Wlad's numbers

[QueensburyRules]

Same here. The physical potential was there for sure but he just didn't go for it enough.He was fortunate to be fighting in one of the weakest heavyweight era's ever IMO.Would he have troubled the 70's heavyweights ? Perhaps because of his size and strength, but those whiskers would be ripe for Foreman,Frazier,Lyle, Shavers etc.Those guys would rip your head off with bad intentions, Wlad ? Not so much.

- -Took over the Golden Era of the 90s into the 3rd millennium until 2015, all while emasculating DKing and American/Brit fighters/fans when not dropping them like the sad sacks of shhh they had become.

Thanks for the reminder. Americans today so sissy that fat Andy prefers to call himself a Mexican!!!

Oh the shame of the shameless!!!

[billeau2]

I was just browsing the HW records when I noticed something about Wlad I find a bit troubling.

In terms of combined title defenses and combined duration of reigns Wlad is given credit for his WBO wins during a time when the WBO is not officially validated by the other three bodies.

Let's be clear, the WBO is not a major body prior to 2007. Consequently Wlad's pre-07 WBO fights should not be considered major world title fights and should not be used to pump his numbers.

I'm not saying this to hate on Wlad but fair is fair and quite a lot of his numbers are boasted by a title that wasn't anything special for half his reign.

At some point one has to ask about how something that is state sanctioned becomes validated in the first place. The state validates a certain way, always. A license never means you are good at the deed, it means that the state recognizes you.

I don't know if one can assume that validation by the other bodies is what is lacking to pronounce that this group is valid. I don't want to create more confusion but lets face it...in the annuals of all you have studied, has anyone ever come to a situation where the fans woke up like rabid dogs demanding more sanctioning bodies? Which begs the question of, why would one be created in the first place? To what end, or purpose? Again, when does it occur people saying"we need a greater degree of sanctioning bodies! and quick!"

With these bodies, so good at validating others, but who validates the validator? Do these other groups even have the authority to NOT recognize other groups? I mean we know they do not really have a purpose if we are honest... If they did they would not need more than one group.

You may be able to avoid these questions, more power to you if you can do so.

[Marchegiano]

At some point one has to ask about how something that is state sanctioned becomes validated in the first place. The state validates a certain way, always. A license never means you are good at the deed, it means that the state recognizes you.

I don't know if one can assume that validation by the other bodies is what is lacking to pronounce that this group is valid. I don't want to create more confusion but lets face it...in the annuals of all you have studied, has anyone ever come to a situation where the fans woke up like rabid dogs demanding more sanctioning bodies? Which begs the question of, why would one be created in the first place? To what end, or purpose? Again, when does it occur people saying"we need a greater degree of sanctioning bodies! and quick!"

With these bodies, so good at validating others, but who validates the validator? Do these other groups even have the authority to NOT recognize other groups? I mean we know they do not really have a purpose if we are honest... If they did they would not need more than one group.

You may be able to avoid these questions, more power to you if you can do so.

Hmm, let me sit on this a moment. I want you to know I've read it and will respond so I've written this, but, I came unprepared for a real answer. To be more specific, I need to take a look back at the very early days.


There is one I can answer straight off the rip though. I do believe you are mistaken about the call for bodies. Sure, no one words it that way " We need more bodies " but they sure do *****, whine, and cry about rule and ranking enforcement every goddamn day, and, that is the sole reason bodies exist in the first place.


When one says effectively " Someone ought to change this about boxing" they kind of are begging for a new body.

The existence of bodies is to stop the traditions that used to dictate boxing in order to make the sport more fair and agreeable. The only reason there are multiples is because we debate how to go about being fair and agreeable.

The IBO being the youngest kid on the block and the IBO's big difference between the other four being their ranking system, and, ranking being something fans ***** about on a daily basis is not to me in anyway coincidental.


To the other, very good point, I believe the early bodies recognize one another due to regional era recognition but like I said at the start I'm not sure so I'll not really get into that yet.

[billeau2]

Hmm, let me sit on this a moment. I want you to know I've read it and will respond so I've written this, but, I came unprepared for a real answer. To be more specific, I need to take a look back at the very early days.


There is one I can answer straight off the rip though. I do believe you are mistaken about the call for bodies. Sure, no one words it that way " We need more bodies " but they sure do *****, whine, and cry about rule and ranking enforcement every goddamn day, and, that is the sole reason bodies exist in the first place.


When one says effectively " Someone ought to change this about boxing" they kind of are begging for a new body.

The existence of bodies is to stop the traditions that used to dictate boxing in order to make the sport more fair and agreeable. The only reason there are multiples is because we debate how to go about being fair and agreeable.

