Wlad is not a top 20 HW, he has never beaten anyone of significance

Marciano
Patterson
Johannson

 

Fair enough. This seems logically consistent, and you can muster evidence for it.

...I assume that you apply the same standard to the younger heavyweight version of Ezzard Charles?

This is a bit strong, though.

 

He loses to Leon Spinks?

 

Add L Spinks to my list.

 

I apply that standard across the board.

I'd be happy to go down the list and make my case...

 

-#1 Heavyweight in the World

-:verysad

 

This wouldn't be the first time mongoose and naysayer have turned a thread into an ancient history lesson on race. Not what you want to see when you come on to talk about boxing.
I think mongoose was the protagonist last time too. Either he has a very keen interest in this subject (good for him boring for most of us), or he is indeed a racist, which he covers up by calling other people one.
Hey mongoose i may be wrong and out of line, but either way this subject is boring when you come on a thread to be stimulated by boxing talk.

What makes Wlad a great heavy is longevity and consistency. I think these things get him into the top 20. But i don't think history will look kindly on him like people suggest, when they say he will get the credit when he retires.
I think his inability to win fights when he faced adversity will always go against him, and the fact he sought the safety of the canvas rather than being put there in his two most shocking defeats is unforgivable.
Then you have the state of the division, which will be derided for decades to come.
Wlad is a great front runner that is for sure, but if the going ever gets tough for him again, then you get the feeling he wouldn't come through it.
That for me is the crux of it.
Yes he is an ATG...but an inferior one to most of his peers.

 

Are you ****ing kidding me?

Moore was the #1 HW in the world during one of if not THE WEAKEST of HW eras.

Do your brains and scrambled eggs have something in common?

 

You still don't see the big picture, Threetime.

Rahman KO Lewis 5 No rematch necessary.

 

They make people fart.

More disprect for Moore's legendary run. Which era is weaker?

Archie Moore defeating future HOFer Harold Johnson, HW#5 Bob Baker, HW#1 Nino Valdez to get a #1 ranking and title shot? Harold Johnson was also a top 5 HW at this time after beating Charles.

Or Mike Tyson defeating the unranked Andrew Golota and Brian Nielsen to get a title shot and #2 ranking?

Yes, do explain your WEAK era theory.

 

No explanation is necessary.

Marciano's era is arguably the weakest in the sport's history WRT the HW division.

And yes, your brains and scrambled eggs have something in common...

 

-No I'm afraid an explaination is necessary if you feel Brian Nielsen and Andrew Golota are more credible stepping stones to the title than Nino Valdez, Harold Johnson, and Bob Baker (solid ranked big men and a HOFer.)

I see now why you recycle cliches..you have no clue who any of these men are.

 

Feel free. I'd like to hear it.

Could you also post your evaluations of Charles, Walcott, and Patterson for comparative purposes? (This is a serious question, not a challenge).

 

It's worthless debating boxing with naysayer because he doesn't know his stuff.

He spent too long rabbiting on about the 1 v 2 rule. Then spent too long rabbiting on about weak eras.

Let's remove wlad and rocky then. Who now presides over the weakest era? Do they suffer in terms of greatness?