Will Wlad break Joe Louis's 25 title defenses?

Lennox retired rather than rematch Vitali, who did Lennox beat? An old, washed up Tyson or Holyfield. What was his best win? He beat alot of good fighters, but not great (at the time). Lennox has one of the greatest HW resumes of all time.

So let me get this straight. HEY Thread starter let me get this straight. So basically a more cautious, less explosive, less slick, less skilled, baby junior varisty version of prime Lennox Lewis is now considered a boxing machine and a ATG? So this makes Lennox what? Boxing God? Lennox retired rather than rematch Vitali, who did Lennox beat? An old, washed up Tyson or Holyfield. What was his best win? He beat alot of good fighters, but not great (at the time).

Bam!!!!!!! Ownage right here!!! That's what I'm saying, a guy with that record fighting for a world champion against a "great" tells you a lot about that era. As opposed to Mormeck or Hayes great heavyweight accomplishments? You guys keep ignoring the fact your "bum of the month" theory is wrong and the fact Davis was a charity event for the army.

H2H? No they effing aren't! Conn was a goddamn middleweight! I don't care who you are, you don't get no credit for beating no goddman middleweight. What if Wlad beat a plumped up Andre Ward? Would you give him credit for that? Would you bollocks! You'd say it was a disgrace and an absolute mismatch. Carnera is a better win than Byrd? What planet are you smoking in your planet-sized pipe? Schmeling and Baer better wins than anyone on Wlad's resume? Baer was a clown with windmill sails for arms. Schmeling wouldn't even have been considered a heavyweight today. Don't big up Louis's wins like they were something super special. They were good wins for a good heavyweight in a weak era. That's all. Conn was a light heavyweight and had proven himself worthy by actually beating other top 10 heavyweights before getting his shot at Louis. The icing on the cake is that he's an all time top 10 light heavy and a top 25 all time p4p fighter. and lets not forget Louis had less weight on him than Wlad did on his last two opponents and won't bother with the skill differential.

Just saying I have no idea because you assume all of Louis' record is wrong on Boxrec isn't really fair. What I see is no less than 8 fighters coming off a loss and getting a shot at Louis' heavyweight title, Tony Musto coming of a 2-4 record and 6-fight rookie Johnny Davis both fighting Louis. Unless these stats are proven wrong, I have a point. I know for a fact you have no idea what you're talking about. If you did you would have known Davis was a charity even for the military. If you did you would know of those 8 fighters coming off losses Godoy was coming off a DQ loss, McCoy was coming off losses to Solly Krieger and Billy Conn...thats much more impressive than fighting a novice coming off two losses, don't you think? And Buddy Baer and Joe Walcott were coming off their own losses to Louisv and Walcott should have actually been given the decision in their first fight. But Louis did what great champion do, he gave a rematch and set the record straight...unlike Wlad. So the reality is you have no point, no historical understanding of the era and how it operated and had no idea about boxrecs incomplete records. You're welcome for the education though.

Agree with the majority of this. What I don't agree with is that opponents of one Klit shouldn't automatically be barred or condemned as opponents of the other. No reason why Wlad shouldn't fight Adamek, Chisora or Arreola for instance. He'll break it for sure..

Oh yes, I get your point alright, and appreciate it. My own point was that Louis was fighting the best available opponents and was going through them at a very quick rate both because he was fighting 5-6-7 times a year and because he was so good he made them look very ordinary. No doubt some were very ordinary, but they were the best available. He actually had a few return fights based on the fact that they'd either gone the distance with him or had lasted a decent number of rounds before being KO'd. THAT's running out of opponents. The Klitshkos are in the very same boat. Under normal circumstances, and against each other, past Klitschko opponents are very credible fighters, but against either Klitschko they look like nothing, and the Klitschkos, if they don''t KO them, and even if they do, win just about every rd. Because there are two of them the attrition is just about what it was for Joe Louis. Because there are far fewer fighters nowadays, they are being reduced to considering comparative novices, and to recycle the previously beaten opponents of the other brother. Agree with the majority of this. What I don't agree with is that opponents of one Klit shouldn't automatically be barred or condemned as opponents of the other. No reason why Wlad shouldn't fight Adamek, Chisora or Arreola for instance.

Believe it was also essentially an Army fund raiser. he fought more than one of those. Baer II and Simon II were both for the relief effort for sure. In other words, he fought some real contenders essentially for free for a greater cause than himself. Considering the good the Klit's do outside the ring, there's something for both sides of a nice history debate to celebrate. Absolutely. Louis was a great man.

