Can we call Wlad the man at HW?

soonermark890 wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:

Looking at the fighters on that list makes me want to vomit.

LOL

I've been following this sport for over forty years and have never seen it this bad.Makes me long for Page vs.Tubbs all over again.

WinstonSmith wrote:

Looking at the fighters on that list makes me want to vomit.

I wouldn't blame you.

soonermark890 wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

Because of his brother can we call Wlad the man? Also if we can when did he become the man at HW?

I don't know what we do about the Wlad-Vitali situation. I guess I give them a pass.

I think Wlad is the man to the extent the family relationship permits it. As of when? I'll punt and accept Ring Magazine's judgement that he became the man when he defeated Chagaev.

I guess.

So he was not the MAN when he beat Bryd?

Geeze I don't think so. What possible claim to being the man did Chris Byrd ever have? Lennox had become lineal champ when he beat Shannon Briggs.

My thing about this is that at the time He was coming off the win over Peter then he took out the longest reigning champ in Chris Byrd. So he now held 3 trinkets. I know that does not mean much but does that not make him the man at that point? I mean in 2005 who was the number 2 behind him? It would have had to be Bryd. Then in 2006 he beat Byrd the number two guy right?

I would look it up but every site I try is blocked by our school.

From Cyberboxingzone-

Year End 2006

Champ: Vacant
1-Wlad Klit
2-Oleg Maskaev
3-Sam Peter
4-James Toney
5-Shannon Briggs
6-Sergei Liakhovich
7-Lamon Brewster
8-Nicolay Valuev
9-Ruslan Chagaev
10-John Ruiz

Year End 2005

Champ: Vacant
1-Chris Byrd
2-Hasim Rahman
3-James Toney
4-Lamon Brewster
5-John Ruiz
6-Monte Barrett
7-Calvin Brock
8-Wlad Klit
9-Sam Peter
10-Nicolay Valuev

Year End 2004

Champ: Vit Klit
1-Chris Byrd
2-John Ruiz
3-Hasim Rahman
4-James Toney
5-Monte Barrett
6-Andrew Golota
7-Fres Oquendo
8-Jameel McCline
9-Corrie Sanders
10-Lamon Brewster

So he was ranked that high when Wlad took him out. I thought my memory was correct. But still was he officially the MAN when he beat Byrd?

Of course not. Lennox Lewis was still the active, reigning champion in 2000 when Wlad first beat Byrd.

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:

Looking at the fighters on that list makes me want to vomit.

I wouldn't blame you.

Sooner,

One mistake I think you are making is presuming there MUST be a man or that trinkets carry any weight in determining that. For example, is there a man right now at bantam or welter? Nope. What trinkets did Mike Spinks own when he entered the ring against Tyson? Pretty sure the answer was none. But he was the lineal champ.

Doesn't a new line get started when by acclimation most everyone says "Yeah, the guy has done enough to start a new line?" I sure as hell don't remember anyone arguing in either 2000 or 2006 when Wlad beat Byrd that he had done enough. Do you?

The Ring usually only claim someone is the man when number 1 and 2 fight. Byrd and Wlad were never 1 and 2. Wlad was ranked 8 when he beat Byrd.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Sooner,

One mistake I think you are making is presuming there MUST be a man or that trinkets carry any weight in determining that. For example, is there a man right now at bantam or welter? Nope. What trinkets did Mike Spinks own when he entered the ring against Tyson? Pretty sure the answer was none. But he was the lineal champ.

Doesn't a new line get started when by acclimation most everyone says "Yeah, the guy has done enough to start a new line?" I sure as hell don't remember anyone arguing in either 2000 or 2006 when Wlad beat Byrd that he had done enough. Do you?

I didnt know if they were ever ranked number 1 and number 2.

So what do we say is the criteria for being the Man? I know one of them is if you beat the man. But what other ways?

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

The Ring usually only claim someone is the man when number 1 and 2 fight. Byrd and Wlad were never 1 and 2. Wlad was ranked 8 when he beat Byrd.

I wish that I could look this stuff up myself this blocker is a SOB.

WinstonSmith wrote:

He's the man by default.

..about the best anser out there..he beat the 2 russian trinket holders peter before he won a trinket and byrd who at the time may of been a phoney title holder i cant remember threw all this confusion ..

Wladimir will never be the undisputed champion for as long as Vitali holds onto the WBC trinket.

dmar5143 wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:

He's the man by default.

..about the best anser out there..he beat the 2 russian trinket holders peter before he won a trinket and byrd who at the time may of been a phoney title holder i cant remember threw all this confusion ..

There is no doubt that if you take his brother out he is the man. But with Vitali there it puts up a ?

