Louis was the ruler of a weak division. Even Ring Magazine, who is rather North American in terms of its thinking, said the 30's was the worst heavyweight division ever. Bert Sugar who loved Joe Louis said the same thing. Braddock was a journeyman who had not fought in two years. He would not sniff the top 5 today. Sharkey way past his prime. Uzcudun, way past his prime. I think it was his last fight. Primo, past his prime. Levinsky and Pastor are solid wins, but neither man would be in the top 5 today at heavyweight. And Pastor made Louis look slow in their first fight. Baer was a very good win. Schemling was past his best in the re-match. You really compare the above fighters to Tyson or Holyfield?
I can only say this so many times, and hope that at some point you are able to read and understand it: the fact that he can't fight his brother doesn't change the fact that he never fought his #1 contender OR THAT not fighting your #1 contender means, by definition that you have not cleared out your divsion. I've mentioned multiple times in this thread you illiterate ****ing spastic: Read this CAREFULLY, then look at yourself in a mirror and laugh at yourself. NYSAC and the NBA both were distinct entities, genius. Right, which is exactly what I said? I haven't accused him of ducking anybody you idiot. Right, but he hasn't cleaned out his division. Right, but he hasn't cleaned out his division. Your post was a complete and utter waste of my time.
Generalizing the 30s or an unspecificed "era" is a waste of time. You have to zero in on the specific time period Louis was active and what he was doing. In my post I specifically laid down Louis' tough road to the Championship from 35-37. You have in turn criticized Louis' opposition during this time with a breakdown of buzzwords. For starters, breaking these guys down opponent by opponent is not the point. The point was that it was a though collection of opponents in a short time frame. Difficult to dismiss Primo as past his prime when he was only a fight removed from his Championship and looked like himself on film. This was a huge step up for Louis in 35. Uzcudun was an impressive destruction of one of the divisions most durable fighters and long time staples, had Louis not finally cracked his chin, he probably would have still hung around the fringes as a tough steppoing stone. Sharkey was well past his prime but the faded all time great technican was an interesting test after the Schemling disaster. Levinsky and Pastor not in the top 5 today? During Wlad's reign we've seen Shannon Briggs, Sergei, Oleg, Valuev, Arreola, a faded Chageav and as of this week, Bermane Stiverne occupy top 5 spots. I think Levinsky, Braddock, and Pastor could get in. And Braddock was a journeyman who became a Champion with experience and good health. Does it matter if Tyson or Holyfield are better than these guys since Wlad didn't fight them anyway? And yes in 2000, Evander and Tyson were what you would dismiss as "past prime" and "way past prime". I find no fault in my analogy.
Vitali has been removed from the rankings as of last week. Wlad vs Povektin will be Champion vs #1 contender. Vitali was never really #1 contender to Wlad anyway, as he declinded to face his baby brother. He's been a largely irrelevant belt holder save the Adamek fight, his reign is barely a step up from Foreman's so called "lineal" reign while Holyfield was really King. Wlad faced all his real #1 contenders in Haye, Chageav, and Chambers.
The term "#1 contender" is just a denotation of the second best (or best) heavyweight in the world. Each generation tosses up only so many elite heavies, and generally only one or three of the highest quality. Post Lewis there have been two. Wlad has never been tested at the highest level, and the reason is that he never met the other great fighter with whom he shared his era. This, for me, is a barrier to his being defined as "having cleared out his era" and even having dominated his era, frankly. It matters not from a real point of view that the fighter that thwarts these claims is his brother. It's about the test, a test he was never able to take for whatever reason. And it is an impediment to the above.
TBRB ranks Povetkin #3, so no dice. Povetkin is #2 on my personal list BUT, Haye would move above him if he beats Fury convincingly. So the lists will be in line. Wlad-Povetkin will only be for the lineal title should Fury beat Haye, or should Haye look like **** against Fury in some other result.
Quit pretending they aren't brothers. Do you really expect to see these two go in the ring and slug it out? It's not happening. If Vitali suddenly disappeared from the rankings as he just did, the fights between Chageav and Haye are suddenly no longer just Wlad and the #2 or #3, but this rather flowerly concept you've described of once a generational tests.
Ring ranks Povetkin as #1. Oh, that's just technical loops and ladders. Wlad already dominated Haye, Haye suddenly doesn't become a more relevant better fighter Wlad needs to beat to clarifiy his position just because Vitali is gone from the rankings. And Povetkin doesn't either, I'm just pointing out how fruitless this way of thinking is.
I'm not pretending they're not brothers, i've referred to them as brothers throughout. I don't expect them to fight. I'm saying that DESPITE the fact they are brothers, the fact that they haven't met is of sporting interest for reasons i've already outlined. I would suggest, however, that you stop pretending that their being brothers means that they can't fight. Both the Jakuboski brothers and the Eguchi brothers would disagree with you And I would definitely stop pretending that the fact that they are brothers mean that they operate in some sort of vacuum where one's existence does not affect the other. That, simply put, is ridiculous.
Would love to see him beat Haye, and I give him a good chance, but my head says Haye deserves to be a slight favourite.
The Ring is also owned by a promoter. Their rankings are now of very little interest to me. I had pretty much though that the introduction to their rankings of Broner earlier this year had quite forcefully underlined their new uselessness across the board - apparently not!
Since coming back I'm frankly done with this arguing the proper semantics of ultimately meaningless "buzz words" I'm not going to argue the definition of "cleaning out the division. " What you've just laid out anyway is an impossbility for any fighter of any era, as rankings are constantly shuffling from year to year and only so many fights can be made. I will say Povetkin is meaningful in that he's the one top 2-3 mainstay since his acsension behind his brother that he hasn't fought yet.