Believe it was also essentially an Army fund raiser. he fought more than one of those. Baer II and Simon II were both for the relief effort for sure. In other words, he fought some real contenders essentially for free for a greater cause than himself. Considering the good the Klit's do outside the ring, there's something for both sides of a nice history debate to celebrate. Yes quite right. Just want to note that Baer and Simon were both credible opponents by comparison with Davis, who couldn't have been anything but an exhibition opponent, for, as you point out, a War Fund Raising cause. Wasn't one of them Eleanor Roosevelt's Milk Fund?The local Commission obviously was not quite caught up yet to the fact that there was a War going on. Louis got the very raw end of the stick from the IRS, it was a disgrace, and reminded me in a way of the blatant official discrimination against Jack Johnson, although the IRS is just officialdom as compared with the deliberate (mis)use of a rather inappropriate law to "get" Johnson.

I was on that train in response to the guy who said there are only bums in today's heavyweight division and Louis today would be the undefeated champion with three time more title defenses. And that's quite ironic when realizing that Louis fought no less than 8 fighters coming off a loss for the heavyweight title, and comparing that to Wlad who has fought a good number of undefeated challengers and not one coming off a loss streak as a champion just shows the contrast. You get my point now. Oh yes, I get your point alright, and appreciate it. My own point was that Louis was fighting the best available opponents and was going through them at a very quick rate both because he was fighting 5-6-7 times a year and because he was so good he made them look very ordinary. No doubt some were very ordinary, but they were the best available. He actually had a few return fights based on the fact that they'd either gone the distance with him or had lasted a decent number of rounds before being KO'd. THAT's running out of opponents. The Klitshkos are in the very same boat. Under normal circumstances, and against each other, past Klitschko opponents are very credible fighters, but against either Klitschko they look like nothing, and the Klitschkos, if they don''t KO them, and even if they do, win just about every rd. Because there are two of them the attrition is just about what it was for Joe Louis. Because there are far fewer fighters nowadays, they are being reduced to considering comparative novices, and to recycle the previously beaten opponents of the other brother.

If you'd look at the record....I mean really LOOK at the record, you'd see that Louis was fighting every month or two. He needed opponents so that he could make some real money, to match his now sendthrift life style. So he took whoever was there, actually the best available. Thy were all quite good, but, of course because Louis was so overwhelming they didn't show up well against Louis. The same way that quite good fighters today don't show up well against the Klitschkos. I've discussed Johnny Davis in another post, and you are shown up. You know all this, so why keep harping on your little doo-dahs...?? Your position is as much past-due date as Marciano's triple retreads and zero-wins kids. Being factual, Marciano has by far the worst opponent record of any heavyweight champion. You should concentrate on him, look up the records of HIS opponents, and his opponents opponents. You'll get an eye opener and you'll forget all about Joe Louis and the Klitschkos. Far worse even than Marvin Hart, who wasn't nearly as bad as his reputation, and was actually a good fighter. I was on that train in response to the guy who said there are only bums in today's heavyweight division and Louis today would be the undefeated champion with three time more title defenses. And that's quite ironic when realizing that Louis fought no less than 8 fighters coming off a loss for the heavyweight title, and comparing that to Wlad who has fought a good number of undefeated challengers and not one coming off a loss streak as a champion just shows the contrast. You get my point now.

Just saying I have no idea because you assume all of Louis' record is wrong on Boxrec isn't really fair. What I see is no less than 8 fighters coming off a loss and getting a shot at Louis' heavyweight title, Tony Musto coming of a 2-4 record and 6-fight rookie Johnny Davis both fighting Louis. Unless these stats are proven wrong, I have a point. If you'd look at the record....I mean really LOOK at the record, you'd see that Louis was fighting every month or two. He needed opponents so that he could make some real money, to match his now sendthrift life style. So he took whoever was there, actually the best available. Thy were all quite good, but, of course because Louis was so overwhelming they didn't show up well against Louis. The same way that quite good fighters today don't show up well against the Klitschkos. I've discussed Johnny Davis in another post, and you are shown up. You know all this, so why keep harping on your little doo-dahs...?? Your position is as much past-due date as Marciano's triple retreads and zero-wins kids. Being factual, Marciano has by far the worst opponent record of any heavyweight champion. You should concentrate on him, look up the records of HIS opponents, and his opponents opponents. You'll get an eye opener and you'll forget all about Joe Louis and the Klitschkos. Far worse even than Marvin Hart, who wasn't nearly as bad as his reputation, and was actually a good fighter.