Best thing for the division is if Vitali losses and Wlad beats that guy.

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

Best thing for the division is if Vitali losses and Wlad beats that guy.

If you have the technology to increase Adamek's height and reach, and age Vitali by five years then it might happpen

I can't believe what I'm reading here.

First off, Wlad won the vacant heavyweight title when he (ranked #1) defeated Chagaev (ranked #2) to become Ring Magazine heavyweight champion. The alphabet trinkets mean nothing (although Wlad has won them all except for the WBC)

secondly, Wlad is the only legit heavyweight Champion of the world and is therefore undisputed. Vitali is a great, and a former world champion, but is merely the #1 contender. The WBC trinket means less than nothing.

To be undisputed you need to have held all four trinkets plus the lineal title at one stage.

And Chageav was ranked #3 not #2, that was Vitali.

Ali are you 50 years old? because you are going by the system we followed 20 years ago. At one time you needed to have the WBA,IBF, and WBC straps to be undisputed. That is no longer the case. The alphabets have lost ALL credibility.

There is only one true champion and he holds the Ring title.

Chagaev was #2 for months until Vitali made his comeback. Vitali vaulted into the #2 spot and ring sanctioned Chagaev-Wlad as the Championship as per their rules for rare exceptions as obviously the brothers are not going to fight.

Canvas wrote:

Ali are you 50 years old? because you are going by the system we followed 20 years ago. At one time you needed to have the WBA,IBF, and WBC straps to be undisputed. That is no longer the case. The alphabets have lost ALL credibility.

There is only one true champion and he holds the Ring title.

Chagaev was #2 for months until Vitali made his comeback. Vitali vaulted into the #2 spot and ring sanctioned Chagaev-Wlad as the Championship as per their rules for rare exceptions as obviously the brothers are not going to fight.

So are we saying to be the MAN in any division you have to hold the ring title?

It's certainly the only legitimate world championship. Economic drawing power is another matter entirely...

"The Man" argument is hard to pin down. You will always have someone who says "sure Pascal has the World championship, but Chad Dawson is really THE man to beat at 175" it gets pretty subjective.

To me you have to go with the champ, because the criteria to become the true world champ is rigid and difficult.

Physically I am 21 years old, mentally I am 68 years old.

Canvas wrote:

"The Man" argument is hard to pin down. You will always have someone who says "sure Pascal has the World championship, but Chad Dawson is really THE man to beat at 175" it gets pretty subjective.

To me you have to go with the champ, because the criteria to become the true world champ is rigid and difficult.

Its hard for me to say. I really dont know when to call a guy the MAN in a weight class.

There is no doubt Wladimir is the man at Heavyweight.

I consider Wlad to be the clear best in the division which makes him the man. He's been the man since Vitali retired. Vitali has looked good since he came back, but the general consensus is that Wlad is better.

soonermark890 wrote:

Canvas wrote:

"The Man" argument is hard to pin down. You will always have someone who says "sure Pascal has the World championship, but Chad Dawson is really THE man to beat at 175" it gets pretty subjective.

To me you have to go with the champ, because the criteria to become the true world champ is rigid and difficult.

Its hard for me to say. I really dont know when to call a guy the MAN in a weight class.

I think it is pretty easy when the line exists. For example, Hatton was THE MAN because he beat THE MAN.

It is harder when a fighter is starting a new line. For example, when did Kostya become THE MAN?

But there also isn't necessarily a MAN in a given division at any point in time. I mean right now across the 17 divisions how many guys are really THE MAN? Segura at 108, JMM at 135, Wlad at heavy, Pascual at 175 and Sergio at 160. Anybody else?

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

Canvas wrote:

"The Man" argument is hard to pin down. You will always have someone who says "sure Pascal has the World championship, but Chad Dawson is really THE man to beat at 175" it gets pretty subjective.

To me you have to go with the champ, because the criteria to become the true world champ is rigid and difficult.

Its hard for me to say. I really dont know when to call a guy the MAN in a weight class.

I think it is pretty easy when the line exists. For example, Hatton was THE MAN because he beat THE MAN.

It is harder when a fighter is starting a new line. For example, when did Kostya become THE MAN?

But there also isn't necessarily a MAN in a given division at any point in time. I mean right now across the 17 divisions how many guys are really THE MAN? Segura at 108, JMM at 135, Wlad at heavy, Pascual at 175 and Sergio at 160. Anybody else?

Steve Cunningham ? I know Adamek beat him but Steve already holds wins over the two other top guys in the division.

Oh and you left out Pongsaklek Wonjongkam who's the man at Flyweight.