Wilder's legacy compared to Wlad's

[thunderking500]

how do you rate his title reign compared to Wlad's.. is his legacy at the moment on the same level as Wlad's?

[margaret thatcher]

Wlad has way more depth to his accomplishments and overall a much stronger level of opposition defeated. If you put together their 10 best defeated opponents at the time they fought them, Wlad might have 8 or 9 of them, including multiple unifications. Though lately some people have had a fetish with completely ignoring level of opposition and only going for quantity, though Wlad has more there as well with something like 25 to 11.

A knock on Wlad is the losses he took (the nature of them and that they kept happening), though he stabilized during his final run and that run was stronger than Wilder's title run. Wlad will have a stronger legacy at this point and he seems much more favourably regarded by media and fans (it's funny to say that about fans considering that Wlad was despised by many, but a lot of people seem to really hate Wilder). Head to head, Wilder beats him though


Wilder 'notable' wins:

Ort x 2
Stiv
Breazeale
Duhaupas
Washington
Szpilka
Scott
Molina
Arreola

Wlad

Byrd x2
Haye
Povetkin
Peter
Pulev
Chagaev
Thompson x2
Chambers
Jennings
Brock
Ibragimov
McCline
Etc....guys like Ray Austin, Jefferson, Barrett, Shufford would make it on to Wilder's list, but you get the point

[margaret thatcher]

Now, if you meant Vitali, then easily Wilder > Vitali

[Enlightened-One]

What's there to discuss? Wlad's resume is vastly superior than Wilders'. It's not even remotely close.

[margaret thatcher]

Ya agree there, if you are going to go the Wilder > Wlad route (or even Wilder = Wlad) it can't be on accomplishment and career, you gotta go the head to head and bring back Wlad getting starched or punching himself out (though that didn't so much happen later)

Now as for Vitali lol...

[Enlightened-One]

Wladimir's resume:

• Competed in 29 world title fights, winning 25 of them
• Captured the WBA Super, IBF, WBO, IBO & Ring world titles
• A two-time world heavyweight champion
• Has competed against fourteen unbeaten fighters, with nine of them being world title opposition
• Assuming the Ukraine and Germany are classed as his “home” countries, eighteen of his bouts have taken place on foreign soil, including countries such as: USA, Russia, Switzerland, Hungary, United Kingdom, Austria etc.
• 83% of his victories have come by way of knockout
• He is the longest-reigning heavyweight champion of all-time
• Has faced sixteen current/former world champion
• He is the 1996 super-heavyweight Olympic gold medallist
• Has overcome adversity multiple times throughout his career and also learned from his defeats to become a vastly improved fighter
• Lost only six of the 140 amateur bouts he competed in

Vitali's resume:

• Over the course of thirteen years, Vitali Klitschko engaged in seventeen world title fights, facing nine former world champions, despite being inactive for a four-year period during that timeframe.

• ‘Dr. Ironfist’ is a three-time world heavyweight champion and was rated amongst The RING’s top-ten heavyweight annual rankings nine times between the years 1999 to 2012. The only reason for him not being rated for four of those years was due to his temporary retirement.

• Vitali managed to reclaim his WBC world heavyweight title back from The RING’s second-highest ranked heavyweight fighter, Samuel Peter, without even bothering with a warm-up fight, despite being inactive for four years beforehand, due to retirement.

• Over the course of his 15½ year career in the pro ranks, Vitali scored 41 knockouts in the 47 bouts he competed in, with 91% of his victories coming by way of KO, the highest percentage of any former world heavyweight champion.

• His only losses were due to having suffered injuries. And he was even leading on all three official judges’ scorecards at the time both fights were stopped.

• Only Wladimir Klitschko, Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes have achieved more victories whilst competing in world heavyweight title fights.

• Won 195 of 210 amateur bouts.

What has Wilder achieved to trump both of those resumes? Is everything Deontay has ever accomplished in the pro ranks solely reliant on his wins over Luis Ortiz?

