Look let's be realistic here. Wlad/Vitali/Lewis would dominate any era of HW boxing

MVC showing who got a brain and who doesn't.

:deal

 

I fail? You're the one who corrected himself..

 

Not you but he sure was competitive vs a 76' Ali and he's similar to Byrd in style and general ability IMO. Sure I think he'd lose badly to a prime Ali but so would Byrd to Vitali. 9.5/10 times. The argument about Byrd is irrelevant.

 

Yup you fail.

"Marciano is a top 5 ATG"

Need I say more?

Quoted earlier

"How is it thin?? Who else could he have beaten?

He's a top 5 ATG..no question"

Rofl!

 

...

The argument of Byrd, meant because of "size" they dominate past HW but they couldn't beat a blown up MW ..Get it?

 

Well, Wladimir did, and badly. Vitali was on his way but injuries happen - that's all there is to it. Get it?

 

You're an idiot.

He beat every top fighter around at the time..what more could he do..

He makes Ali top5,Foremans,Shaver,Moores everybody that anybodys. Doesn't make yours though because you're reasonable.

 

"Top 5 ATG"

What more is there to say.

Nothing

You're an idiot.

And you have a severe deficiency in the English language. No one understands what you're trying to say.

Like seriously

What does the bolded text even mean?

Not being mean but huh?

 

Wladimir couldn't KO him?? Size argument means he should have killed him though


KO'd in 2007? 15years after he made his debut?

 

Ignore the ****. He's not woth entertaining.

 

You mad son?

You coming to Markham soon? You *****?

:deal

Wimp.

 

You cant do more then Marciano did except reign longer. But a idiot like yourself can't put two and two together.

If you're all about resume then how does Tyson make your list but Wladimir miss? How can Frazier rank over Wladimir resume wise?
You don't think. Just get out why you can

 

Learn English kid.

"Top 5 ATG". You know **** all about boxing.

 

MVC,

Why don't we do a breakdown of all of the era's, say from the 30's onwards.

List all of the best 30's heavyweights, and then do a head to head, and then move onto the 40's and then so forth?

It's just an idea.

I personally think that heavies of the past are both overrated and underrated.

I don't see how the 3 fighters you mention could dominate ANY era.

Wlad for me, is the weakest of the three, despite his abilities.

None of the 3 guys would have dominated the 60's in my opinion, because none of them could have beaten a prime Ali.

I think they all would have been capable of beating Ali from about 74/75 onwards until the end of the decade though.

But I think Frazier, Norton and Foreman would have caused a lot of problems. So I don't think they could have dominated the 70's.

I also don't see how the three could have dominated the 80's against an early 80's prime Holmes, and against a fit and hungry, fully motivated, Mike Tyson boxing to his full capabilities.

I also personally feel that Wlad wouldn't have done all that great in the 90's, against a Prime Holy, Bowe, Lewis, Ibeabuchi etc.

 

Well, he bases on his great reflexes, it's true it's hard to KO him for a bigger guy, especially when he focuses on defence. It's similar with Ali too... would be hard to KO him but.. My argument is not that they would "kill them". It's that they would dominate them and the Byrd fights don't disprove that.