Will Klitschko take Joshua rematch?

[Tarkus]

Tomorrow on Ukrainian television Vitali Klitschko is expected to discuss his brothers plans for the future.

I am inclined to think that Wlad will not take the rematch with Joshua. He will most probably retire. Although there is a chance of him going for WBC/Wilder route.

I personally hope there is no rematch. The first fight was conclusive and this way Joshua can fight Pulev and prevent titles from splintering.

...
I have edited the post realizing that the information I gave was erroneous.

[SteveO]

I think he will go for the rematch.
If he loses to Joshua again he would probably then have a final farewell fight in the Ukraine before retiring.
No doubt he would like to end his career with a win.
I guess we'll know his plans tomorrow.

[SAPFO]

Why tomorrow? Is that the deadline?

[Tarkus]

Why tomorrow? Is that the deadline?

No its just a TV program on boxing with Vitali and Usyk appearing as guests. Wlad still have couple of weeks to make a decision.

[Tuan_Jim]

Unfortunately Klitschko is looking at this table:









You'll note that both Klitschko's numbers are inflated thanks to WBO title defences - no one else on that list benefits from such a luxury.

Wlad should be deducted 6 (WBO) wins, which drops him to 5 - still above Lennox Lewis, which tells you more about stats than stats ever will.

Vitali is deducted 3 WBO wins, which puts him, hilariously, on level pegging with Mike Tyson. But still without a single important win.

[Tarkus]

Unfortunately Klitschko is looking at this table:

If he is looking at that table then he better go for WBC title. I dont mind if Klit KOs fake champ.

Also I dont think its fair to take away WBO wins. With that logic you should also remove IBF title defenses because older champs dont have those. It is a recognized title today. And if it was not then perhaps Klitschkos would have fought for other titles instead.

[Tuan_Jim]

Unfortunately Klitschko is looking at this table:

If he is looking at that table then he better go for WBC title. I dont mind if Klit KOs fake champ.

Also I dont think its fair to take away WBO wins. With that logic you should also remove IBF title defenses because older champs dont have those. It is a recognized title today. And if it was not then perhaps Klitschkos would have fought for other titles instead.

Disagree. The IBF title is a totally different situation. It had instant credibility because Holmes, like Hagler, was the Man of the division and instantly accepted and defended the belt. In fact from its inception the IBF remained in the hands of the lineal champ for over a decade, except the brief blip where Spinks vacated, Tucker won it, and then lost it to Tyson who then mushed Spinks.

The WBO however was a second-tier and much derided belt from its inception in 1989, and wasn't entertained by a lineal heavyweight champion until... Well, it wasn't even lineal but Ibragimov lost it to Klitschko in a reasonably big unification in 2009, after 20 years of dreck. The fact that fighters were called the "UNDISPUTED heavyweight champion" despite not holding the WBO belt underlines this.

There is no comparison in credibility.

[Tarkus]

Unfortunately Klitschko is looking at this table:

If he is looking at that table then he better go for WBC title. I dont mind if Klit KOs fake champ.

Also I dont think its fair to take away WBO wins. With that logic you should also remove IBF title defenses because older champs dont have those. It is a recognized title today. And if it was not then perhaps Klitschkos would have fought for other titles instead.

Disagree. The IBF title is a totally different situation. It had instant credibility because Holmes, like Hagler, was the Man of the division and instantly accepted and defended the belt. In fact from its inception the IBF remained in the hands of the lineal champ for over a decade, except the brief blip where Spinks vacated, Tucker won it, and then lost it to Tyson who then mushed Spinks.

The WBO however was a second-tier and much derided belt from its inception in 1989, and wasn't entertained by a lineal heavyweight champion until... Well, it wasn't even lineal but Ibragimov lost it to Klitschko in a reasonably big unification in 2009, after 20 years of dreck. The fact that fighters were called the "UNDISPUTED heavyweight champion" despite not holding the WBO belt underlines this.

There is no comparison in credibility.

I see what you mean. I dont know though if who held belts is the best way to determine the legitimacy. Holding a belt is a technical accomplishment rather then real achievement anyway and always has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Wilder is holding WBC title for a long time. Are you telling me he is more credible champion then Wlad was when he had WBO belt. Either we stick with the official record or we have to abandon it altogether and use other criteria.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I have a feeling that on reflection, he will call it a day.

[Tuan_Jim]

If he is looking at that table then he better go for WBC title. I dont mind if Klit KOs fake champ.

Also I dont think its fair to take away WBO wins. With that logic you should also remove IBF title defenses because older champs dont have those. It is a recognized title today. And if it was not then perhaps Klitschkos would have fought for other titles instead.

Disagree. The IBF title is a totally different situation. It had instant credibility because Holmes, like Hagler, was the Man of the division and instantly accepted and defended the belt. In fact from its inception the IBF remained in the hands of the lineal champ for over a decade, except the brief blip where Spinks vacated, Tucker won it, and then lost it to Tyson who then mushed Spinks.

