Better Resume: Chris Byrd or Vitali Klitschko???

[LacedUp]

The IBO is a minor belt so it's understandable not to include this champ specifically as a true champ. However the IBO is an organisation designed to identify who the REAL champ is amongst corruption and multiple title holders. Since it the real champ will atleast hold 1 major belt, it is always tied up with one of them anyway.

The WBO since its inception has ALWAYS been considered one of the 4 major belts. Yes it took awhile to take hold properly, something like 10 years. But if you were WBO HW champion.. You were and always will be, a HW champ by definition.

Sorry but that was how it was defined! Any boxer like Tyson who wanted to dispute the legitimacy of the WBO title holders claim was free to fight them for it.

The Klitschko's WBO title defences/shots all cumulatively count on their tally. And it's almost too ****** to mention, but winning and then defending multiple belts is HARDER than doing the same for less or a single belt. Obviously!

******ed post. Was Chris Van Heerden also the true WW champ amongst all the corruption?

Vitali Klitschko's WBO defenses doesn't count any more or any less than James Toney's IBU/WBF title defenses.

[Elroy1]

******ed post. Was Chris Van Heerden also the true WW champ amongst all the corruption?

Vitali Klitschko's WBO defenses doesn't count any more or any less than James Toney's IBU/WBF title defenses.

I'll bite this one since you refuse to put me on ignore. I thought ignore was meant to work both ways.

Sorry but WBO was a major belt and those others weren't.

What's more the WBO's legitimacy was basically enshrined by the Klitschko's when they respectively earned it. From the moment they took it it has always been considered a top trinket.

The jury is out on you Lacey. All those title defences add up nicely.

Nobody has a better title record in 200+ (modern HW) than Wladimir Klitschko and Vitali is well up there too.

Fact!

[LacedUp]

I'll bite this one since you refuse to put me on ignore. I thought ignore was meant to work both ways.

Sorry but WBO was a major belt and those others weren't.

What's more the WBO's legitimacy was basically enshrined by the Klitschko's when they respectively earned it. From the moment they took it it has always been considered a top trinket.

The jury is out on you Lacey. All those title defences add up nicely.

Nobody has a better title record in 200+ (modern HW) than Wladimir Klitschko and Vitali is well up there too.

Fact!

No it didn't. Only when Wlad earned it in 2008 did it have world championship status for either of the Klitschko brothers.

From the period 1999-2002 when the two brothers initially shared the WBO belt it wasn't recognized by the other orgs or by Ring magazine. There was an undisputed champion and they weren't considered world champions. They were just WBO belt holders.

It's that simple really. It took a lot of time for the WBO to gain credibility and it certainly hadn't got all the way then. It was still a belt that was given up in order to fight for other belts at the time.

[Elroy1]

No it didn't. Only when Wlad earned it in 2008 did it have world championship status for either of the Klitschko brothers.

From the period 1999-2002 when the two brothers initially shared the WBO belt it wasn't recognized by the other orgs or by Ring magazine. There was an undisputed champion and they weren't considered world champions. They were just WBO belt holders.

It's that simple really. It took a lot of time for the WBO to gain credibility and it certainly hadn't got all the way then. It was still a belt that was given up in order to fight for other belts at the time.

But the Klitschko's didn't do that then did they. They solidified that belt. Made it in a sense.

So your revisionist history even extends into the modern era now too, not just the pre "athletic-revolution" eras of boxing. Interesting stuff. But nonetheless moronic still.

[Elroy1]

Please do me a favour. Why don't ya go and sum total the records of all the boxers Byrd beat, then all the boxers Vitali beat, appendix that to the TOTAL title records of both as well.

Then get back to me on who defeated more quality opponents?

No matter what way you slice it, Vitali smashed the better opponents overall. And he DID do it by smashing them all up too, not by flipping around the ring like a wounded bloody seagull!

[LacedUp]

But the Klitschko's didn't do that then did they. They solidified that belt. Made it in a sense.

So your revisionist history even extends into the modern era now too, not just the pre "athletic-revolution" eras of boxing. Interesting stuff. But nonetheless moronic still.

Well considering Oscar Dela Hoya held it early in the 90s and he was five times the star both Klitschko were combined, then no, they didn't make it. Michael Moorer held it, Morrison, Mercer & Rid**** Bowe also held it yet it didn't make any of them world champions with that belt.

It didn't change because Vitali Klitschko beat Herbie Hide a guy who'd fought and lost to 3rd tier heavyweights before.

Please do me a favour. Why don't ya go and sum total the records of all the boxers Byrd beat, then all the boxers Vitali beat, appendix that to the TOTAL title records of both as well.

