Proof that Wlad is one of the greatest of all time...

This jock sniffer probably typed that without even a hint of irony.

 

If Wlad had to fight beasts like LeDoux, Zanon, Ocasio, and Weaver he would be getting hit flush a lot more often.

 

Be a man and admit you were wrong. You claimed this era is weak because an old champion was competitive, then someone gave a similar example about the 90's and now you're running away from it.

It's not just the 90's, though.

Patterson, a 50's fighter, was beating top contenders in the 70's in his late 30's. Some weak era that must have been huh?

Archie Moore, a light heavyweight from the 40's, was beating top heavyweights in the late 50's/early 60's.

Bottomline:

1) Every era is considered weak while it's playing out. News paper articles from the time confirm this. During Ali's peak reign in the 60's, several articles wrote that his opposition was horrid and that he'd have trouble with the pressure fighters from a decade ago (Marciano, Louis).

2) The fact that a great boxer in the twilight of his career is competitive takes nothing away from the era, it happens all the time. Look at Hopkins. It's a statement of just how good certain fighters are.

3) While I don't think the current era is particularly great, it's not bad either. Over the last ten years we've had three all time greats: Lennox Lewis and both Klitschkos. Then there's a bunch of good contenders/belt holders like Haye, Chagaev, Byrd, Ibragimov, Ruiz (hate him or not), Povetkin, Brewster, Peter, Sanders, Chambers. They are followed by decent second raters like Thompson, Chisora, Fury, Helenius, Price (up and coming), Pulev (dito), Boytsov (dito), Maskaev, Rahman, McCline, Johnson, Briggs, Liakhovic, Valuev, Virchis, Adamek, Wach, Arreola, Mitchell and Dimitrenko.

 

Very good post. :thumbsup