His brother and a rematch with Sanders (even though that's before his domination) is all that's super relevant imo. No real need to fight Gomez Arreola Solis or some the other guys Vitali fought.
That's an interesting take. So, let's say, being the best of the era and dominating it is a key factor. So the guys like Wlad, Dempsey and Johnson, would have to be rated higher than f.e. Foreman and Frazier (if we're not counting 68-73 as a separate era). Frazier beat more top guys in his era than Foreman, but Foreman destroyed him twice. How to rate Holyfield where he didn't dominate the era, but was the best in the 90's until 1999. Was 86-89 Mike Tyson's era even tho it lasted 3 years?
So did Johnson, so did Dempsey, so did Louis, so did Marciano, so did Patterson, so did Liston, so did Holmes, so did Tyson...etc. This label of "fought in a weak era" gets laid on many champs, often on very dominant chams, partly because those very dominant champs tamper down the rising talent, partly because these champs have other reasons for their unpopularity (race, nationality, following in the footsteps of a legend).
I'm of the same opinion. And views of the eras change in time. 90's were being seen as shyte as they were happening, but now it's a golden age.
Absolutely. I also remember Holmes as being a placeholder champ, a poor imitation of Ali who struggled against green competition and second raters. Now, he is a top 3 or 4 ATG consensus pick.
Actually Gomez had a goon run. Again, you are missing the point spectacularly. The fighter helps create the era by fighting the guys who COULD give him a run. You may consider them "insignificant," but they did not neccesarily have to be so. And Wlad didn't fight the second best fighter of his era--Vitali. Maybe he should not be expected to, but it does tend to paralyze things.
As a weighted component, I'd say it carries the most weight, but quality of opposition, length of reign, style, manner of defeats, manner of avenging those defeats, and performance against other ATGs (where applicable) are also important for me. Frazier's win against Ali in the first fight is on a different level to any of Wlad's wins, for instance, and I'd say Foreman's first win over an undefeated Frazier is also in that bracket, but the second Foreman win over Frazier, after Joe had left parts of his soul in Manila, doesn't carry as much weight, but it's still a solid win. If Foreman hadn't returned in the 90s and won the title again, then I'd probably have Wlad above him. However, stylistically, Foreman's size, power, chin and crudeness would be a horrible H2H task for Wlad. If Wlad knocked Joshua out at Wembley, which he came very close to doing, I'd probably have him ahead of George regardless of the comeback, it's fine margins really. Because of the subjectivity of it, if someone argued that they had Dempsey, Johnson or Wlad above Frazier or Foreman, there is a case to be made. I wouldn't, but it's not the most outlandish statement either. Personally, I rate Holyfield as two different fighters, the same as I do Usyk, as P4P fighters, which includes their cruiserweight accomplishments, which does a lot of the heavy lifting from an ATG perspective, or as standalone heavyweights. Holyfield was excellent but also struggled with the likes of Bowe and Michael Moorer and has an asterisk for potential PED use. I think a lot of people conflate Holyfield as a cruiserweight and a heavyweight, rather than a standalone heavyweight, like they do Usyk. I'm not as sold on the idea of either of them being a true S-tier great at HW, same with Tyson to be honest, his reign was too short, and he didn't deliver in enough big fights or avenge any of his losses.