BoxRec

caldo2025 wrote:Joshua. Because Wlad is the worst heavyweight champion in history.

He's far from that.

caldo2025 wrote:Joshua. Because Wlad is the worst heavyweight champion in history.

He's beaten 10 of 12 Heavyweight Champions he's faced. Fury and Sanders are the only 2 he's failed to beat. And of course he won't beat Joshua -- but that's still a pretty dominant record... He certainly has one of the greatest jabs, greatest right hands, and greatest left hooks in history. His feet were always very quick in his prime after he'd been with Steward for a couple years.

Tony1244 wrote:

ValMar wrote:Without racism/nationalism, please !

I think nationalism is ok, just so long as you support any color.

I remember around 1970-80 even liberals wanted a great white hope.

But to answer the question, I'm for Joshua. A changing of the guard is good every now and then.

Nationalism is NOT okay... Some people equate nationalism with patriotism -- since there's nothing wrong with patriotism, right? But in this sense nationalism is a zealous and aggressive patriotism and a blind devotion to country and countrymen - to the extent that you're unfair to and discriminatory against foreign athletes - and maybe harbor bias and distrust of athletes of certain foreign countries in a sweeping generalized way - like some Mexicans not liking Puerto Ricans -- Americans disliking Russians -- Saudi Arabian who actually hate Israelis etc. These attitudes don't have to be over-the-top in order to result in biased, unfair, and unjust decisions.

i will root for joshua to win a great
fight that allows wladmir to hold his
head high.

i very much hope this will not be weird
or boring.

HyacinthusTurnipseed wrote:

Nightmare Roy wrote:Heard Dillian White in an interview say one of the reasons that Klit wants this fight is that he would be the only HW to beat 3 Olympic gold medalists, just an interesting fact I thought.

But Ali already beat 3 Olympic gold medallists: Frazier, Foreman and Leon Spinks. And Holmes beat 3 too: Ali, L Spinks and Mercer.

You are right, maybe it's 4 then? Or maybe he just wants to equal the record, he'd be in good company if he did.

Tanzio wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:Joshua. Because Wlad is the worst heavyweight champion in history.

Ladies and gentleman, in case you may have missed it in previous appearances, let's all hear it for The Dumbest Post In Boxrec History

Worst poster ever loves the worst heavyweight champion ever. Makes sense.

Kalan wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:Joshua. Because Wlad is the worst heavyweight champion in history.

He's beaten 10 of 12 Heavyweight Champions he's faced. Fury and Sanders are the only 2 he's failed to beat. And of course he won't beat Joshua -- but that's still a pretty dominant record... He certainly has one of the greatest jabs, greatest right hands, and greatest left hooks in history. His feet were always very quick in his prime after he'd been with Steward for a couple years.

LOLOLOL.....Hilarious. Why don't you name off those 10 incredible heavyweight champions hero? No great heavyweight champion ever lost to a worse fighter than Sanders. HE HAD A JAB...that's it. The guy was nothing until Manny taught him a jab. Then he fought no one and nowhere for many years hijacking the title away from the fans that deserved it.

Wlad is by far the worst lineal heavyweight champion of the world. Not by talent level but by the way he chose defend the title. For years, most couldn't even tune it to his fights because they weren't on tv. Yeah, way to bolster the sport Wlad. Good riddance. I hope he gets his jaw knocked off.

Wlad wasn't even the best heavyweight in his household much less the world.

caldo2025 wrote:

Kalan wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:Joshua. Because Wlad is the worst heavyweight champion in history.

He's beaten 10 of 12 Heavyweight Champions he's faced. Fury and Sanders are the only 2 he's failed to beat. And of course he won't beat Joshua -- but that's still a pretty dominant record... He certainly has one of the greatest jabs, greatest right hands, and greatest left hooks in history. His feet were always very quick in his prime after he'd been with Steward for a couple years.

LOLOLOL.....Hilarious. Why don't you name off those 10 incredible heavyweight champions hero? No great heavyweight champion ever lost to a worse fighter than Sanders. HE HAD A JAB...that's it. The guy was nothing until Manny taught him a jab. Then he fought no one and nowhere for many years hijacking the title away from the fans that deserved it.

