Never said that.But before you call the best heavyweight of the last 25 years a coward,maybe you should give boxing a try. If you're honest about it,your view will completely change.Wait until you have your first spar,then come back and call any elite boxer a coward.
I think you're right that it wasn't the truly prime version of Wlad. However, I think he was close enough to his prime that it hurts his legacy, unlike the Purrity fight which I don't think should be mentioned. Wlad was a 41 fight veteran when he fought Sanders and had had another 3 fights when he lost to Brewster. He was a two time world champion by the time of the second loss, he was nearing 30 and had an extensive amateur career. He wasn't green or anything like that, he was simply beaten by the better man on two occasions. Once because he got his gameplan wrong and secondly because Sanders was just all wrong for him. The loss to Purrity is acceptable and doesn't affect his legacy at all, but how many other established world champions lost to C-class fighters near their peaks? I don't think there are many. The obvious rebuttal here is Lewis. Those losses were very bad and if Lewis hadn't lost to McCall and Rahman, I think he'd possibly be the greatest heavyweight of all time. However, those losses are the reason that Lewis gets fairly knocked back well beyond Louiis and Ali in the eyes of most people. The difference between Lewis is that he fought so many excellent fighters that two bad losses didn't ruin his career altogether, they just spoiled it somewhat. In an era where there is no quality for Wlad to prove himself against, those two bad losses become extremely significant for Wlad's legacy. Personally, I think the to become a "great" fighter is one of two things. Either the boxer beats a great and becomes great himself or they dominate, losing only to elite level fighters. I don't think anyone could argue that Wlad has met that criteria. I also don't think that in the entire history of the sport, there is a single boxing who is considered to be "great" and yet who also doesn't fit that criteria. You made the argument for me though, when you said "take the two wins over Holyfield away". That is Bowe's greatness in those two wins. If Wlad had the chance to fight a fighter as good as Holyfield, it'd be by far his best win and it would propel him to greatness. As it happens, Wlad doesn't have a Holyfield out there to beat. There are plenty of fighters who achieved greatness by beating just one great fighter, like Bowe did. Sonny Liston is another. He had a solid resume but knocking Patterson out twice is what truly propelled him to greatness. Bowe's resume may not be deep, and I agree that ducking Lewis was bad, but the wins over Holyfield are enough for him to be called a "great" fighter. Outside of the Holyfield wins, Bowe's record wasn't bad either.
Yes, but he won't be underrated after he's been retired for 5+ years. People usually **** allover the heavyweight champ, miss him horribly, then **** allover the new guy.
This. He's simply a million times better than anyone out there and will continue to dominate for at least a few more years. The thing with fighters like Wlad is that they fight technically, like Hopkins. Vitali, on the other hand, is all about reflexes and athleticism...not so much technique, similar to Roy Jones Jr. The technichal fighters will outlast the reflex/athletic guys because time has less of an effect on skill than it does on reflexes. He would have unified any time in the last 5 years that he could have gotten the opportunity at the belts. Instead he shared the limelight with Vitali to make history. Classy dudes.
atsch If you think its a bad era you know **** about the history of the devision . End of the story .:hi:
Adamek has been in the top 5 for the past few years. Dimitrenko was in the top 5 for ages too. Valuev was the third best heavyweight for a couple of years - those three are all horrible, untalented fighters who wouldn't make the top 10 in most eras. I don't think those three would have been in the top 10 in either the 1910s, 20s, 30s, 50s, 70s, 80s, 90s or 2000s. The rest of the top 10 is very poor too. In what other era would a fighter like Tony Thompson get two world title shots? It's pathetic. Manuel Charr is the next guy to fight for a world title, which says it all.
In Joe Louis era, In holmes Era, Dempsey Era, Patterson Era. Only 70th and 90th actually have depth. Evander defending against two 40+ fighters and have tough time dealing with them. Boby Czyz, Shults, Botha are no stronger than any of the fighters of today. Or 70th.... Do it yourself.
That only shows how little you know about those times. Guys like Carnera in the top-5, who was easily worse than Valuev. Max Baer and Jim Braddock skill wise about as good (or bad) as today's Calvin Broccoli or... I don't know, Povetkin. Billy Conn, who gave Joe Louis all he could handle in the first fight before getting KOd, could easily be compared to Adamek, absolutely no crime there. It's sad that some of the so called "boxing fans" like Jack here are making claims about past eras probably thinking it makes their opinion look cooler, but they don't actually KNOW anything about those eras.
Even if you look closely to 90th it is not that GREAT. The era is as strong as many great match ups you can make. Unfortunately when you have a dominant champ you can't have it. In other words competitive fights + Drama = good era. But if one fighter (in this case 2) dominate everyone it doesn't matter how strong he is the era is ****.
Surely Lewis's era must have been **** too then considering Wladimir Klitschko was the number 1 ranked contender for several of Lewis's prime years. http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine%27s_Annual_Ratings:_Heavyweight--2000s