The IBO being the youngest kid on the block and the IBO's big difference between the other four being their ranking system, and, ranking being something fans ***** about on a daily basis is not to me in anyway coincidental.


To the other, very good point, I believe the early bodies recognize one another due to regional era recognition but like I said at the start I'm not sure so I'll not really get into that yet.

Lets go backwards, let me respond to the latter part of your post first here where you are searching for the information. I am glad you understood the question. I know it is a tough one. What validates the validator... sort of like when the Greeks kept on about the earth was on top of another body, and that body was on top of another... ad infinitum, then the medievals (Aquinas specifically) called the first originating cause/body "God."

Specifically when boxing was trying to become legit in Victorian England, it was different than Greece where a tradition validated the process. The Olympic tradition was unquestionably the final word and judges, other administrators were mere functionaries, trying to divine the oracle, so to speak.

When Figg and the other lines had issues it seems the lineal could eventually pull everything together, provided that was in the best interests of each fighter. But the original sacrosanct rules were the Marquis Queensbury, not some state.

When did it become part of boxing to need middlemen? And when they entered the picture how were they intitially validated? We know that there were clubs, for men, where fights and training for boxing took place around the mid eighteen hundreds. The clubs would sell tickets, have the ref, and pay the purses...the trainers would presumably referee the contests.

I think if we could find the answer to when sanctioning bodies started to take over, specifically from the state, we could divine at least a dual purpose to these groups. I don't know how well they regulated M... I am skeptical until I know who brought them into being... I am thinking of all the times they failed and the natural tendency for people to want to throw more government at problems. When the mob entered boxing? did we need more government? more regulation of rules, more agencies as such?

If we can look at this point of departure (when government regulation came into being) and look at subsequent developments, I might agree with your first point. For now I remain somewhat skeptical.

[Anthony342]

Yes, sadly.
Hard to say that Wlad's WBO title defences don't count, when He won belt of legimate Chris Byrd... and even Ali and Louis had less qualified opponents counting as one of defences of their title.

Amount of title defences lost it's meaning since it got so watered down. It's meaningless statistic now.
That, or just like in case of Middleweights and Monzon vs Hopkins defences, We should only look at defences after establishing status of undisputed or lineal?

Yep exactly. That's what I do.

[Rusty Tromboni]

smart guys... weak ... hearts.... white... so love.. belved by whites...

marketability....

my pimp hand is strong...

they had the size... jhonny has a lions heart.. lacks size..

You've clearly never been in a fight, let alone won anything important. And you certainly don't understand Boxing.

How was Wlad "weak"?

Vitali definitely wasn't weak or yellow.

But since people like to say Wlad was weak/yellow, I would actually love to see that substantiated.

He's one of the first Heavyweight champions we could be proud of. And people hate on him BECAUSE of that.

[Zaroku]

You've clearly never been in a fight, let alone won anything important. And you certainly don't understand Boxing.

How was Wlad "weak"?

Vitali definitely wasn't weak or yellow.

But since people like to say Wlad was weak/yellow, I would actually love to see that substantiated.

He's one of the first Heavyweight champions we could be proud of. And people hate on him BECAUSE of that.

he was a great champ and fan boys always seem to say, you never been in a fight.. been in plenty of fights..

Vlad always brought it.. great champ.

[QueensburyRules]

- -IBO a few years older than the WBO and more legit than the IBF in that they seem to recognize the fantasy lineal champ starting with fat Lar.

https://boxrec.com/en/title/75/Heavyweight?offset=50

Nobody will ever beat Wlad IBO record.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Same here. The physical potential was there for sure but he just didn't go for it enough.He was fortunate to be fighting in one of the weakest heavyweight era's ever IMO.Would he have troubled the 70's heavyweights ? Perhaps because of his size and strength, but those whiskers would be ripe for Foreman,Frazier,Lyle, Shavers etc.Those guys would rip your head off with bad intentions, Wlad ? Not so much.

This is why vasectomies should be legally mandated to those who cannot complete High School.

All those men you named were dropped/stopped by lesser punchers than Wlad.

I love Quarry, P4P he is actually a GREAT fighter. But he wasn't a great Heavyweight. He was as good as you can be without being great. He was just too small for his era, and lacked the fire power to compensate. And yet:

he stopped Shavers (almost as soon as the fight started); out-boxed Lyle; was dodged by Foreman; and brought the fight to Frazier - some think he could have out-boxed Frazier, if he'd fought smart.

Wlad is twice Quarry's size and had a KO punch bigger than any of those men.