Then get back to me on who defeated more quality opponents?

No matter what way you slice it, Vitali smashed the better opponents overall. And he DID do it by smashing them all up too, not by flipping around the ring like a wounded bloody seagull!

What would the total records prove if I may ask?

Byrd fought more top 10 opponents than Vitali and beat HOFamers.

[Mitchell Kane]

Michael Moorer held it, Morrison, Mercer & Rid**** Bowe also held it yet it didn't make any of them world champions with that belt.

Exactly.

Anybody who was following the sport at the time knows the WBO wasn't on the same level as the other three belts.

The person trying the hardest to make the case at the time was Rock Newman, because it was in his personal interest to do so...and he failed miserably at it.

I distinctly remember HBO making a point to say they didn't recognize the WBO title...and that's despite the fact that Bowe was an HBO fighter and it very well could have been in their interest to try and prop up that title.

And since Elroy is still pushing this crap, I figured I'd go back and add some quotes to this...

Quotes from Lampley during Bowe-Hide:

After the pre-fight intros:
"The title to which Michael Buffer referred in his pre-fight introuctions is granted by (an) organization which is not recognized by HBO, so for our purposes this is not a world championship bout".

After the post-fight announcement:
"And we repeat, in our book here at HBO, we don't recognize the governing body that awards that title that Michael Buffer is referring to...so by our likes, Rid**** Bowe is not yet again a heavyweight chamion of the world. He's trying hard to work toward it."

And here's the NY Times on the matter, just for good measure:

"Hide is the heavyweight champion of the world, according to the World Boxing Organization - the least credible of all the incredible sanctioning bodies."

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/16/sp...6iht-hide.html

"In any event, Bowe could acquire one title to replace the three he has previously lost. When he defeated Evander Holyfield in 1992 he won the Big Three: the International Boxing Federation, World Boxing Association and World Boxing Council. Not surprisingly, Newman is equating this lesser-known W.B.O. title with the more prestigious ones Bowe lost back in November, 1993, when Holyfield won a decision."

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/07/sp...ith-tyson.html

[LacedUp]

Exactly.

Anybody who was following the sport at the time knows the WBO wasn't on the same level as the other three belts.

The person trying the hardest to make the case at the time was Rock Newman, because it was in his personal interest to do so...and he failed miserably at it.

I distinctly remember HBO making a point to say they didn't recognize the WBO title...and that's despite the fact that Bowe was an HBO fighter and it very well could have been in their interest to try and prop up that title.

And since Elroy is still pushing this crap, I figured I'd go back and add some quotes to this...

Quotes from Lampley during Bowe-Hide:

After the pre-fight intros:
"The title to which Michael Buffer referred in his pre-fight introuctions is granted by (an) organization which is not recognized by HBO, so for our purposes this is not a world championship bout".

After the post-fight announcement:
"And we repeat, in our book here at HBO, we don't recognize the governing body that awards that title that Michael Buffer is referring to...so by our likes, Rid**** Bowe is not yet again a heavyweight chamion of the world. He's trying hard to work toward it."

And here's the NY Times on the matter, just for good measure:

"Hide is the heavyweight champion of the world, according to the World Boxing Organization - the least credible of all the incredible sanctioning bodies."

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/16/sp...6iht-hide.html

"In any event, Bowe could acquire one title to replace the three he has previously lost. When he defeated Evander Holyfield in 1992 he won the Big Three: the International Boxing Federation, World Boxing Association and World Boxing Council. Not surprisingly, Newman is equating this lesser-known W.B.O. title with the more prestigious ones Bowe lost back in November, 1993, when Holyfield won a decision."

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/07/sp...ith-tyson.html

Thanks for the sources mate.

At least Elroy admitted to it having less credibility but is just trying to say the Klitschko's made the belt. Which is also untrue.

The biggest con of all is Boxing_Goat who claims he was watching Mike Tyson in the 80s, yet doesn't know anything about anyone other than Klitschko. And also claims the WBO was just as credible as the other belts. It's still the least credible of all the belts in my opinion.

[Derranged]

And despite you bashing all 6 of these opponents, all 6 of them together is a better overall list than...

Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Liston, Shavers, Spinks

Especially considering Foreman win was under strange circumstances, the Liston affairs were hotly debatable, the Frazier trilogy was even at best for Ali, as was the Spinks affair and he never in fact beat Norton at all.

And yet Vitali dominantly dispatched all of his opponents without hardly losing a round.

So much for your worthless opinion again!

You're like Naysayer's polar opposite. The forum could do without the two of you idiots.