Is Fabio Wardley Competitive In the 70s HW Era?

Similar level to Jerry Quarry. So in a sense, yes he'd be around the top 10 but be an opponent for the top guys.

 

You guys should be reminded they weren't all beasts at the time:

Professor is pointing out some dudes that got to sniffing the prize at the time, and we should remember, there are a lot of these types of guys in every decade, even the seventies and nineties. Wepner was one of the least skilled guys I've ever seen and he squeezed into the top ten mix to fight The Greatest for the title. I'll be damned if Wardley isn't going to be as good as Chuck Wepner, at least.

 

He'd be one of the top guys yeah.

Starting boxing at 20 and going on to have success as a heavyweight contender or champion isn't remotely crazy. Ron Lyle started boxing in his late 20's, coming out of prison. Shavers started boxing at 22. Even Holmes started at 19 or so. Marciano. Mercer. Many other examples of this.

Wardley is a big (huge by historical standards), tough, athletic guy who can punch very hard, with 10+ years of boxing experience (Rahman and Puritty had fewer years in boxing when they upset Lewis and Wlad, for instance). He's a good fighter and his victim Parker would also do fine historically.

 

The man is 6'5". He is bigger and heavier - and probably punches harder than any Top 1970's HW.

He is knocking out SUPER-HEAVIES. Not just HWs.

Transport him back to the 70s and he takes out most of the division. Wipes them out.

Fans today are simply delusional about previous era's. Utterly delusional.

 

There weren't many pussies either and question raised is top 10.

 

I believe Wepner was ranked eight when he got the shot at Ali's title. So, let me focus on the language of the thread, because I'm thinking about the top ten at any given time. Are we instead saying top ten of the whole decade instead of at the time of whatever matches? Because that's different, and a lot of the best guys didn't remain that good for the decade, of course. But, really, a guy like Wardley has decent enough chances with most 6-10 types you're going to see, with far better skilled but trigger-shy Young, who is capable of out-boxing anybody then but often still came up short in efforts, or not particularly durable Norton, or not particularly skilled, durable or great stamina Shavers, etc. It's not like he's going to, with certainty, get eaten up by lions, just because some of them are lionized since their day. I think most big, tough guys in most eras will compete with at least the latter top ten of any year's roster of any decade, and have some success, honestly.

 

Some are getting way ahead of themselves with Wardley. In his two biggest wins he has been outboxed by both opponents and only got out of jail by landing big late. He takes way too much punishment to be around for any great length of time and has shown nothing to suggest he'd be top 10 in the '70s.

 

Derek Chisora has been in the top 10 for over a decade… Maybe guy’s who we think don’t look great can just be pretty good because…..well, its a damn fight.

….and if Wardley could be in the mix in any other era, it would be because hes one of “those” kind of guys too..

 

He’s 6’5”, explosive, real athletic, has top tier elite power, is as mean as a pitbull with bees in its mouth in a firefight, has that warrior heart, is really dangerous when hurt because he goes all out to get himself out of trouble…. And anyone thinks he wouldn’t be COMPETITIVE? Oh come on. Of course he would be. Would he be the best? No. But he’d be in it and not an easy night for anyone.

 

Do you think being where Wepner was at least is an example of getting ahead of ourselves? Because that's where I am.

 

You are pinning all hopes on Wepner here. A 10 year span - the 1970s - and you have targeted one guy who was rated top 10 for only a couple of those 10 years, as your justification for Wardley.

Let's take a closer look at Wepner, seeing you are so hellbent on him being your reason for Wardley.

When Ring had Wepner top 10 he was 33-10-2. Hardly flattering numbers until you look at who he lost to. Amongst them Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Sonny Liston, Joe Bugner and Buster Mathis.

Wepner was operating in a completely different stratosphere to the one Wardley is struggling in.

 

Multiple names were mentioned, no hopes are pinned on anything, let alone all hopes, as I am very deliberately using the least skilled guy I could actually think of, because of how, you know, obvious it was that Wardley is at least in that league, which had been adequate to compete in that time period. There is no pinning or hellbenting involved, nor does anything need justified, as all that is being claimed is Wardley is a common sort of guy who would compete in any era decently, and that we've seen quite a few guys in the decade in question who were competitive without being of any special sort that anyone would have a reason to think was better than Wardley. It's really to do with the self-evident, and nothing special about Wardley or Wepner as used for example. It's to a point where if that isn't obvious, I am about to assume this isn't being discussed in good faith but rather disingenuous argumentative framing that should only be waged by me and only in the lounge.

 

So, if someone doesn't agree with you they 'aren't discussing things in good faith?'

LOL! Discussion over.

 

No, there are other reasons. Insanity and demonic spirits are of equal likelihood. You're not a journalist, are you?