[margaret thatcher]

Wladimir's resume:

• Assuming the Ukraine and Germany are classed as his “home” countries, eighteen of his bouts have taken place on foreign soil, including countries such as: USA, Russia, Switzerland, Hungary, United Kingdom, Austria etc.

Those Americans are a bunch of home staying pansy arse bums , and they have the audacity to moan about foriegn fighters fighting at home when they actually do it more than anyone

jk jk jk

[Enlightened-One]

Wladimir's resume:

• Assuming the Ukraine and Germany are classed as his “home” countries, eighteen of his bouts have taken place on foreign soil, including countries such as: USA, Russia, Switzerland, Hungary, United Kingdom, Austria etc.

Those Americans are a bunch of home staying pansy arse bums , and they have the audacity to moan about foriegn fighters fighting at home

jk jk jk

It matters though, doesn't it?

Wilder has rejected multiple career-high paydays to avoid travelling overseas. The prime version of Roy Jones Jr. wouldn't do it either. Floyd Mayweather Jr. never did it. And Andre Ward rejected a career-high payday for the Carl Froch rematch.

There HAS to be a valid reason why those fighters were so reluctant to travel, that's why I praise road warriors for their willingness to compete in their opponents' own backyards.

[margaret thatcher]

Ya, not saying it's irrelevant. I was half joking, but half serious. There is a lot of irony among US and also sometimes UK fans with criticizing guys for fighting at home, yet not saying a word about their own guys doing that over and over. That's an interesting thing about Wlad---he was really a globe trotter that you rarely see these days for a draw that big. He could do 50k in Europe or up to around 20k in USA

[Ruthless-RKO]

Wlad would have no issue beating the boxers on Wilder's resume during his reign. He may have had small issues with Ortiz, that's all.

Wilder would have had some issues with some of Wlad's opponents at the time he fought them.. Obviously, he could probably end any of them quick with his power.

[Onamastus]

He is the longest-reigning heavyweight champion of all-time.

Joe Louis is the longest reigning heavyweight champion, not Wladimir Klitschko.

[Ruthless-RKO]

He is the longest-reigning heavyweight champion of all-time.

Joe Louis is the longest reigning heavyweight champion, not Wladimir Klitschko.

Combined it's Wlad. Individual it's Louis.

[Onamastus]

Joe Louis is the longest reigning heavyweight champion, not Wladimir Klitschko.

Combined it's Wlad. Individual it's Louis.

Lennox Lewis was the undisputed and lineal heavyweight champion when Wladimir was the WBO champion, so no, it isn't.

[Enlightened-One]

Combined it's Wlad. Individual it's Louis.

Lennox Lewis was the undisputed and lineal heavyweight champion when Wladimir was the WBO champion, so no, it isn't.

Lewis was the unified not the undisputed champion.

There were multiple world heavyweight titles when Joe Louis competed and he didn't hold all of them at the time of his reign either.

The record books will show that Wlad is the longest reigning world champion of all time. This fact is technically correct, but the prestige of such an accolade is certainly subjective in nature.

It’s a fact that Michael Spinks and Shannon Briggs were both lineal world heavyweight champions, even though they definitely weren’t the best of their eras.

Some people believe GGG tied with Bernard Hopkins for world middleweight title defences, even though Golovkin simply held a meaningless secondary title for most of his championship reign.

Facts are facts, even if you decide to ignore them or deem them as being irrelevant/insignificant.

Even if you disagree with me, Wlad is at least the second longest-reigning heavyweight champion of all-time.

And what about all the other points I raised about Wladimir's and Vitali's resume? Are they meaningless or did you simply want to cherry-pick and criticise one single point?

[Ruthless-RKO]

Combined it's Wlad. Individual it's Louis.

Lennox Lewis was the undisputed and lineal heavyweight champion when Wladimir was the WBO champion, so no, it isn't.

How the f--- can you be undisputed when another boxers holds the WBO belt?

