Now that the dust has settled... where does Wlad belongs ?

13, behind Floyd. sonny Liston was better than Floyd but if we are gonna talk about greatness of their reigns, then Floyd should be at 12 IMO.

 

There seem to be two narratives of greatness, a prosaic sustained excellence at the top level (see: Holmes, Wlad, Lewis) or meteoric, brilliance in a shorter but comprehensive run (Tyson 86-89, Dempsey 17-19, Frazier 67-71)... We usually have to balance the value of each type of career, with only two real exceptions who had both attributes (Ali, Louis). I contend that Tyson's short but extremely dynamic and comprehensive run in the mid to late 80's was more impressive than Vander's spottier, less dynamic run over the long haul. And their meetings are almost irrelevant as Tyson simply was not the same fighter after prison. As far as Lewis versus Holmes, I can be swayed either way. But I am continually impressed by the depth of dangerous opponents that Lewis faced, guys who could whack with the best. (And yes, the roid era might have something to do with that.) Nitpick as you may but quantity has a quality all its own. Mason, Ruddock, Tucker, Bruno, McCall, Butler (don't laugh, I've heard two guys mention him as the hardest hitter they ever faced), Golota, Briggs, Grant, Tua, Morrison, Rahman, Vitali, Mercer... Today, I chose Lewis. But for me, Holmes and Lewis are their own tier.

He beat a tired, old, unmotivated Dempsey over two 10 rounders and probably should have lost the second fight. He has no resume at heavyweight. Great lightheavy, though.

 

That is fine, but my criteria kinda differs.

It is impossible to recreate the same circumstances and environment for each boxer, so comparing resumes has limits. Actually, we could make a case had Liston boxed during Wlad’s period, he would have cleaned up the division and dominated in an even more commanding fashion.

Consequently, I put a lot of weight in H2H.

All other factors considered, at the end I come to this question: in an hypothetical match up who wins? Wlad or Liston?

My money is on Liston all the way.

 

Wlad is clearly top 10 all time given what he achieved.

 

You could make a very reasonable case for a top ten ranking.

I am old enough to remember when most people on this forum had written him off.

 

Ali
Louis
Lewis
Holmes
Wlad
Foreman
... the rest

 

He beat every man he faced. Again, with that list of concussive punchers, a list unmatched in my opinion, the odds he gets sparked out are much higher than a Marciano, who was only at the elite level for a hot minute and fought relatively safe types of heavies, smaller, older, not exactly physical specimens. Lewis could afford to have an off night against that sort of competition.

 

You clearly are as you're contemplating Earnie in that number 20 spot while simultaneously saying Patterson doesn't deserve it.

You're clearly in the minority ranking a guy with all of two wins over top ten opposition (both past prime at that, and one who flat out didn't even deserve his ranking) and a loss smack dab his prime against Bob ****ing Stallings over the first heavyweight in history to regain the heavyweight championship, beat more than 10 top ten contenders (not sure how many off the top of my head but it was more than 10 and more than many champions including Foreman in both careers), who stayed in the top ten longer than anyone else in history (in a 19 year period from 53 to 72 to he was ranked every year except 69 because he didn't have a fight that year) , and would've been the first to regain the title for a THIRD had it not been for such a blatant robbery.

 

You clearly value longevity and depth.

 

Is that a bad thing?

 

You don’t have Harry Wills but you’re considering Shavers and Baer?