It's weird where Valuev is concerned. I don't think he was ever ranked higher than number 5 in a decent era, but because he was huge - because he was the biggest - he is given a standing way in excess of other fighters of his standing. There is absolutely nothing like the level of interest in how Kirk Johnson would do against historical figures or their opposition but Kirk was of a similar standing (ranked higher but for a shorter period of time).
This is one of the most egregious examples of the size obsession phenomenon. A man who really didn't have anything going for him apart from size, being built up into a killer.
I think that you would find it very difficult to sustain that argument. The only way you could do it, would be to argue that the B and C class of Valuev's era, were better than the A class of Braddock's era.
Chagaev isn't slick mobile boxer. Neither is Haye really. Neither was 46 years old Holyfield. Keep dreaming, you don't need to have much to beat Valuev and you don't need to be mobile to look mobile against him.
Chagaev barely beat Valuev, he scraped by him. His only two losses that matter are vs Klitschko and Povetkin, who are absolutely top-tier fighters. Chagaev has no string of losses to journeymen and never-has-beens. His KO record is 55% against a much larger sized field than Braddock ever faced. Chagaev is legit. Braddock would struggle to make top 10 in even this dire era.
This is technically true in that one of the judges produced an atrocious card, but have you watched it? Not a close fight at all.
I mean that's probably not far wrong for me tbf, but it's clear - no way to find a card for Valuev really, and he sort of winds rounds on pressure rather than product. He is never able to take control of Chagaev. Chagaev pegs Valuev really because you get the impression they could fight 15 times and it would be 15-0. Chagaev just too good. I think Chagaev gets underrated a bit but still, anyone as good as, or nearly as good as Chagaev should be clearly favoured over Valuev.