[margaret thatcher]

Longer reigning than Wilder, with far more title wins, far more wins over world champs, and far more wins over consensus ranked contenders, that's for sure.

TBF to Wilder, the only guy to beat him also beat Wlad. Though Wilder simply hasn't done enough compared to Wlad to have the same legacy.

[Onamastus]

Lennox Lewis was the undisputed and lineal heavyweight champion when Wladimir was the WBO champion, so no, it isn't.

How the f--- can you be undisputed when another boxers holds the WBO belt?

Because the WBO belt wasn't one of the three major heavyweight titles at the time. Mike Tyson was the undisputed heavyweight champion even though Francesco Damiani was WBO champ. Holyfield was undisputed even though Mercer was WBO champ. Lewis and Holyfield famously unified the title in 1999, even though Herbie Hide was in Norwich defending his WBO belt against people like Willi Fischer. The WBO was unimportant.

Brian Nielsen was the IBO champ at the time, but this didn't affect the undisputed title.

I'm honestly surprised you don't know this. If you rewatch any Wladimir Klitschko WBO fight the commentators acknowledge the WBO isn't a major belt and that Lennox Lewis is the champion.

[margaret thatcher]

Everyone knew Len was the man, Wlad was still a world titlist, but his first reign doesn't have much of substance, just the Byrd win, which was good and easily better than a lot of title wins. Though tbf some of those other WBO opponents and even earlier opponents (Barrett) would be on the list for WIlder. TBH, even Schulz probably gets at least a win fighting Szpilka, Molina, Arreola, and Wash.

[Ruthless-RKO]

How the f--- can you be undisputed when another boxers holds the WBO belt?

Because the WBO belt wasn't one of the three major heavyweight titles at the time. Mike Tyson was the undisputed heavyweight champion even though Francesco Damiani was WBO champ. Holyfield was undisputed even though Mercer was WBO champ. Lewis and Holyfield famously unified the title in 1999, even though Herbie Hide was in Norwich defending his WBO belt against people like Willi Fischer. The WBO was unimportant.

Brian Nielsen was the IBO champ at the time, but this didn't affect the undisputed title.

I'm honestly surprised you don't know this. If you rewatch any Wladimir Klitschko WBO fight the commentators acknowledge the WBO isn't a major belt and that Lennox Lewis is the champion.

Oh, you mean around 1999/00.

[margaret thatcher]

Wlad's first WBO reign went until 2003, I mean the WBO was pretty well known then and that's not that long ago at all in the overall picture, obviously Len was the man but Wlad was regarded as a world titlist , just not the top dog. There are situations like this all the time where a guy has a belt but everyone knows there is another fighter in the division who is better and has done more.

[Onamastus]

Lennox Lewis was the undisputed and lineal heavyweight champion when Wladimir was the WBO champion, so no, it isn't.

Lewis was the unified not the undisputed champion.

There were multiple world heavyweight titles when Joe Louis competed and he didn't hold all of them at the time of his reign either.

The record books will show that Wlad is the longest reigning world champion of all time. This fact is technically correct, but the prestige of such an accolade is certainly subjective in nature.

It’s a fact that Michael Spinks and Shannon Briggs were both lineal world heavyweight champions, even though they definitely weren’t the best of their eras.

Some people believe GGG tied with Bernard Hopkins for world middleweight title defences, even though Golovkin simply held a meaningless secondary title for most of his championship reign.

Facts are facts, even if you decide to ignore them or deem them as being irrelevant/insignificant.

Even if you disagree with me, Wlad is at least the second longest-reigning heavyweight champion of all-time.

And what about all the other points I raised about Wladimir's and Vitali's resume? Are they meaningless or did you simply want to cherry-pick and criticise one single point?

Lewis became undisputed champion in 1999. The WBO wasn't a major belt, nor was the IBC or IBO or WBF or any other. Lewis becoming undisputed champion was worldwide news, whether or not you missed it.

