Well I had him beating fres and drawing with golota so personally wlad beat the guy I considered the premiere fighter. More importantly from a global view the ring had chris ranked number 1 at the time of the fight between chris and wlad also. I'm not interested in how weak an era might be, i'm more interested in a man fighting the best available opponents and wlad has done that imo.
well i think eddie chambers of 2010 would have held his own among the Tubbs and Page and Berbicks, or Bugner and Young and Lyle and Shavers, or against Mercer and Morrison etc. for example
Better? By what measure? Chagaev was undefeated 25-0 WBA champ, 2-times amateur world champ. Ibragimov - undefeated WBO champ, Olympic silver medalist.
Better as in better? In order to post 12-0 in title defences between 1969 and 1975, for example, he would likely have had to have beaten Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Norton etc. Kind of undermines "Olympic silver medalist", doesn't it? And once more, to stress, I think that Chagaev was really quite faded when he met Wlad. At his prime, a good scalp, but at that time...
yes but no one did that. of course wladimirs record compares unfavourable to a hypothetical fighter who does that. but against actual 12-0 runs against contenders at HW its pretty good.
True, And from 1989-1995 it wouldn't look much easier as he'd likely have to face prime versions of Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe, Moorer, Ruddock and perhaps even a resurgent Foreman. Don't see either of the Klits putting together a 12-0 run in that time frame.
Which was my entire point when I responded to your remark about Wlad's run being tougher to dismiss if it had happened in the seventies or eighties, or words to that affect. Of course it would be, it would call for him to beat a much higher class of fighter.
It would have been interesting to see even if fights with someone from their time frame happened like not faded Rahman, Tua or Ibeabuchi.
im not so sure. but of course that was the question posed in this thread. holmes had better than a 12-0 run in the 1970s - 1980s ( i think he went 20-0 in title fights) but i think its very debatable whether his top 12 in his run, or the best consecutive 12 he managed, is better than Wlad's last 12 fights. Tyson went 10-0 in title fights i think, also in the 1980s. i think the quality of those 10 is better than Wlad's but not by much, and 10 is not 12. i think Ali in the 1970s has a clearly better 12-0 at some point. probably ! but he took on regular easy ones, and had some disputed decisions too. so it might not be as clear in front of Wlad as i would imagine.
Wrong. Wlad has consistently NOT fought the best available opponents. Has he fought Vitali? NO. Did he rematch Brewster while Lamont was still on top? NO. Did he rematch Sanders? NO. Inexcusable.