BoxRec

Riddick Blowe wrote:

crusader wrote:Yes, BOTP logic whereby the recent proliferation of titles is reviled at the same time someone not holding every major title, which is often impeded by financial/political considerations and not the absence of fighters good enough to accomplish that, is used against them in discussions of their accomplishments, the legitimacy of their champion status, and overall legacy.

One of the 'old school' dispensers of this type of logic even recently implied that Wlad and GGG aren't the WBA champions of their respective divisions any more than fighters like Ruslan Chagaev and Danny Jacobs are, as the latter hold one of the organization's subsidiary belts. Now I'm sure some of the BOTP would consider me unsophisticated because I'm not titillated by black and white footage of Jack Johnson holding more than Wlad does or Jack Dempsey showing technique, such wildly jumping while throwing a combination, that would be considered highly crude if contemporary fighters employed it (I previously suggested in that part of the forum that Dempsey had technical flaws and predictably several habitués were apoplectic), but I'm usually able to identify inconsistent reasoning when I encounter it.

Wlad has fought and beaten top contenders for years just as a champion should, ducking no one in the process. Him not winning the WBC title by overcoming the truly awesome Bermane Stiverne like Wilder did shouldn't hurt his argument for being today's top heavyweight or more generally his legacy.

On another point made, I think it's fair to mention that unbeaten records often belie shallow opposition and significant limitations, and a win over an opponent like Wach or Pineta (or however it's spelled) shouldn't mean much in isolation, but I think the likes of Pulev, Povetkin, and Jennings are good fighters, with two of them arguably being the top HWs other than Wlad at the time, and Wlad lost a maximum of three rounds between his fights with them. He's dominated top opponents for a long time and has enjoyed an excellent career that will almost surely lead to him being inducted to the HOF.

Wasn't arguing he isn't the top heavyweight in the world because he obviously is. We'll see if he gets past Wilder. He has the opportunity now to participate in a fight that people outside of Germany actually care about, the first recognised dangerous guy for a while, outside of those guys who stopped him, or the blown-up cruiser he squeaked past throwing a handful more jabs a round, who is still embarrassingly his best win. (And I'm a huge fan of Haye). If he beats Wilder that'd be his best win and he would deserve credit, and maybe breaks into the top 25 all time list. Baby steps.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

crusader wrote:Yes, BOTP logic whereby the recent proliferation of titles is reviled at the same time someone not holding every major title, which is often impeded by financial/political considerations and not the absence of fighters good enough to accomplish that, is used against them in discussions of their accomplishments, the legitimacy of their champion status, and overall legacy.

One of the 'old school' dispensers of this type of logic even recently implied that Wlad and GGG aren't the WBA champions of their respective divisions any more than fighters like Ruslan Chagaev and Danny Jacobs are, as the latter hold one of the organization's subsidiary belts. Now I'm sure some of the BOTP would consider me unsophisticated because I'm not titillated by black and white footage of Jack Johnson holding more than Wlad does or Jack Dempsey showing technique, such wildly jumping while throwing a combination, that would be considered highly crude if contemporary fighters employed it (I previously suggested in that part of the forum that Dempsey had technical flaws and predictably several habitués were apoplectic), but I'm usually able to identify inconsistent reasoning when I encounter it.

Wlad has fought and beaten top contenders for years just as a champion should, ducking no one in the process. Him not winning the WBC title by overcoming the truly awesome Bermane Stiverne like Wilder did shouldn't hurt his argument for being today's top heavyweight or more generally his legacy.

On another point made, I think it's fair to mention that unbeaten records often belie shallow opposition and significant limitations, and a win over an opponent like Wach or Pineta (or however it's spelled) shouldn't mean much in isolation, but I think the likes of Pulev, Povetkin, and Jennings are good fighters, with two of them arguably being the top HWs other than Wlad at the time, and Wlad lost a maximum of three rounds between his fights with them. He's dominated top opponents for a long time and has enjoyed an excellent career that will almost surely lead to him being inducted to the HOF.

Wasn't arguing he isn't the top heavyweight in the world because he obviously is. We'll see if he gets past Wilder. He has the opportunity now to participate in a fight that people outside of Germany actually care about, the first recognised dangerous guy for a while, outside of those guys who stopped him, or the blown-up cruiser he squeaked past throwing a handful more jabs a round, who is still embarrassingly his best win. (And I'm a huge fan of Haye). If he beats Wilder that'd be his best win and he would deserve credit, and maybe breaks into the top 25 all time list. Baby steps.

Riddick Blowe wrote:or the blown-up cruiser he squeaked past throwing a handful more jabs a round, who is still embarrassingly his best win. (And I'm a huge fan of Haye).

Riddick Blowe wrote:If he beats Wilder that'd be his best win and he would deserve credit, and maybe breaks into the top 25 all time list. Baby steps.

crusader wrote:Wlad has dominated all his opponents since the Peter fight in 2005 with the possible exception of Tony Thompson (first fight), and even then he was still clearly winning and scored a KO.

Haye, like Jennings, won three rounds at best and had little notable success.

Riddick Blowe wrote:Neither guy did anything. Wlad landed a few more jabs a round. Haye probably landed the two cleanest punches in the fight, in the 3rd and 12th. Wlad was terrified to let his hands go. It was a horrible performance from him against an undersized guy who didn't even fit the trademark pressure fighter description that Wlad normally falls apart against.

I thought Klitschko won fairly easily and although Jennings did press toward the end he never looked like causing the upset.
I wouldn't say it was Klitschko's best night but he passed.

Freedom2013 wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Undefeated records are a negative in this era of padded records and protected fighters, not a positive.

You're not being fair.

dempseyfire wrote: How many of those undefeated fighters had beaten ONE legtimate top 10 opponent?

Jennings beat Perez

Povetkin beat Chagaev and Chambers. He beat Byrd when he was in the Ring top ten. Transnational and boxrec had Takam in the top ten when Povetkin KOed him.

Pulev beat Thompson when Tony was in the top ten, and Dimitrenko when he was in the Ring top ten

Chagaev beat Valuev

Ibragimov beat Briggs when he was in the top ten (Shannon replaced Lyakhovich in the Ring and Boxrec rankings, remember?)

There are probably others, those are just off the top of my head.