Wlad is by far the worst lineal heavyweight champion of the world. Not by talent level but by the way he chose defend the title. For years, most couldn't even tune it to his fights because they weren't on tv. Yeah, way to bolster the sport Wlad. Good riddance. I hope he gets his jaw knocked off.

Wlad wasn't even the best heavyweight in his household much less the world.

Just keep doubling down on your unsurpassed level of idiocy.

Kalan wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:

ValMar wrote:Without racism/nationalism, please !

I think nationalism is ok, just so long as you support any color.

I remember around 1970-80 even liberals wanted a great white hope.

But to answer the question, I'm for Joshua. A changing of the guard is good every now and then.

Nationalism is NOT okay... Some people equate nationalism with patriotism -- since there's nothing wrong with patriotism, right? But in this sense nationalism is a zealous and aggressive patriotism and a blind devotion to country and countrymen - to the extent that you're unfair to and discriminatory against foreign athletes - and maybe harbor bias and distrust of athletes of certain foreign countries in a sweeping generalized way - like some Mexicans not liking Puerto Ricans -- Americans disliking Russians -- Saudi Arabian who actually hate Israelis etc. These attitudes don't have to be over-the-top in order to result in biased, unfair, and unjust decisions.

It's a tough issue because its a matter of where do you draw the line? People who are far left of even me, Liz Warren types who are for open borders still root for Americans in the Olympics. I've had liberal teachers in elementary school who taught us about the greatness of MLK and that Civil Rights is the #1 moral issue of our time still ask after class, "Do you think Jerry Quarry will win?"

In those days there had been no caucasian HW champion in about 20 years? Were they bigots? I'd say no because I think they would have voted for a black candidate, they just wanted a white HW champion. Interesting topic.

HyacinthusTurnipseed wrote:

Nightmare Roy wrote:Heard Dillian White in an interview say one of the reasons that Klit wants this fight is that he would be the only HW to beat 3 Olympic gold medalists, just an interesting fact I thought.

But Ali already beat 3 Olympic gold medallists: Frazier, Foreman and Leon Spinks. And Holmes beat 3 too: Ali, L Spinks and Mercer.

Leon Spinx was an Olympic gold medalist, but not at HW...Ali and Mercer too...

ValMar wrote:

HyacinthusTurnipseed wrote:

Nightmare Roy wrote:Heard Dillian White in an interview say one of the reasons that Klit wants this fight is that he would be the only HW to beat 3 Olympic gold medalists, just an interesting fact I thought.

But Ali already beat 3 Olympic gold medallists: Frazier, Foreman and Leon Spinks. And Holmes beat 3 too: Ali, L Spinks and Mercer.

Leon Spinx was an Olympic gold medalist, but not at HW...Ali and Mercer too...

Both Leon and Muhammad won their Gold @ Light heavy.

ValMar wrote:Will you root for Joshua or for Klitschko ? Why ?

I like Klitschko and Joshua in equal measures, but for very different reasons.

When all things are equal, I have a tendency of supporting the underdog, which means that I may be cheering for Wladimir to score the upset come fight night.

Basically, you’ve got an injury prone 41½ year old man that was dominated in his last fight, would have been inactive for almost 18 months and hasn’t delivered an impressive performance inside the ring in 2½ years… against a relatively inexperienced and unproven hyped-up young champion that has easily whooped underwhelming opposition.

So it’s easy to pick flaws in both men, but that doesn’t stop me from hoping to see a good fight, regardless of whoever emerges victorious.

They're both excellent in their own way ...

... even if Klitschko is a bit one-dimensional ...

... but, more importantly ...

... they're both gentlemen ...

... which is what boxing is all about ...

But Klitschko represents boxing's past ...

... and Joshua is boxing's future ...

... Joshua by KO ... (early) ...

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

I'd like to see a hungry aggressive eager klitschko expose an over rated Joshua.

Sequitorian wrote:They're both excellent in their own way ...

... even if Klitschko is a bit one-dimensional ...

... but, more importantly ...

... they're both gentlemen ...

... which is what boxing is all about ...

But Klitschko represents boxing's past ...

... and Joshua is boxing's future ...

... Joshua by KO ... (early) ...

