BoxRec

pound per pound wrote:

dominik wrote:

tsmithy50 wrote:Be rated higher than Lennox Lewis in say 30 years?

No. wlad will be rated top 10 all time but Lennox beat better fighters and probably is top 3 all time.

Best wins:
Lennox
1. Holyfield
2. Vitali

wlad
1. Haye
2. pulev? Povetkin?

pretty easy for me

OR

Holyfield was past it for Lewis, and many felt Vitail in the lead 4-2 deserved a re-match. Lewis balked.

Wlad has more title defenses. Wlad 1-0 vs Rhaman. Lewis 1-1 vs Rhaman.

Time will tell.

So Wlad beating a 36 year old 253 pound Rhaman is more impressive than Lennox
beating a 29 year old 236 pound Rhaman????
Ok that is some messed up logic

The Great John L wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:Not likely. But its not out of the question. While Lewis beat better opposition it was hardly by what I'd call a landslide, and Wlad has the longer stay at the top. Both fighters suffered losses to lesser men whom they shouldn't have.

Maybe not a landslide, but certainly Lennox’s opposition was noticeably better. And Lennox defeated both of his loses in rematches, while Wlad never fought rematches with his conquerors.

That's fair.

Lewis fought and defeated better men.. But the reason I don't consider it a "landslide" difference is because a lot of his bigger names were past prime and some not terribly good to begin with. Klitscko of course has also fought his fair number of stiffs like Mormeck and Leapai and others.. The ones for Lewis which stand out as being noticeably better are those over Vitali Klitscko, David Tua, Razor Ruddock and Andrew Golata after Golata had just battered Bowe from pillar to post. But when combining their win lists which amounts to over 100 professional victories, there are a lot of men who measure out to being on a highly comparable plane. Wlad has beaten a lot of big men, former olympians, title strap holders and guys with undefeated records, so his comp isn't as piss poor as often made out to be. As you mentioned, Lewis avenged both of his only two losses while Wlad only redeemed himself for one of his three. Klitschko's people offered Sanders another shot, but Corrie wasn't interested. Lewis beat McCall in the rematch but not until three years later and after Oliver was coming out of rehab with emotional problems. I never saw a man break down in the ring the way that McCall did. Still Lennox has the better legacy. But its not as far apart for me as it is for others, and Klit's career is still in progress. If we start his claim to lineage in 2009 when he beat Ruslan Chagaev, then that amounts to nearly 6 years of undisputed title reign with 11 title fight victories. He's met all of his mandatories and unified a lot of the belts. He's been ranked either on top or "at" the top of the division for some 14 years. And at an age when most guys were either retired or totally shot, he's still dominating.

Wlad couldn't even avenge his loss to Corrie Sanders. He even wait three years to rematch Lamon Brewster, and it wasn't until he had a friggin' detached retina that Wlad even showed interest.


Lennox isn't in my top five, although he may have given any of them trouble.

Wlad's Resume

Monte Barrett (23-1)
Chris Byrd (31-1) WBO Champion at the time
Jameel McCline (28-2-3)
Eliseo Castillo (18-0-1)
Samuel Peter (24-0) undefeated beast at the time
Chris Byrd (39-2-1) IBF Champion at the time (beat Holyfield and Tua)
Calvin Brock (29-0)
Lamon Brewster (33-3) avenged loss
Sultain Ibragimov (22-0-1) undefeated WBO Champion at the time
Tony Thompson (31-1)
Ruslan Chagaev (25-0-1) undefeated WBA Champion at the time
Eddie Chambers (35-1)
David Haye (25-1) WBA Super Champion and past unified WBA,WBO,WBC Cruserweight champion
Jean Marc Mormeck (36-4) past unified WBA&WBC Cruserweight champion
Mariusz Wach (27-0)
Francesco Pianeta (28-0-1)
Alexander Povetkin (26-0) undefeated WBA Regular Champion and Olympic SHW Gold Medalist.
Kubrat Pulev (20-0)




Not bad.

What do paper titles matter in the equation? There used to be only one.

Not a single one of Wlad's opponents even topped Mike Weaver's peak ranking on boxrec.

JeanClaude Van Damme wrote:What do paper titles matter in the equation? There used to be only one.

Not a single one of Wlad's opponents even topped Mike Weaver's peak ranking on boxrec.

JeanClaude Van Damme wrote:Not a single one of Wlad's opponents even topped Mike Weaver's peak ranking on boxrec.

Probably because Weaver fought quite a few world class HWs, and beat many of them, as did most of the much beleaguered early 80’s HWs.

And going by the BoxRec rankings Herol Graham would be today's world P4P #3 and just short of #2 even when he was still fighting at British/Euro level and had yet to face a world class opponent. Check the thread by Simon Lock on the first page for discussion of ratings across generations.

I think so. He only has 4 more title defenses until he has 21 consecutive (which would be 2nd all-time). That doesn't even include his 5 WBO title defenses (which had decent opposition).

If he does that and get the WBC title, without a doubt.

If you compare Wlad's best wins through his title reign to Lennox's then you can see Wlad has a better resume.

blitman1 wrote:I think so. He only has 4 more title defenses until he has 21 consecutive (which would be 2nd all-time). That doesn't even include his 5 WBO title defenses (which had decent opposition).

If he does that and get the WBC title, without a doubt.

If you compare Wlad's best wins through his title reign to Lennox's then you can see Wlad has a better resume.

You join the site in 2013, then wait 16 months, to post that?

Maybe it's best to take another break from posting.