Who do you think was heavyweight champion when Joe Louis was heavyweight champion?

Ultimately you're not the arbiter of the boxing record book, and I question whether you own or have ever read one. You obviously don't understand how they work. You also don't understand the word "reign" as you think two seperate reigns can count as a reign. The fact is Wladimir Klitschko is not the longest reigning heavyweight champion. I'm not cherry picking your post, the thread and other points don't interest me, I'm just pointing out that Louis is longest reigning.

[margaret thatcher]

Wlad was a recognized world titilist in his first reign, it was hardly some IBC type of stuff. You can defo say he wasn't the man, the undisputed, the lineal, etc....and that Lennox Lewis was the universally regarded top HW, but around the early 2000s the WBO was being regarded as a major world title and mentioned all the time alongside the WBA, IBF, WBC in a way none of the others outside that group were. Len vs Wlad was talked about regularly too.

Incidentally, Wlad won the WBO at about the same age Wilder turned pro

[Enlightened-One]

Lewis was the unified not the undisputed champion.

There were multiple world heavyweight titles when Joe Louis competed and he didn't hold all of them at the time of his reign either.

The record books will show that Wlad is the longest reigning world champion of all time. This fact is technically correct, but the prestige of such an accolade is certainly subjective in nature.

It’s a fact that Michael Spinks and Shannon Briggs were both lineal world heavyweight champions, even though they definitely weren’t the best of their eras.

Some people believe GGG tied with Bernard Hopkins for world middleweight title defences, even though Golovkin simply held a meaningless secondary title for most of his championship reign.

Facts are facts, even if you decide to ignore them or deem them as being irrelevant/insignificant.

Even if you disagree with me, Wlad is at least the second longest-reigning heavyweight champion of all-time.

And what about all the other points I raised about Wladimir's and Vitali's resume? Are they meaningless or did you simply want to cherry-pick and criticise one single point?

Lewis became undisputed champion in 1999. The WBO wasn't a major belt, nor was the IBC or IBO or WBF or any other. Lewis becoming undisputed champion was worldwide news, whether or not you missed it.

Who do you think was heavyweight champion when Joe Louis was heavyweight champion?

Ultimately you're not the arbiter of the boxing record book, and I question whether you own or have ever read one. You obviously don't understand how they work. You also don't understand the word "reign" as you think two seperate reigns can count as a reign. The fact is Wladimir Klitschko is not the longest reigning heavyweight champion. I'm not cherry picking your post, the thread and other points don't interest me, I'm just pointing out that Louis is longest reigning.

There's a difference between being the main man, the best fighter in the division, and technically holding one of the world title belts.

I’ve already conveyed this point, but you’ve ignored it.

Anyway, the WBO world heavyweight title was moderately prestigious, since the likes of Ray Mercer, Michael Moorer, Tommy Morrison, Riddick Bowe and Vitali Klitschko had all previously held the belt prior to Wlad’s reign.

You keep saying I “don’t understand” this… and I “don’t understand” that but does the same principle apply to the entire world?

Even BoxRec states that “Klitschko holds the longest combined world heavyweight championship reign in history.”

The amount of prestige one applies to such an accomplishment is clearly subjective in nature, given the context of the feat itself, but this is definitely a real-world fact. It's technically true.

If you disagree with me, Google my claim and send a message to the publishers of all the articles available on the internet that make the very same claims, telling them they also “don’t understand how things work”.

And to remind you, because I’m not sure of your reading comprehension (as I keep having to repeat myself)… even if you disagree with me, Wlad is at least the second longest-reigning heavyweight champion of all-time. And that’s no mean feat!

[DrDuke]

What's there to discuss? Wlad's resume is vastly superior than Wilders'. It's not even remotely close.

Absolutely. No question here really.

[Heretic]

how do you rate his title reign compared to Wlad's.. is his legacy at the moment on the same level as Wlad's?

I think it would be better idea to compare him to someone like Parker for example.

Both were title holders in times when clearly better man were running the pack