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Yes...they're both gentlemen

Tanzio wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:

Kalan wrote:
He's beaten 10 of 12 Heavyweight Champions he's faced. Fury and Sanders are the only 2 he's failed to beat. And of course he won't beat Joshua -- but that's still a pretty dominant record... He certainly has one of the greatest jabs, greatest right hands, and greatest left hooks in history. His feet were always very quick in his prime after he'd been with Steward for a couple years.

LOLOLOL.....Hilarious. Why don't you name off those 10 incredible heavyweight champions hero? No great heavyweight champion ever lost to a worse fighter than Sanders. HE HAD A JAB...that's it. The guy was nothing until Manny taught him a jab. Then he fought no one and nowhere for many years hijacking the title away from the fans that deserved it.

Wlad is by far the worst lineal heavyweight champion of the world. Not by talent level but by the way he chose defend the title. For years, most couldn't even tune it to his fights because they weren't on tv. Yeah, way to bolster the sport Wlad. Good riddance. I hope he gets his jaw knocked off.

Wlad wasn't even the best heavyweight in his household much less the world.

Just keep doubling down on your unsurpassed level of idiocy.

Tanzio, let's see if you could answer this question honestly. Here's the list of lineal Heavyweight champions since 1937. Not including Hasim Rahman and Shannon Briggs flukish title wins (Fury doesn't count either), which heavyweight had the worst reign as champion. By "WORST", i'm not talking about talent, i'm talking about creating fan interest, inspiring and promoting the sport to the world. You can not tell me that Wlad's reign is not THE WORST REIGN in this list. No big fights. No interest. Not excitement. Just a robot fighting in a small corner of the world. Look at these other champions and then be honest in your reply. That may be a lot to ask of someone without integrity but lets see if i'm wrong:

United States Joe Louis (1937-1949, retired)
United States Ezzard Charles (1949-1951)
United States Jersey Joe Walcott (1951-1952)
United States Rocky Marciano (1952-1956, retired)
United States Floyd Patterson (1956-1959)
Sweden Ingemar Johansson (1959-1960)
United States Floyd Patterson (1960-1962)
United States Sonny Liston (1962-1964)
United States Cassius Clay, changed name to Muhammad Ali (1964-1970, boxing licence suspended)
United States Joe Frazier (1970-1973)
United States George Foreman (1973-1974)
United States Muhammad Ali (1974-1978)
United States Leon Spinks (1978)
United States Muhammad Ali (1978-1979), retires 6/79
United States Larry Holmes (1980-1985)
United States Michael Spinks (1985-1988)
United States Mike Tyson (1988-1990)
United States James "Buster" Douglas (1990)
United States Evander Holyfield (1990-1992)
United States Riddick Bowe (1992-1993)
United States Evander Holyfield (1993-1994)
United States Michael Moorer (1994)
United States George Foreman (1994-1997)
United States Shannon Briggs (1997-1998)
United Kingdom Lennox Lewis (1998-2001)
United States Hasim Rahman (2001)
United Kingdom Lennox Lewis (2001-2004), retired
Ukraine Wladimir Klitschko (2009-2015), from his win over Chagaev
United Kingdom Tyson Fury (2015–Present)

caldo2025 wrote:Here's the list of lineal Heavyweight champions since 1937. Not including Hasim Rahman and Shannon Briggs flukish title wins (Fury doesn't count either), which heavyweight had the worst reign as champion.

Why have you excluded fighters from your list that are particularly pertinent to the question you’ve asked Tanzio?

It’s like being asked the following question “what’s two plus two?”, but you’re not allowed to respond with the answer “four”.

caldo2025 wrote:You can not tell me that Wlad's reign is not THE WORST REIGN in this list. No big fights. No interest. Not excitement.

Are you unaware of the viewing figures for Klitschko's bouts?

Was his title defence against David Haye not considered a big fight? It was commercially and in terms of status on the world scene.

Are you saying that all of Klitschko’s bouts were boring? I've seen at least five bouts that I enjoyed watching.

Whilst it’s your prerogative to dislike Wladimir Klitschko, isn’t your criticism a tad harsh and factually-incorrect?

caldo2025 wrote:

Tanzio wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:
LOLOLOL.....Hilarious. Why don't you name off those 10 incredible heavyweight champions hero? No great heavyweight champion ever lost to a worse fighter than Sanders. HE HAD A JAB...that's it. The guy was nothing until Manny taught him a jab. Then he fought no one and nowhere for many years hijacking the title away from the fans that deserved it.

