All three meet the criteria listed by the poster I was replying to and anyone who thinks Thompson or McCline were nobodies is not someone whose opinion I'm going to worry about frankly.
Thompson strutted around the ring like he was holding a hot cup of coffee. The guy said good big men like Lewis , Bowe etc ...but if that description made you tkink of Wach and MaCline , then you're too far gone.
I stand by my point, that today's era isn't as strong as the 80's, 90's and 00's. I don't think that this version of Wlad, or any version of Wlad, would have dominated those eras in the same manner that he's dominating this one.
I get that. But although the fights you've mentioned were entertaining fights, the fighters who competed, aren't great fighters.
What he said was "big heavyweight with a decent chin who is not afraid to throw punches" and I mentioned who met the criteria exactly. Then you mentioned that they were all "nothing men" which was a joke. What you seem to be reading is that my saying Thompson and McCline weren't nothing is equal to me saying they are like Lewis and Bowe. Which didn't happen. Maybe you should learn to follow simple sentences and see if it doesn't enrich your life a little more, sparky.
Here's my ranking of eras, judging depth of competition inside the era, skill level, h2h competitiveness amongst eras... just my 2 cents and highly subjective: 1990s 2010s 2000s 1980s The 80s were IMO clearly the weakest era out of the 4. The only eras worse were the 50s and 30s.
The division isn't bad. Not great, but not bad. Remember the mess after Lewis? Ruiz, Byrd, a perpetually injured Vitali, former supermiddles winning titles, Toney winning against top opposition even while losing against the lunch pail, VALUEV having a claim for being the most legitimate champion...and that's just in the last ten years. 2000's were much worse than the 2010's. This era is better than a lot of other ones. You can't have the 70s or the 90s every decade, guys. Most fighters today come more or less in shape. They fight each other. They fight stiffly compared to their 70s and 80s predecessors, but they hit a lot harder, weigh more, and fight at longer range because they're bigger men. (With that being said, the second-best fighter today is a 70s-sized, skilled heavyweight with about a stone of extra fat.) Today's fighters would match up well enough with the early/mid 70s or mid 90s guys. I wouldn't expect a walkover either way, though I'd favor the two earlier eras to win more than they lost. I WILL say that we're living in a better era than the late 70s / very early 80s. I'm talking quality of fighters and quality of fights.
The 80's had good fighters, but they were inconsistent due to a number of issues. Thomas, Tubbs, Tate, Dokes, Tucker, Page, Williams etc were good. Then you'd got Spinks, Holmes, Tyson, Bruno and Witherspoon etc. Not bad. I'd also swap today's era, with the 2000's. You'd got Lewis, Holyfield, an active Vitali, and Byrd etc. But I respect your opinion. :good
You listed 4 fighters, 2 of which where at the end of their careers(at least effectively) Today's division had more depth than the 2000s.
I suppose you'd be impressed if he was defending his title versus Lorenzo Zenon, Alfredo Evangelista, Chuck Wepner, Steffen Tengstadt, Anders Eklund, Randall Cobb, Tommy Farr, Nathan Mann, Harry Thomas, Franz Botha, Michael Moorer. If they were all in their primes and active, you'd still be saying how bad the heavyweight division is. If one bothered to closely study the previous era of heavyweights, the current era is actually one of the better ones.