Now that the dust has settled... where does Wlad belongs ?

Outside of those named by dynamic. Off the top of my head, I’d also favor Eddie Machen, Cleveland Williams, Bob Stallings (who actually beat Shavers in his prime), Max Baer (his lack of any semblance of a jab would make me extremely cautious of such a pick though), Deontay Wilder, Douglas, Nino Valdez, prime Norton, Frazier, Terrell, Bonavena, I’m on break from class right now so it’s very difficult to go back and forth and see if DP mentioned a name I’m about to put forth. But rest assured it’s not a short list and I will finish it as soon as I’m done.

 

Agreed on every single point

 

Top 5 of an era is different than being top 5 on an annual list, but it's no surprise that you don't have a clue about that.

When Thompson, Stiverne, and Adamek were at their respective peaks, they only took loses to guys who superior to anyone in Marciano's era (Wlad for Thompson, Wilder for Stiverne, and Vitali for Adamek). I see zero reason why the three of them wouldn't be more successful in Marciano's era.

Apologize and let's be done with it.

 

McGrain has him #54 all time at HW and based on what each achieved in their own era (I.e. excluding predicted outcomes in cross era fantasy fights), I don't have a problem with any fighter he ranks ahead of him - https://www.606v2.com/t54420-boxing-com-100-greatest-heavyweights

 

I think Norton achieved more and was better than Shavers even though he lost.

Shavers had amazing power but I don’t think he belongs anywhere near the top 20, 30 or 40. Just my opinion of course.

 

From m

From my point of view the main problem with Wlad is the glaring gap between the boxer and his resume.

I mean, usually there should be a good match between how good or bad a boxer is and his resume. A great boxer should have a great resume with lots of titles, marquee fights, highlights victories, etc.

Of course, there are cases of very good, maybe even great, boxers who because a set of factors and circumstances never accomplished much and lack an outstanding resume: bad management, a critical defeat, a serious injury, a very competitive era, some top dog dominating the game, or just sheer bad luck, etc.

And then you have the opposite: somebody who somehow manages to build a resume that surpasses his real dimension. A good example is Fairweather and his “undefeated” resume.

For me, Wlad is exactly that: somebody who had the luck of being in the right place and the right time, facing mediocre opposition, enjoying massive media exposure and running his career under extremely favorable conditions, exploiting his massive physical advantages and getting away with very questionable tactics.

Now, I am not saying Wladimir was worthless at all. I think he was a good boxer, good enough to become a Champion.
But 10 years ruling the HW division???? 20+ undefeated defenses????
Gimme a freaking break.

For me Wlad’s resume is way too much for what he was inside the ring. In this case the shadow is way greater than the real boxer.

And that is the reason why he could never be Top 10 in my HW ATG list.

 

Not top 3, but somewhere in the top 10

Bit overrated H2H.

 

Shavers almost beat Holmes by KO, he was NOT about to win a decision, nor was he outboxing or outworking Holmes.

By your logic Bert Cooper must be amazing because he nearly KO'd Holyfield. That's not how that works.

As for Joseph Parker, I think he's at least equal to if not better than James Tillis who outboxed Shavers despite being knocked down? You don't think Parker can at least replicate that feat?

 

No offense but your knowledge and logic pertaining to boxing is downright laughable for someone who’s been into it for at least 13 years.