Wlad is by far the worst lineal heavyweight champion of the world. Not by talent level but by the way he chose defend the title. For years, most couldn't even tune it to his fights because they weren't on tv. Yeah, way to bolster the sport Wlad. Good riddance. I hope he gets his jaw knocked off.

Wlad wasn't even the best heavyweight in his household much less the world.

Just keep doubling down on your unsurpassed level of idiocy.

Tanzio, let's see if you could answer this question honestly. Here's the list of lineal Heavyweight champions since 1937. Not including Hasim Rahman and Shannon Briggs flukish title wins (Fury doesn't count either), which heavyweight had the worst reign as champion. By "WORST", i'm not talking about talent, i'm talking about creating fan interest, inspiring and promoting the sport to the world. You can not tell me that Wlad's reign is not THE WORST REIGN in this list. No big fights. No interest. Not excitement. Just a robot fighting in a small corner of the world. Look at these other champions and then be honest in your reply. That may be a lot to ask of someone without integrity but lets see if i'm wrong:

United States Joe Louis (1937-1949, retired)
United States Ezzard Charles (1949-1951)
United States Jersey Joe Walcott (1951-1952)
United States Rocky Marciano (1952-1956, retired)
United States Floyd Patterson (1956-1959)
Sweden Ingemar Johansson (1959-1960)
United States Floyd Patterson (1960-1962)
United States Sonny Liston (1962-1964)
United States Cassius Clay, changed name to Muhammad Ali (1964-1970, boxing licence suspended)
United States Joe Frazier (1970-1973)
United States George Foreman (1973-1974)
United States Muhammad Ali (1974-1978)
United States Leon Spinks (1978)
United States Muhammad Ali (1978-1979), retires 6/79
United States Larry Holmes (1980-1985)
United States Michael Spinks (1985-1988)
United States Mike Tyson (1988-1990)
United States James "Buster" Douglas (1990)
United States Evander Holyfield (1990-1992)
United States Riddick Bowe (1992-1993)
United States Evander Holyfield (1993-1994)
United States Michael Moorer (1994)
United States George Foreman (1994-1997)
United States Shannon Briggs (1997-1998)
United Kingdom Lennox Lewis (1998-2001)
United States Hasim Rahman (2001)
United Kingdom Lennox Lewis (2001-2004), retired
Ukraine Wladimir Klitschko (2009-2015), from his win over Chagaev
United Kingdom Tyson Fury (2015–Present)

You are such a complete, unadulterated moron. You make an overarching claim that WKlit is the "worst heavy weight champion in history," then, when called out on your absolutely idiotic claim, you start rationalizing it by walking it back with qualifiers like "lineal heavy weight champion" days later, after coming to the self realization of what a stupid remark you made.

Then, you further qualify your original remark of stark raving lunacy by wasting time researching and making a list of "lineal heavy weight champions since 1937." Apparently the history of boxing began in 1937 in your pea brained world.

But, hold the door to Caldo's padded room, you further qualify your original projectile regurgitation of a claim by disqualifying Rahman, Briggs and Fury from the history of boxing.

But, that's not all! You further qualify your original black and white statement by eliminating talent as a measure of accomplishment and limiting the measure of heavy weight greatness to "creating fan interest, inspiring and promoting the sport"

The mentally challenged cherry on top of your devoid of sense argument is your labelling of the entirety of eurasia as "a small corner of the world."

Thank you, caldo2dumb2believe, for making my argument for me.

Let's review. According to your own argument, you concede that WKlit is superior to every HW champion prior to 1937. You further concede that he is superior to at minimum a subset of non-lineal heavy weight champions. You present even more evidence of my case by admitting that Wlad is superior to Rahman, Briggs, and Fury. You also admit that WKlit is more talented than at minimum a subset of your lineal list.

Case closed. WKlit is clearly not the worst heavy weight champion in history according to the argument of the person who originally made the ridiculous claim.

Thanks for admitting and demonstrating that you are literally senseless

There is no reason to bother to point out the 5-10 lineal heavy weight champions left on your limited list that are inferior to Wlad according to your own ludicrously limited parameters.