The WBO however was a second-tier and much derided belt from its inception in 1989, and wasn't entertained by a lineal heavyweight champion until... Well, it wasn't even lineal but Ibragimov lost it to Klitschko in a reasonably big unification in 2009, after 20 years of dreck. The fact that fighters were called the "UNDISPUTED heavyweight champion" despite not holding the WBO belt underlines this.

There is no comparison in credibility.

I see what you mean. I dont know though if who held belts is the best way to determine the legitimacy. Holding a belt is a technical accomplishment rather then real achievement anyway and always has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Wilder is holding WBC title for a long time. Are you telling me he is more credible champion then Wlad was when he had WBO belt. Either we stick with the official record or we have to abandon it altogether and use other criteria.

The logic I'm using I think stands up from 1892 inception of gloves through to Lennox Lewis's retirement in 2004. After that the sanctioning bodies made titles and the division ridiculous.

[Tarkus]

Disagree. The IBF title is a totally different situation. It had instant credibility because Holmes, like Hagler, was the Man of the division and instantly accepted and defended the belt. In fact from its inception the IBF remained in the hands of the lineal champ for over a decade, except the brief blip where Spinks vacated, Tucker won it, and then lost it to Tyson who then mushed Spinks.

The WBO however was a second-tier and much derided belt from its inception in 1989, and wasn't entertained by a lineal heavyweight champion until... Well, it wasn't even lineal but Ibragimov lost it to Klitschko in a reasonably big unification in 2009, after 20 years of dreck. The fact that fighters were called the "UNDISPUTED heavyweight champion" despite not holding the WBO belt underlines this.

There is no comparison in credibility.

I see what you mean. I dont know though if who held belts is the best way to determine the legitimacy. Holding a belt is a technical accomplishment rather then real achievement anyway and always has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Wilder is holding WBC title for a long time. Are you telling me he is more credible champion then Wlad was when he had WBO belt. Either we stick with the official record or we have to abandon it altogether and use other criteria.

The logic I'm using I think stands up from 1892 inception of gloves through to Lennox Lewis's retirement in 2004. After that the sanctioning bodies made titles and the division ridiculous.

I have checked in Wikipedia and indeed WBC started to recognized WBO only after 2004. And the others did it even later. So I concede that those title defenses by Wlad cant be counted as legitimate.

[moogie101]

So we discount Wlad's wins, but Joe Louis' "Bum of the month club" where he ran through title defences against jobbers is apparently fine is it?

If he had an opponent in front of him & he defended the title it counts as a title defence. Otherwise boxing historians are going to have a nightmare!

[Tuan_Jim]

So we discount Wlad's wins, but Joe Louis' "Bum of the month club" where he ran through title defences against jobbers is apparently fine is it?

If he had an opponent in front of him & he defended the title it counts as a title defence. Otherwise boxing historians are going to have a nightmare!

What's not to understand?

Joe Louis was the heavyweight champion.

Wladimir Klitschko wasn't the heavyweight champion when he was defending the WBO title. Lennox Lewis was the heavyweight champion.

Klitschko was doing what every single WBO champion had done before him. Winning a second class title and milking it against second class opponents before later, hopefully, challenging for the actual world title. That's why none of them were taken seriously and the undisputed title was contested without their involvement.

[Tuan_Jim]

I see what you mean. I dont know though if who held belts is the best way to determine the legitimacy. Holding a belt is a technical accomplishment rather then real achievement anyway and always has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Wilder is holding WBC title for a long time. Are you telling me he is more credible champion then Wlad was when he had WBO belt. Either we stick with the official record or we have to abandon it altogether and use other criteria.

The logic I'm using I think stands up from 1892 inception of gloves through to Lennox Lewis's retirement in 2004. After that the sanctioning bodies made titles and the division ridiculous.

I have checked in Wikipedia and indeed WBC started to recognized WBO only after 2004. And the others did it even later. So I concede that those title defenses by Wlad cant be counted as legitimate.

Serving Oscar De La Hoya's need for a belt to unify with Bernard Hopkins, who already was undisputed middleweight champion.

Boxing really didn't a 4th major title, especially one with such a gruesome provenance, and with the WBA belt desecrating their own by splitting it in two, but the bodies were in full brazen bandit mode by that point, as they are to this day, and no promoter cared, and the media weren't paying much attention anymore.

[Ruthless-RKO]

The logic I'm using I think stands up from 1892 inception of gloves through to Lennox Lewis's retirement in 2004. After that the sanctioning bodies made titles and the division ridiculous.

I have checked in Wikipedia and indeed WBC started to recognized WBO only after 2004. And the others did it even later. So I concede that those title defenses by Wlad cant be counted as legitimate.

