Outside of Clay, Lewis and Holyfield, didnt most Heavweight ATGs rule over 'weak' divisions?

Wlad's reign was dull rather than weak. And a ton of its top guys never fought each other so we never got to see much clarity in the division outside of Wlad.

 

I’d give him a quite good chance, he handled Walcott quite well, and Walcott hit pretty hard and only got Charles with an uppercut. Ali did not have amazing power and was not a physical fighter offensively, so the vast weight difference wouldn’t have meant too much, and Ali never knew how to throw a proper uppercut.

 

The simple fact that so few LHWs, even historically, have been able to successfully navigate a title at HW illustrates why a HW division populated by ex LHWs is a weak division. nevermind that Charles and Bivins were better at LHW than heavyweight and already slipping suring the era you mention and Satterfield was about as in and out as a guy could be. The only thing that kept him in the division (and vertical) was his punch. If he couldnt land it first he was usually unconscious. He couldnt win 1/3 of his fights but hes an example of how tough the division was??? You say everyone rates Charles over Walcott, everyone thinks Marciano would KO Frazier. Who elected you to speak for everyone?

 

Nobody considers Johnson a HW. He dabbled in the division but he was a career LHW. And what does it matter if Valdez was better or worse than Charles. Charles reign was over by the time he lost to Valdez so using Valdez as some measuring stick of how strong Charles’ reign was is absurd. Im not sure why anyone would consider Charles to be better or worse than Walcott. They split four fights that were about as evenly contested as they could be. The only decisive result was when Charles was left drooling on the canvas.

 

Virtually Everyone DOES pick Marciano to KO Frazier. This is from reading numerous forum posts on that fantasy fight. Do you seriously think Frazier’s left hook would be enough against Rocky?! Also, I’ve never heard of either of Charles’s two official wins over Walcott being controversial, so if you have a reliable source that claims otherwise, then that would be great. I have seen, however, numerous accounts of the fourth fight claiming that it should have gone to Charles, thus making Charles a solid 3-1 against Walcott. What’s the point of your first sentence? That you have to be great enough to beat HWs as a LHW? No sh*t. Why else would that accomplishment be notable on a LHW’s resume? Charles, Bivins, and Johnson are all arguably top 1-6 LHWs. Finally, why are you reducing Satterfield to a glass cannon? He had good skills and that, combined with his power, made him pretty good. I could say a similar thing about Shavers, that he was a wild-swinging bum whom you could easily beat if you avoided his swings. Yet he KOed Norton and is considered one of Holmes’s best wins. So it wasn’t all that easy to make him miss, just like you couldn’t just KO Satterfield if he didn’t KO you. Silly game.

 

It's true, though by this criteria there weren't many great eras. Denver Ed Martin was quite good though Jeffries never fought him of course.

 

Again, you dont speak for everyone so quit trying to give your argument weight by claiming “everyone this” and “everyone that”. It doesnt make your OPINION any more right. If you think Satterfield and Shavers were great fair enough. I think Shavers is ridiculously overrated with a pathetically thin resume of wins against talent particularly talent that within years of their prime and I would hardly call a natural light heavy who lost 1/3 of his contests an example of a strong HW era. You are more easily impressed than me, clearly. And after 40 years in the sport I can categorically claim that Ive never seen EVERYONE pick Frazier to lose to Marciano by KO. ****ing hilarious. Marciano was smaller and fought in a MUCH weaker era primarily against smaller has beens. Frazier would have eaten him for breakast just like most of the heavyweights who came after him. Finally, who the **** rates Bivins of all people as a top 6 LHW? Alongside names like Greb, Foster, Spinks, Dillon, Loughran, Charles, Moore, etc? Nobody. Take that revisionist murderers row fanboy bull**** somewhere else.

 

Did Lewis reign over a strong era of the heavyweight division? Not sure on that one.

 

Lewis holds the distinction of unifying in a tougher heavyweight division than anyone else. 99/2000 was stacked. The issue is that he didn’t really clean those guys out (Tua and Tyson went downhill, Ike and Byrd didn’t happen, never conquered the K bros barring the cut fight).

 

Depends on what you'd class as his reign, given he was a three-time Heavyweight Champ.

 

LMAO at you ranking Dillon at LHW. Your a*s just said that Charles's HW era was weak because the best fighters there were LHWs. But Dillon lost twice to natural welterweight/light middleweight Mike Gibbons and also twice, both widely, to natural middleweight Harry Greb. Now allow me to use some real, non-Fleischerian logic, which you are incapable of using. HWs have an excuse for losing to LHWs because they are so big that most of them are slow, stiff, and have low stamina. LHWs do not. So how credible are Jack Dillon and the other LHWs of Greb's era when 5'8 Greb with only a 71' ruled over all the LHWs? Moore lost to Burley as a middleweight.

You cannot rank Foster above Bivins or Johnson because the latter two beat ATGs at LHW whereas Foster beat nobody besides 38-year-old middleweight Tiger and unspecial Rondon. By my above paragraph, you thus cannot rank Loughran above Bivins or Johnson. So the only top 6 LHW ranking of worth is 1. Charles, 2. Moore, 3. Bivins/Johnson/Spinks, 4. Bivins/Johnson/Spinks, 5. Bivins/Johnson/Spinks, 6. Bivins/Johnson/Spinks. Hence Bivins and Johnson are two of the top LHWs in boxing history.

 

Correct on Stribling.

Was Carnera vs Uzcudun an official NBA title bout? I thought it was European only. If not, my mistake.

Regardless, thanks for friendly corrections.

 

Well, who I am to argue? That guy certainly knew his stuff!

I tend to disagree there though, I think compared to pre Louis eras, and almost everything before the sixties (barring Louis' era), it's pretty strong. Unbelievably boring, but still pretty strong at the top. In contrast to the roaring battles in the 90s, the Klitschko's came to win first, entertain second, which was the opposite to most Heavyweight eras. Guys like Povetkin, Byrd, Vitali, Haye, Peter, Sanders and Wlad himself would do well in any era IMO. I think it's underrated due to it being #1 dull, and #2 following what's one of the best eras ever. Similar happens to Holmes' era IMO, and the reverse (extremely exciting, following a poorer era) happens to Jack Dempsey's era which I find to be among the worst.

Maybe not though, I don't wanna sound arrogant or anything. I certainly don't know anywhere near as much about the sport as Manny did.