I had a look at his record. This was his only fight between March 1942 and June 1946, which was during the War years when there were really no title fights within a few months of America entering the War. Louis had 4 -FOUR- title fights in 1940, and 7 -SEVEN- title fights in 1941 but none-ZERO- in 42, 43, 44, and 45.......until he fought Billy Conn AFTER the War. So your quote is very tendentious, self-serving and suspect. The Davis bout, was supposed to have been only an exhibition. But the New York (only New York) State Commission insisted that it should be classed as a title defence. Only they did so. Out of 48 States. And, byt the way, I recall that Floyd Patterson, who was actually a good heavyweight Champion, fought Olympic Gold Medal winner Pete Rademacher who thus had his very first professional fight, and Rocky Marciano's whole championship career was to specialize in ancient retreads. Think of a better one. Believe it was also essentially an Army fund raiser. he fought more than one of those. Baer II and Simon II were both for the relief effort for sure. In other words, he fought some real contenders essentially for free for a greater cause than himself. Considering the good the Klit's do outside the ring, there's something for both sides of a nice history debate to celebrate.

Saying that today's formula 1 would be faster than an old one has no reason to be, we all know it. Saying that Crosby is skating faster then Maurice Richard is the same, but what is clear to me is that Joe Louis, just like Maurice Richard and Gilles Villeneuve were special athletes that may never be surpassed. It is known that Maurice Richard would score 100 goals/year in todays hockey, but i can bet you that somewhere on the net there is someone that's saying that Crosby or any of today's star is better than Richard. Then what was the point of the hostility towards my post earlier that you sigged if you agree with it?

Have a look at his record, just seeing a 3-3 guy fighting the world champion tells me enough about this so called "great era". I had a look at his record. This was his only fight between March 1942 and June 1946, which was during the War years when there were really no title fights within a few months of America entering the War. Louis had 4 -FOUR- title fights in 1940, and 7 -SEVEN- title fights in 1941 but none-ZERO- in 42, 43, 44, and 45.......until he fought Billy Conn AFTER the War. So your quote is very tendentious, self-serving and suspect. The Davis bout, was supposed to have been only an exhibition. But the New York (only New York) State Commission insisted that it should be classed as a title defence. Only they did so. Out of 48 States. And, byt the way, I recall that Floyd Patterson, who was actually a good heavyweight Champion, fought Olympic Gold Medal winner Pete Rademacher who thus had his very first professional fight, and Rocky Marciano's whole championship career was to specialize in ancient retreads. Think of a better one.

Depends on how one approaches the record. First, important to note, the record is consecutive defenses. Overall defenses, I think, belongs to Chavez for all of boxing. As lineal champ, he's 21 from tying and 22 from breaking. As just IBF champ, he's 14 from tying and 15 from breaking. Considering he fights about 2 times a year, sometimes 1, that puts him about seven years and change from the mark. That's barring injury and a desire to do something else in life. The odds are heavily stacked against. Completely covering in all directions. There's no doubt about it. Although Manny Stewart says Klitschko could easily fight for another 4-5 years, I think that, unless the markets suddenly crash, as soon as his brother retires, he will feel lonely at the top and be thinkng about following suit.

I don't see anyone beating him, but he needs to be way more active. The way that girl of yours is standing, she runs a big risk of ironing the wrong thing.

I've heard it a million times because people draw the false conclusion that just because of their size it would be the same result. As for the bold it is just a ridiculous argument. I was obviously saying Wlad would beat Louis and Marciano because HWs and athletes in general of this era are a different beast then the ones of the past. So no... I dont have two choices. We arent comparing Wlad and Louis towards what we think they would be if they had lived in different eras. We are comparing the Wladimir we see now and the Joe Louis we know of. Basically due to your last statement you agree with me that Wlad would starch Joe Louis in a head to head match. Saying that today's formula 1 would be faster than an old one has no reason to be, we all know it. Saying that Crosby is skating faster then Maurice Richard is the same, but what is clear to me is that Joe Louis, just like Maurice Richard and Gilles Villeneuve were special athletes that may never be surpassed. It is known that Maurice Richard would score 100 goals/year in todays hockey, but i can bet you that somewhere on the net there is someone that's saying that Crosby or any of today's star is better than Richard.

If he fights a dozen or so more mormecks then yeah why not? Won't mean **** though, its about WHO you beat, not how many bums you beat. take say 4 of Ali's fights and nothing else ... he beat Liston, Foreman,Patterson,frazier ... guess what those 4 wins alone > than Wlad's entire career. No they don't. Wlad might not have an opponent with the same name recognition as the above but he has a generally solid body of tep ten opponents on his record which, added up, give him a more than respectable cache of resume points.

lol ! Speak when you're angry and you'll make the best speech you'll ever regret. Speak when I'm drunk you mean? I'm a right pisshead at this moment...