Look in the mirror and accept the fact that the individual pea rattling around in your skull will never have company.

Wlad isn't the worst heavyweight belt holder in his family.

Tony1244 wrote:Both Leon and Muhammad won their Gold @ Light heavy.

Ah, of course. Fair enough then.

Enlightened-One wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:Here's the list of lineal Heavyweight champions since 1937. Not including Hasim Rahman and Shannon Briggs flukish title wins (Fury doesn't count either), which heavyweight had the worst reign as champion.

Why have you excluded fighters from your list that are particularly pertinent to the question you’ve asked Tanzio?

It’s like being asked the following question “what’s two plus two?”, but you’re not allowed to respond with the answer “four”.

caldo2025 wrote:You can not tell me that Wlad's reign is not THE WORST REIGN in this list. No big fights. No interest. Not excitement.

Are you unaware of the viewing figures for Klitschko's bouts?

Was his title defence against David Haye not considered a big fight? It was commercially and in terms of status on the world scene.

Are you saying that all of Klitschko’s bouts were boring? I've seen at least five bouts that I enjoyed watching.

Whilst it’s your prerogative to dislike Wladimir Klitschko, isn’t your criticism a tad harsh and factually-incorrect?

Logical criticism here unlike Tanzio's typical insult laden responses with help from his thesaurus. Perhaps I didn't do a good job explaining the point I was trying to make.

Everyone will agree that being THE heavyweight champion of the world is the most important position in the sport. It transcends the sport into mainstream and the position not only carries a lot of clout but responsibility in my opinion. History shows us that there's a direct relationship between boxing's success and interest in the heavyweight division. We've been fortunate to have a WW infusion of greatness to bridge the gap but for the most part, boxing has been losing interest from fans every year Wlad was "in office" sort of speak.

I'm talking about heavyweight champions that had a reign and were champions over the division for significant amount of time. Rahman and Briggs didn't reign long enough to put their mark on the division so excluding them was more of a service to them than a disservice. I didn't include Buster Douglas with them just because no one did more for the sport in such little time. He turned the sport on it's ears.

I'm not sure how it is where you come from but growing up in the US, the two greatest things you could be in life were 1. President of the United States 2. Heavyweight Champion of the World.

Wlad may have made a great deal of money fighting in Germany for years but that is not what i'm referring to. In the last 5 years, you could poll schoolchildren in the US and Britain and ask them if they knew who the HW Champion of the World was and you'd be lucky to find 10% knew who Wlad was. A Heavyweight Champion of the World's fights should ALWAYS be on tv for the world to see.

Look at every champion before him and i'll guarantee you that every single title defense was televised most places. Not ONE would be missed. I can't tell you how many of Wlad's defenses weren't televised here in the States but it was a lot. Wlad failed to inspire, entertain and promote the sport and the proof is in the pudding. Numbers don't lie. Interest has never been lower than Wlad's reign at the top.

Numbers side with me and my point here. If you impartially look at the facts, it's impossible for anyone to win this argument and prove that i'm wrong. Wlad=Horrible for Boxing

caldo2025 wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:Here's the list of lineal Heavyweight champions since 1937. Not including Hasim Rahman and Shannon Briggs flukish title wins (Fury doesn't count either), which heavyweight had the worst reign as champion.

Why have you excluded fighters from your list that are particularly pertinent to the question you’ve asked Tanzio?

It’s like being asked the following question “what’s two plus two?”, but you’re not allowed to respond with the answer “four”.

caldo2025 wrote:You can not tell me that Wlad's reign is not THE WORST REIGN in this list. No big fights. No interest. Not excitement.

Are you unaware of the viewing figures for Klitschko's bouts?

Was his title defence against David Haye not considered a big fight? It was commercially and in terms of status on the world scene.

Are you saying that all of Klitschko’s bouts were boring? I've seen at least five bouts that I enjoyed watching.

Whilst it’s your prerogative to dislike Wladimir Klitschko, isn’t your criticism a tad harsh and factually-incorrect?

Logical criticism here unlike Tanzio's typical insult laden responses with help from his thesaurus. Perhaps I didn't do a good job explaining the point I was trying to make.

