean Louis fucking fought bar tenders and lhws and lost to a fucking old as Max past his prime because he could not dodge right hand. Bryde could hang with a lot of hw and defend his belt Haye a ass but had ablitiy to hang with 80's guys at least. Chelagve was undefeated champ and Thompson size would cause most people problems esply if were talking 60's and before then don't think it is that bad. Wald not beast ever but his resume i fell is underrated by alot people and few people then blow it up way to much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

i agree that its not wlads fault that the division is so bad, but he proved that he wasnt that great before the division turned into the worst HW era in history. he wasnt dominant until the earlier generation of HWs retired or at least fell into obscurity. my question is how much did steward help him? honestly, wlad was pretty good before he got steward as a trainer but i believe that after he got him as a trainer, his level of opposition also went down. so im not sure how much of his success since then has been a new trainer and how much was the level of opposition which made him look good.

and also like i always say, anybody who brings up his style being boring needs to stop. that has no relevance on how good he is or will be. if he is good, his excitement doesnt matter. wlads tactics mainly work because his opposition is so bad. like ive mentioned in another thread, fighters usually allow their opponent to hold. just watch corrie sanders. when wlad tried to grab him sanders just pushed him and kept swinging.

---

wlads boring style has everything to do with his success


he is boring because he holds


holding is against the rules


I don't think there has ever been a champion of any weight that holds and breaks the rules even a fraction as much as the extreme amounts that wlad does

---

wait what?!?! i thought that it was ward who cheated the most. get your stories straight! :p

Wlad was perhaps not in the best era of them all but at some point, it's not that much that the era was that crap, it's that Wlad was also that good compared to the others. He'll go down as one of the ATG and his place will be quite legitimate IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

i agree that its not wlads fault that the division is so bad, but he proved that he wasnt that great before the division turned into the worst HW era in history. he wasnt dominant until the earlier generation of HWs retired or at least fell into obscurity. my question is how much did steward help him? honestly, wlad was pretty good before he got steward as a trainer but i believe that after he got him as a trainer, his level of opposition also went down. so im not sure how much of his success since then has been a new trainer and how much was the level of opposition which made him look good.

and also like i always say, anybody who brings up his style being boring needs to stop. that has no relevance on how good he is or will be. if he is good, his excitement doesnt matter. wlads tactics mainly work because his opposition is so bad. like ive mentioned in another thread, fighters usually allow their opponent to hold. just watch corrie sanders. when wlad tried to grab him sanders just pushed him and kept swinging.

---

wlads boring style has everything to do with his success


he is boring because he holds


holding is against the rules


I don't think there has ever been a champion of any weight that holds and breaks the rules even a fraction as much as the extreme amounts that wlad does

---

wait what?!?! i thought that it was ward who cheated the most. get your stories straight! :p

---

I didn't say that


and no ward doesn't cheat the most


wlads cheating is horrendously extreme and blatant


ward fights within the rules, his holding is more grappling and spoiling, which you cant punish


hes never gonna make any big money fighting that way tho, despite how good he is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

Wlad was perhaps not in the best era of them all but at some point, it's not that much that the era was that crap, it's that Wlad was also that good compared to the others. He'll go down as one of the ATG and his place will be quite legitimate IMO.

---

this era is crap...no need to deny it.

Calling him an ATG is not legitimate on any level...I'm sure you know this.
He's fought in the weakest era EVER and still managed to get himself KTFO.

Joe Louis had a bum of the month TOUR.

Vlad had a bum of the month CAREER and still got blasted.

Wlad doesn't get the credit he deserves. He has been smashing everyone for the last 10 years or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Wlad doesn't get the credit he deserves. He has been smashing everyone for the last 10 years or so.

---

even if his reign was legitimate I think smashing is a bit kind

Getting knocked out by three different door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesmen before your 25th birthday seals the deal on a resume. It means you're a bum. The complete and total lack of interest on this bore's career illustrated by zero networks or PPV providers wasting their time to show his snooze fests validates that. :lickish:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gisco

getting knocked out by three different door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesmen before your 25th birthday seals the deal on a resume. It means you're a bum. The complete and total lack of interest on this bore's career illustrated by zero networks or ppv providers wasting their time to show his snooze fests validates that. :lickish:

---

LOL

Amen...!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gisco

Getting knocked out by three different door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesmen before your 25th birthday seals the deal on a resume. It means you're a bum. The complete and total lack of interest on this bore's career illustrated by zero networks or PPV providers wasting their time to show his snooze fests validates that. :lickish:

---

So you don't think it's impressive for a guy to lose early in his career, correct the problems in his style, and go on to become a dominant champion?

I mean fine if you don't I just am wondering if the guy was so easy to beat back then... you know.....why doesn't someone just up and beat him now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gisco

Getting knocked out by three different door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesmen before your 25th birthday seals the deal on a resume. It means you're a bum. The complete and total lack of interest on this bore's career illustrated by zero networks or PPV providers wasting their time to show his snooze fests validates that. :lickish:

---

So you don't think it's impressive for a guy to lose early in his career, correct the problems in his style, and go on to become a dominant champion?

I mean fine if you don't I just am wondering if the guy was so easy to beat back then... you know.....why doesn't someone just up and beat him now?

---

I don't think it's impressive for a guy to get his azz beat, and then go on to have his big brother beat up the big mean men who hurt him because he's too much of a p#ssy to do it himself.

I mean it's fine if you'd wish the other 7 billion people on the planet would go through that 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' procedure and have the memories of him being beaten like he stole something by three tomato cans erased from their memories as if it didn't happen, but unfortunately it DID happen. If I wanted to watch a guy named Klitschko fight I'd watch Vitaly.....you know......the one with balls :lickish:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gisco

I don't think it's impressive for a guy to get his azz beat, and then go on to have his big brother beat up the big mean men who hurt him because he's too much of a p#ssy to do it himself.

I mean it's fine if you'd wish the other 7 billion people on the planet would go through that 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' procedure and have the memories of him being beaten like he stole something by three tomato cans erased from their memories as if it didn't happen, but unfortunately it DID happen. If I wanted to watch a guy named Klitschko fight I'd watch Vitaly.....you know......the one with balls :lickish:

---

Joe Louis got hammered by Max Schmelling before he became The Greatest Heavyweight Champion of All-Time and once a guy like Mike Tyson got beat he never fully recovered, Evander Holyfield had a yo-yo career full of wins and losses, Lennox Lewis had a few hiccups in his career, why is it that Wladimir alone gets this much disdain? You bring up Vitali fighting Wlad's opponents well the opposite is true as well Vitali lost to Chris Byrd (albeit due to injury) and Wladimir beat the shit out of Chris Byrd. Wladimir also avenged his loss to Lamon Brewster.

Point being is I think to be so harsh on a fighter's career is disingenuous, but suit yourself his 10 years of being top dog in the division is nothing to sneeze at