I disagree. Three embarrassing KO losses in his prime. An era where being a contender or champion is easy. Lack of durability (a must for an ATG). A "do everything I can not to engage with my opponent" mentality. I don't see the skills just the very upright European Olympic style. Just terrible!
You can't argue with success at the end of the day. We are quick to pull up modern fighter fans, who don't acknowledge it in fighters of the past, so we have to acknowledge it in modern fighters.
Again I disagree. I don't see the durability or heart. He has not shown the ability to win when losing. Three KO losses vs nobodies. Embarrassing KO losses. I don't see the skills. He is within an era where it's easy to be a contender and easy to be champion. I'd like to see him be in a give and take losing battle and win so for me the rest of his career matters.
Why do you keep saying "Versus nobodies"? Lamon Brewster was ranked in the Ring Magazine HW top ten, in the world. He was the #2 contender to the vacant WBO title that the two fought for that night. Why is he a "nobody"? I'd hardly call Corrie Sanders a "nobody" myself...funny how whever you get a "statement" by an "i'm sure" poster, it's all unnecessary and generally unjustifiable extremes. Never mind the ranked professional you might be trampling underfoot in a frenzied attempt to "dominate" with your unshakable point.
Wlad was NOT in his prime when those losses occurred. Not even close Wlad prime was a 6 year period 2007-2012 unless you think Wlad had an 12 year long lasting prime
I figured we were discussing exclusive career heavies. If we are talking great fighters that were not career exclusive to the division. I'm addition to Holyfield, we would add Charles, Moore, Maxim, Bivins, Langford..etc
Again he lost in embarrassing fashion to fighters of low skill in an era where a fighter did not need to be decent to be ranked. Watered down both in terms of champions and challengers. Easy era. Easiest of eras.
1) You no longer think they were "nobodies" though. 2) Fighters didn't need to be decent at boxing to be ranked in the 2000s rankings? Is that what you are seriously trying to say?
He was in the range of 23-27 years of age when he was koed three times embarrassingly which is physical prime age for any fighter. His dominance recently I believe is at least in part due to such incredibly poor competition. Worst I have ever seen.
Lennox lost to McCall and Rahman Tyson lost to Williams and McBride Holmes lost to McCall Foreman lost to Briggs and Morrison Ali lost to Neon Leon...
Boxing the last 30 years is so very watered down. It does not mean much to be a challenger when there are 40 or more top 10 challengers. No one knows how to fight anymore. Boxing has become an easier game to play so poor talents can play.
Jack Dempsey lost to Willie Meehan, "embarrassing nobody" Jim Flynn and Jack Downey. And Willie Meehan again. I suspect there will be a litany of excuses for these losses.
:rofl I hate to say it but Educate Yourself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rq8iKZnRyc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baPgHend_1g
Not to go through each but different eras where fighting was a real tough sport. As one example which you can apply to the others Ali losing to Holmes matters little as he proved himself way before. Wlad with all his wins is still unproven.