Everyone will agree that being THE heavyweight champion of the world is the most important position in the sport. It transcends the sport into mainstream and the position not only carries a lot of clout but responsibility in my opinion. History shows us that there's a direct relationship between boxing's success and interest in the heavyweight division. We've been fortunate to have a WW infusion of greatness to bridge the gap but for the most part, boxing has been losing interest from fans every year Wlad was "in office" sort of speak.

I'm talking about heavyweight champions that had a reign and were champions over the division for significant amount of time. Rahman and Briggs didn't reign long enough to put their mark on the division so excluding them was more of a service to them than a disservice. I didn't include Buster Douglas with them just because no one did more for the sport in such little time. He turned the sport on it's ears.

I'm not sure how it is where you come from but growing up in the US, the two greatest things you could be in life were 1. President of the United States 2. Heavyweight Champion of the World.

Wlad may have made a great deal of money fighting in Germany for years but that is not what i'm referring to. In the last 5 years, you could poll schoolchildren in the US and Britain and ask them if they knew who the HW Champion of the World was and you'd be lucky to find 10% knew who Wlad was. A Heavyweight Champion of the World's fights should ALWAYS be on tv for the world to see.

Look at every champion before him and i'll guarantee you that every single title defense was televised most places. Not ONE would be missed. I can't tell you how many of Wlad's defenses weren't televised here in the States but it was a lot. Wlad failed to inspire, entertain and promote the sport and the proof is in the pudding. Numbers don't lie. Interest has never been lower than Wlad's reign at the top.

Numbers side with me and my point here. If you impartially look at the facts, it's impossible for anyone to win this argument and prove that i'm wrong. Wlad=Horrible for Boxing

You have no "point here" to be sided with. You have made the best case against your original position simply because you were called out on your baseless insults of WKlit and those who disagreed with you. When you face a barage of insults in return, you back off your claim and look for a victory in retreat.

Your argument is that Wlad wasn't on TV enough in the USA and therefore he is not as great of a champion as many, but not all other lineal champions. That is a long assed way from being the "worst heavy weight champion in history," as you originally claimed and defended.

Btw, why would I deny using the resources available to me to communicate clearly? I use the dictionary too. Do you have a problem with it?

Did / have you actually thought about what you originally said? You continue to be laughably wrong even in your current incarnation of your position on Wlad. That says all anyone needs to know about your original claim.

You are lame.

caldo2025 wrote:Everyone will agree that being THE heavyweight champion of the world is the most important position in the sport. It transcends the sport into mainstream and the position not only carries a lot of clout but responsibility in my opinion. History shows us that there's a direct relationship between boxing's success and interest in the heavyweight division. We've been fortunate to have a WW infusion of greatness to bridge the gap but for the most part, boxing has been losing interest from fans every year Wlad was "in office" sort of speak ...

I'm talking about heavyweight champions that had a reign and were champions over the division for significant amount of time. I'm not sure how it is where you come from but growing up in the US, the two greatest things you could be in life were 1. President of the United States 2. Heavyweight Champion of the World.

It's impossible for anyone to win this argument and prove that i'm wrong. Wlad=Horrible for Boxing

There's a sufficient amount of bullcrap in your post to manure the north 40 twice over... 1. Boxing enjoyed growing popularity for the last 12 years, virtually all the time Wladimir Klitschko was World Heavyweight Champion for the 2nd time... 2. Jack Dempsey was one of the most popular Heavyweight Champions, but Boxing itself suffered and wasn't thriving during his reign... Dempsey took 2 years off between the Carpentier (who was not a Heavyweight) and Gibbons (who was also not a Heavyweight) fights because of no quality Heavyweight challengers. Then Dempsey took 3 years off following the Firpo (Not a skilled Heavyweight) fight -- again the layoff due to the health of the division being sadly lacking.

Tunney was an outstanding Heavyweight Champion, but his 1st Title Fight without Dempsey bombed at the box office.. Promoter Tex Rickard lost a fortune and Tunney retired.. Less than 6 months later Rickard was dead.. Boxing saw a resurgence in the early 30's when there was a series of mediocre Heavyweight Champions.. Max Baer's non-title fights with Max Schmeling and Joe Louis did particularly well. While Baer's World Heavyweight Championship Fight with Jimmy Braddock did only 205,000 at the gate... His non-title fight with Joe Louis pulled in 933,000...