Serving Oscar De La Hoya's need for a belt to unify with Bernard Hopkins, who already was undisputed middleweight champion.

Boxing really didn't a 4th major title, especially one with such a gruesome provenance, and with the WBA belt desecrating their own by splitting it in two, but the bodies were in full brazen bandit mode by that point, as they are to this day, and no promoter cared, and the media weren't paying much attention anymore.

I thought WBO came out before IBF?

[crusader]

The IBF formed about 5 years earlier I think...

[Boxing Writer]

So we discount Wlad's wins, but Joe Louis' "Bum of the month club" where he ran through title defences against jobbers is apparently fine is it?

If he had an opponent in front of him & he defended the title it counts as a title defence. Otherwise boxing historians are going to have a nightmare!

What's not to understand?

Joe Louis was the heavyweight champion.

Wladimir Klitschko wasn't the heavyweight champion when he was defending the WBO title. Lennox Lewis was the heavyweight champion.

Yes, but Lennox Lewis wasn't real heavyweight champion either in his first reign...

[jamesmcdonnell]

I have checked in Wikipedia and indeed WBC started to recognized WBO only after 2004. And the others did it even later. So I concede that those title defenses by Wlad cant be counted as legitimate.

Serving Oscar De La Hoya's need for a belt to unify with Bernard Hopkins, who already was undisputed middleweight champion.

Boxing really didn't a 4th major title, especially one with such a gruesome provenance, and with the WBA belt desecrating their own by splitting it in two, but the bodies were in full brazen bandit mode by that point, as they are to this day, and no promoter cared, and the media weren't paying much attention anymore.

I thought WBO came out before IBF?

No, other way around.

[Jackson328]

When Tyson beat Tucker in 1987 he was universally credited as the undisputed heavyweight champ as he held the WBA, WBC, IBF titles, nobody spoke about the WBO . . . . It still struggles to be recognised in the heavyweight division, poor mans paper title in all honesty. The lineal title is the only real deal for the heavyweights in any case in my opinion

I hope Klitschko retires but his ego is probably too big and he may be tempted by Wilder and most definitely by Parker, I think he will be advised to stay away from AJ

[Tuan_Jim]

So we discount Wlad's wins, but Joe Louis' "Bum of the month club" where he ran through title defences against jobbers is apparently fine is it?

If he had an opponent in front of him & he defended the title it counts as a title defence. Otherwise boxing historians are going to have a nightmare!

What's not to understand?

Joe Louis was the heavyweight champion.

Wladimir Klitschko wasn't the heavyweight champion when he was defending the WBO title. Lennox Lewis was the heavyweight champion.

Yes, but Lennox Lewis wasn't real heavyweight champion either in his first reign...

He wasn't the Man but he held an authentic title. Phil Jackson was an awful opponent though!

[tiny_acres]

The IBF formed about 5 years earlier I think...

Ibf 1983
Wbo 1988

[Stuarty]

Big Wlad fought out his skin last time and came up short. Has he got another high intensity performance like that in him at 40 plus? If they fought again he'd be fighting a much improved AJ. Can Wlad go to the well again when he has to?

[dirk2686]

Big Wlad fought out his skin last time and came up short. Has he got another high intensity performance like that in him at 40 plus? If they fought again he'd be fighting a much improved AJ. Can Wlad go to the well again when he has to?

I don't think he needs another performance like that if he fights someone other than Joshua. He's got every chance against Wilder and he beats Parker every day of the week.

[Autobarn]

Big Wlad fought out his skin last time and came up short. Has he got another high intensity performance like that in him at 40 plus? If they fought again he'd be fighting a much improved AJ. Can Wlad go to the well again when he has to?

well said.

And, for me, he fought out of his skin in rounds five and six. Two great rounds and then stalling and then brutal KO defeat. Rest of the fight was tactical, the bulk of his performance still being feints and looking nimble moving in and out while actually producing minimal work.


Think a key issue for Wlad, before history, pride, money, is health. Another potential KO defeat. And at 41 also. I think he retires. But that he'll keep Joshua guessing before announcing.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Big Wlad fought out his skin last time and came up short. Has he got another high intensity performance like that in him at 40 plus? If they fought again he'd be fighting a much improved AJ. Can Wlad go to the well again when he has to?

well said.

And, for me, he fought out of his skin in rounds five and six. Two great rounds and then stalling and then brutal KO defeat. Rest of the fight was tactical, the bulk of his performance still being feints and looking nimble moving in and out while actually producing minimal work.


Think a key issue for Wlad, before history, pride, money, is health. Another potential KO defeat. And at 41 also. I think he retires. But that he'll keep Joshua guessing before announcing.

I was amazed at how light on his feet Wlad looked, and his stamina was great too. He came in with a game plan and it almost worked, but he couldn't change his cautious mindset, which allowed his opponent back into the fight - that's the problem, the one thing you can't change is what's between the ears.