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

Is James Quick Tillis better than Joseph Parker, yes or no?

 

i'd say he is

 

wlad isn't top level.

very smart, hard puncher, made a lot of money. nothing to sneeze at and very few guys would be jumping up and down to fight him in 2007.

 

So you think Tillis beats everyone Parker beat?

Well, Parker won a belt, Tillis didn't. Tillis lost basically everytime he stepped up in class. Not sure what makes you think Tillis is so much more amazing than Parker.

Anyways, I stand by what I said that those 3 boxers would all have at least a 40-50% chance of beating Shavers who is pretty limited outside of his raw power and gumption.

 

ah, you're a lame guy who asks stupid questions till the end of time. troll land is over there somewhere, we talk like people here.

 

I'm not trolling. It's pretty relevant question. If it's insulting to ask if Tillis could beat Parker's opponents then you obviously don't have much confidence in Tillis.

Belts in boxing have little relevance? Yes they do. You usually need to beat a ranked contender to win a belt.

Parker defeated the undefeated 29-0 Andy Ruiz who was ranked #3 in the world to in his world title. Now tell me who did Tillis beat that was as good as a 29-0 Ruiz...?

 

Parker was obviously better than Tillis.

 

The last time I looked at my list, I think I had it Johnson at 10, Wlad at 11 and Dempsey at 12. I genuinely don't have a lot of love for the ATG'ness of these three fighters and find that two of them have such extreme love that doesn't have to do with their boxing accomplishments, relative to other great champions in their division's history, that it even felt weird at the tail-end to put Wlad sandwiched in between them. I think I was right, but I feel I was wrong. I don't rate my feelings though. I rate my-...I don't know what I do. This comment is pointless. I am just commenting out of habit. I have nothing to add to this discussion. The last time I did, it was probably 2014.

 

I can see how he might not be, when one considers him having been stopped three times in his physical prime by guys who were neither Ring-rated nor really held in any particular regard. (With only one of these losses being subsequently avenged).

I don't think there is anyone in my HW Top-10, of whom that could be said.

 

We have no proof at all that Wlad was the best boxer of "His era", which is a paradox.
Which is why I pretty much agree with this list:

This content is protected

This list ranks Wlad quite similarly, as ranked by @Vic-JofreBRASIL
Even if Wlad overtakes Dempsey and Liston - and I agree.