Louis was a tremendous drawing card at first, but the longer he was World Champion the worse he did and the worst the opposition got. His opponents were dubbed "The Bum of the Month Club." Boxing went into decline in the 40's and 50's with Jim Norris the International Boxing Club and organized crime influence.. Norris fixed many fights but luckily he died at 59 of a heart attack.. Boxing saw a resurgence in the 60's and 70's with the Patterson-Johansson fights, Sonny Liston, Muhammad Ali, Smokin' Joe Frazier, George Foreman, and Larry Holmes. The Ali-Frazier fights caught the public's imagination and Holmes began the longest reign in decades.

In the 80's Mike Tyson came along, the most charismatic Heavyweight since Dempsey.. Tyson, Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis, and the Klitschko Brothers fueled the 90s as the breakdown of the Soviet Union led to the exponential growth of Boxing as a global sport. The Klitschko Brothers dominated for much of the last 2 decades... Anthony Joshua will probably lead Heavyweight Boxing through the next 10 years along with Luis Ortiz, Deontay Wilder, Alexander Povetkin, Joseph Parker, Dominic Breazeale, Dillian Whyte, Hughie Fury, Agit Kabayel and many other possibly emerging Heavyweights. The division is healthy right now.

Tanzio wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: Why have you excluded fighters from your list that are particularly pertinent to the question you’ve asked Tanzio?

It’s like being asked the following question “what’s two plus two?”, but you’re not allowed to respond with the answer “four”.

Are you unaware of the viewing figures for Klitschko's bouts?

Was his title defence against David Haye not considered a big fight? It was commercially and in terms of status on the world scene.

Are you saying that all of Klitschko’s bouts were boring? I've seen at least five bouts that I enjoyed watching.

Whilst it’s your prerogative to dislike Wladimir Klitschko, isn’t your criticism a tad harsh and factually-incorrect?

Logical criticism here unlike Tanzio's typical insult laden responses with help from his thesaurus. Perhaps I didn't do a good job explaining the point I was trying to make.

Everyone will agree that being THE heavyweight champion of the world is the most important position in the sport. It transcends the sport into mainstream and the position not only carries a lot of clout but responsibility in my opinion. History shows us that there's a direct relationship between boxing's success and interest in the heavyweight division. We've been fortunate to have a WW infusion of greatness to bridge the gap but for the most part, boxing has been losing interest from fans every year Wlad was "in office" sort of speak.

I'm talking about heavyweight champions that had a reign and were champions over the division for significant amount of time. Rahman and Briggs didn't reign long enough to put their mark on the division so excluding them was more of a service to them than a disservice. I didn't include Buster Douglas with them just because no one did more for the sport in such little time. He turned the sport on it's ears.

I'm not sure how it is where you come from but growing up in the US, the two greatest things you could be in life were 1. President of the United States 2. Heavyweight Champion of the World.

Wlad may have made a great deal of money fighting in Germany for years but that is not what i'm referring to. In the last 5 years, you could poll schoolchildren in the US and Britain and ask them if they knew who the HW Champion of the World was and you'd be lucky to find 10% knew who Wlad was. A Heavyweight Champion of the World's fights should ALWAYS be on tv for the world to see.

Look at every champion before him and i'll guarantee you that every single title defense was televised most places. Not ONE would be missed. I can't tell you how many of Wlad's defenses weren't televised here in the States but it was a lot. Wlad failed to inspire, entertain and promote the sport and the proof is in the pudding. Numbers don't lie. Interest has never been lower than Wlad's reign at the top.

Numbers side with me and my point here. If you impartially look at the facts, it's impossible for anyone to win this argument and prove that i'm wrong. Wlad=Horrible for Boxing

You have no "point here" to be sided with. You have made the best case against your original position simply because you were called out on your baseless insults of WKlit and those who disagreed with you. When you face a barage of insults in return, you back off your claim and look for a victory in retreat.

Your argument is that Wlad wasn't on TV enough in the USA and therefore he is not as great of a champion as many, but not all other lineal champions. That is a long assed way from being the "worst heavy weight champion in history," as you originally claimed and defended.

Btw, why would I deny using the resources available to me to communicate clearly? I use the dictionary too. Do you have a problem with it?

