Perspective on Wlad, and the HW division

Wilder bull rushes forward, hence his knockdowns against Scoiners and circus fatman Dustin Nichols, and his having to make match ups with pre-determined results.

 

The 80s was utter ****. Half of those contenders would lose to a random guy like Pulev. Spinks, Snipes, Cooney, Cobb, Rodrigez, Frank, Marvis Frazier, Smith, Bey, Williams, Thomas, Biggs, Tubbs. Pulev would beat half of them. Povetkin would beat every one of them. This is your 80s era. It was pure ****.

Let's go a step further: How would the bum contenders of the 80s do against Wlad of today? Wlad would destroy each and every one of them without taking a single punch. Yet you say the 80s weren't weak but today is weak. That makes ZERO sense.

 

Too many badly flawed fighters in this era. Whether their undersized,( Chambers, Povetkin, Chageav etc, ect. cowards ( Haye) extremely slow (Wach) too old and geriatric ( Thompson, Rahman,)
and fighters that probably should have not being considered for a title defence (Mormek, Leapai) Wlad might go on to break Louis record, but beating some of those chumps isn't really something to brag about. Quantity over quality isn't going to do it for me. And by the time the real ATG (Wilder) steps up to fight Wlad. He'll pull out with one of his numerous 5 month injuries and retire!!

 

The division is good but the contenders look bad because the champion is the best heavyweight in history.

 

Lennox Lewis went life and death with Zeljko Mavrovich. Axel Schultz got 3 title shots in the 90s What does that tell us about the 90s?

I mean do we really need to go on.

Loudon, look here's my honest 2 cents. Today isn't great. But it's hot horrible either. I think today's HW scene is about average. You have one guy dominating at the top while everyone else is one, two notches below him. That's how many HW eras have been. Look up the 30s, 50s.. 80s..

Certainly today is not as competitive as the 70s and not as deep as the 90s (which had good fighters, but also a lot of ducking and horrible contenders getting title shots).

IMO, today's era is about average, and certainly not the 'weakest era ever'. That's a ridiculous hyperbole.

 

Ali went life and death with Henry Cooper. What did this prove about Ali?

Holmes lost to a LHW. What this this prove about Holmes?

Joe Louis went life and death against a 5'8" obese iceman, what did this prove about Joe Louis?

Etc. Etc.

 

When you compare eras you will have to take the top dog out of the equation for it to make sense. The question isn't how Wlad would have done against Lennox, Tyson or Ali, but how he would have done against their opposition.

If we assume Wlad would be allowed to do his octopus routine thanks to a corrupt hometown referee, it's not a given he would be beaten more than occasioneally during those eras mentioned above.

If we then take a look at less famour eras, we quickly realises his reign aint bad at all.

Tonights victory was remarkable thanks to how Wlad, even now when he gets a bit old, hits like a mule kicks. Tyson got a lot of cred for beating up tomato cans in style, so Wlad deserves it too.

 

How on earth can you say that?

Match up Spinks, Snipes, Cooney, Cobb, Rodrigez, Frank, Marvis Frazier, Smith, Bey, Williams, Thomas, Biggs, Tubbs vs. the contenders in Wlad's era: V. Klitschko, Haye, Povetkin, Brewster, Byrd, Peter, Thompson, Valuev, Adamek.

The 80s HWs would have gotten destroyed, so badly it hurts to think about it. They were some of the worst contenders in the history of HW boxing.