Title Defenses: W. Klitschko 13 Lennox Lewis 12

[Hitman932]

Joe Louis and Holmes had 20 plus consecutive title defenses. They didn't get knocked out by average fighters in between like Wlad did. Nice job of leaving that out.

It doesn't really matter in this argument because Lewis was also knocked out twice by average fighters during his title reigns.

As for Holmes, we could write down the names of some of the bums he beat and wonder how many tough fights Wlad would have had against them.

[Nautilus]

Joe Louis and Holmes had 20 plus consecutive title defenses. They didn't get knocked out by average fighters in between like Wlad did. Nice job of leaving that out. There's a difference. And it's funny how you can Lewis list isn't impressive when you listed fighters like 40 plus Ray Mercer and Charles shufford on Wlad's llist and include fighters that Lewis beat YEARS before. But Lewis list is unimpressive?LOL People like you and Carnivore kill me with your racial insecurities. And that's what this is about.

You make some fair points, though Lewis did get KO by average fighters. It just happens that not all boxers have granite chins.

I think though it would be best to evaluate Wlad's career after his career run is over. Right now he has had 9 consecutive defenses in a row, which is a very decent number.

I think there is a good list of opponents in from of him -- Povetkin, Haye, Solis, Arreola, rematch with Peter, and possibly Adamek. Wlad has a potential to make his career list truly great.

[Calilloyd]

It doesn't really matter in this argument because Lewis was also knocked out twice by average fighters during his title reigns.

As for Holmes, we could write down the names of some of the bums he beat and wonder how many tough fights Wlad would have had against them.

The difference is nobody is comparing what Lewis did to Holmes or Joe Louis. So it does matter when you try to compare Wlad's title defenses to Joe Louis and Larry Holmes. Louis had 25 consecutive defenses, Holmes 20. Wlad has 13 scattered over a period of time with losses mixed in. That's not the same thing. It doesn't work that way. And the difference between Holmes bums and wlads bums is that Holmes never lost to any of them. Wlad did.

[T.Horton]

good grief. half of wlad's defenses were made while lennox was the true champion. you can't even compare.

[Mr. Invincible]

Some of your **** is sig-worthy.

Yeap, as a dimwit would see it.

Response: Most of your **** is just that....****.

People so short sighted have no business holding a conversation with myself.

Go blow Lennox Lewis if you want to.

F off.

[Calilloyd]

You make some fair points, though Lewis did get KO by average fighters. It just happens that not all boxers have granite chins.

I think though it would be best to evaluate Wlad's career after his career run is over. Right now he has had 9 consecutive defenses in a row, which is a very decent number.

I think there is a good list of opponents in from of him -- Povetkin, Haye, Solis, Arreola, rematch with Peter, and possibly Adamek. Wlad has a potential to make his career list truly great.

That I agree with.

[Mr. Invincible]

you think a Prime Holyfield loses to a Prime Wlad?



wow

Too big of a physical disadvantage for him I'm afraid. Don't take it personally.

[-Swizzy-]

Lewis' title defenses DESTROY Wlad's defenses.

[Grimmer]

Vitali was winning a decision. He had Lewis rocked and without the cut would he have won the fight? I'd say most probably. He might have even KO'd Lewis.

That said, there's more than one way to win a fight than a decision. If you can smash up your opponents face to the point where is medically advised that your opponent should not continue then congratulations you've just won the fight, and fairly. "But without the cut!!!".....but what? The cut did happen...Lewis landed a great shot which in the end won him the fight. You can't just eradicate the decisive factor in the match and claim Lewis lost. Just because Vitali wanted to continue doesn't make a difference either. There's plenty of instances where fighters are TKO'd, which are widely accepted as the correct decision by the officials, the fans and the pundits but the fighter himself, because of pride, wanted to continue, but there's a reason it's not up to the fighter whether they continue or not, because they don't know what's best for their health, or at least some don't care about their well being over winning the fight. Vitali without the cut would have won, but the cut happened, his opponent had the power to bust up one of the toughest heavyweights of all time to force a stoppage.

Basically what it comes down to, in the simplest of terms is:

In a boxing match between two boxers, one did this to his opponent's face:

[IMG]http://i19.***********.com/albums/b163/dantzu/Vitalibeatup.jpg[/IMG]

And won the fight.

The decision and the credibility of the win should not be in dispute, a TKO, by recommendation of the doctors/ref is a legitimate way to win a fight and Lewis did that.

The dispute should lie with whether Lewis should have given Vitali a rematch and in my opinion, most definitely.

[Hitman932]

Too big of a physical disadvantage for him I'm afraid. Don't take it personally.

Not only that but we are talking about a 37 year old version of Holyfield who had already been through multiple wars in the ring. Lewis didn't beat the "prime" Evander Holyfield. Lewis was the younger and fresher fighter just as Wlad would be.

The Holyfield that Lewis beat went on to go 1-1-1 in 3 fights with John Ruiz as well so I again don't see him beating the current version of Klit at that point in his career.