Did / have you actually thought about what you originally said? You continue to be laughably wrong even in your current incarnation of your position on Wlad. That says all anyone needs to know about your original claim.

You are lame.

You don't find it the least bit pathetic that you aren't smart enough to insult someone without a dictionary or thesaurus?

I'll never convince you Wlad hard ons who apparently love robots and NOT seeing championship fights. In your minds, the reign was fantastic. Try to look up moronic next time in your little books next to your computer.

caldo2025 wrote:

Tanzio wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:
Logical criticism here unlike Tanzio's typical insult laden responses with help from his thesaurus. Perhaps I didn't do a good job explaining the point I was trying to make.

Everyone will agree that being THE heavyweight champion of the world is the most important position in the sport. It transcends the sport into mainstream and the position not only carries a lot of clout but responsibility in my opinion. History shows us that there's a direct relationship between boxing's success and interest in the heavyweight division. We've been fortunate to have a WW infusion of greatness to bridge the gap but for the most part, boxing has been losing interest from fans every year Wlad was "in office" sort of speak.

I'm talking about heavyweight champions that had a reign and were champions over the division for significant amount of time. Rahman and Briggs didn't reign long enough to put their mark on the division so excluding them was more of a service to them than a disservice. I didn't include Buster Douglas with them just because no one did more for the sport in such little time. He turned the sport on it's ears.

I'm not sure how it is where you come from but growing up in the US, the two greatest things you could be in life were 1. President of the United States 2. Heavyweight Champion of the World.

Wlad may have made a great deal of money fighting in Germany for years but that is not what i'm referring to. In the last 5 years, you could poll schoolchildren in the US and Britain and ask them if they knew who the HW Champion of the World was and you'd be lucky to find 10% knew who Wlad was. A Heavyweight Champion of the World's fights should ALWAYS be on tv for the world to see.

Look at every champion before him and i'll guarantee you that every single title defense was televised most places. Not ONE would be missed. I can't tell you how many of Wlad's defenses weren't televised here in the States but it was a lot. Wlad failed to inspire, entertain and promote the sport and the proof is in the pudding. Numbers don't lie. Interest has never been lower than Wlad's reign at the top.

Numbers side with me and my point here. If you impartially look at the facts, it's impossible for anyone to win this argument and prove that i'm wrong. Wlad=Horrible for Boxing

You have no "point here" to be sided with. You have made the best case against your original position simply because you were called out on your baseless insults of WKlit and those who disagreed with you. When you face a barage of insults in return, you back off your claim and look for a victory in retreat.

Your argument is that Wlad wasn't on TV enough in the USA and therefore he is not as great of a champion as many, but not all other lineal champions. That is a long assed way from being the "worst heavy weight champion in history," as you originally claimed and defended.

Btw, why would I deny using the resources available to me to communicate clearly? I use the dictionary too. Do you have a problem with it?

Did / have you actually thought about what you originally said? You continue to be laughably wrong even in your current incarnation of your position on Wlad. That says all anyone needs to know about your original claim.

You are lame.

You don't find it the least bit pathetic that you aren't smart enough to insult someone without a dictionary or thesaurus?

I'll never convince you Wlad hard ons who apparently love robots and NOT seeing championship fights. In your minds, the reign was fantastic. Try to look up moronic next time in your little books next to your computer.

You are really dense. I mean chopping block dense. Your come back to my argument has descended to the point of personal attacks on my utilization of materials that verify or accentuate accuracy. I need no thesaurus to eviscerate your original literally braindead claim that WKlit "is the worst heavy weight champion in history." All I had to do was hold you like roadkill up to the light and let you make my argument for me.

You are wrong. You were wrong from the beginning and you continue to be inaccurate, even given your ludicrously pathetic retreat from your original folly.

I do not love Wlad. I never have even liked Wlad. However, I respect his accomplishments, which include being a great ambassador for the sport globally. He is also an intelligent, articulate person. He has also had a superior reign to the majority of heavy weight champs in history, whether or not his fights were in a time zone that make it convenient for your chopping block assed, pea brained skull to observe live.

You would have been better off just admitting that your original statement was complete pig excrement rather than prove how putrid your position is yourself over and over and over again.

Care to demonstrate for us why Wlad is NOT "the worst heavy weight champion in history" once more? It is amusing observing you shred your own argument repeatedly.