The critical question - if Wlad and Vitali were prime in the current finishing era.

For me, Wlad and Vitali beat Wilder. Safety first Wlad jabs and grabs him to death, pre ko Wlad I think has the chutzpah to knock out the limited Wilder. Vitali just beats him up. Both brothers prime beat AJ, both by KO even though Vitali isn't a big puncher he will hit AJ hard and often forcing a stoppage. Now, Fury? I think Fury might still beat Wlad but strangely, styles making fights and all, I think a big guy with a strong chin and a great engine might have been Fury's nemesis. Vitali by points. I think prime Wlad outpoints Usyk and Usyk outpoints Vitali....

 

The Heavyweight Top-10 abhors a vacuum and, when one occurs, it can usher in a period of 'competitive instability'. Post-Dempsey/Tunney stands out as one of these periods, enabling Sharkey, Schmeling, Carnera and Baer to come to the fore (with many a crowd favorite such as Risko, Levinksy, Loughran in support) until a unifying force came along in the form of Joe Louis to bring balance back to the ratings. This covered quite a few years ('28-'34) and could be considered a mini era in its own right.

As you captured in your OP, what could have been a seamless passing of the torch into the Post-Wlad era, was buggered up by the coronated heir, going AWOL and out of the loop for three years. Did this give rise to a similar-ish post Dempsey/Tunney era? In this case, the main, seemingly benefiting titlists were Wilder, Joshua, Parker, Ruiz Jr. and Usyk.

I've looked at the questions slightly differently, by imagining how fighters of this most recent era (now coming to a close) would have fared in the world Vitali/Wlad operated in (rather than time-traveling them forward) and I do tend to think all of these guys would have made a notable impact on the division during the Vitali/Wlad era - and a few of them would have been a serious threat to them both. I certainly imagine the usurping of some of the top contenders of those days. Byrd, Peter, Ibragimov, Chagaev, Haye and Povetkin would have been less of a presence and the likes of Thompson, Dimitrenko, Arreola, Adamek and Pulev might not have even got a look in.

 

Thanks for this thoughtful post.

 

Exactly what I've always thought.

I've always felt the Klit-era fighters never got a fair shake b/c the only metric used to judge them was, "Can they beat either Klit?," & for most fighters that answer was simply "No." Fighters of the current era are simply being judged more on individual merit.

To me, fighters like Joe Parker & Chagaev are fairly comparable to 1 another - both were solid all-around boxer-fighters who didn't do any 1 thing spectacularly. If they were to swap eras, I think Parker would be easily disposed of by Wlad & quickly forgotten about, whereas Chagaev would pose as much a threat to the top fighters of the current era as Parker has.

I also think Wilder would have his hands full w/ the kind of elite southpaw technicians that Wlad routinely disposed of (i.e. Byrd, Chagaev, Sultan), & powerful big men like McCline, Sanders, & maybe even Briggs would have as good a shot @ getting to AJ's chin as Ruiz & Dubois.

I think the best way to compare these eras is to look @ how fighters who crossed them, like Povetkin & Chisora, were viewed across each 1. Both fighters were handily beaten by a Klit that was on his last legs w/o much fanfare, yet a decade or so later each was still viewed as a threat to top fighters of the current era. I even remember some1 on this forum claiming that Chisora would've been 1 of Vitali's best wins if he had ever beaten him, which just goes to show how indistinguishable Chisora was from other fighters of the Klit era.

 

I don't think Fury or Joshua would have made it through either Klitschko.

This might seem contentious but I don't see Usyk beating both Klitschkos. He might nab a decision from one, but not the other.

I actually have Usyk behind Wlad (#10) and before Vitali (#19) as ATG (#15).

 

I completely agree.

Wlad had no Frazier or Foreman. Or even Holyfield and Bowe.

The general standard of contenders during his reign weren't outliers, from an historical perspective, though, Wlad was (boring and horrible to watch as he was) utterly dominant over an era, however.

 

They'd have all the belts and the usual suspect would be crying big baba tears about it.

Only guy that would have a chance imho would be Usyk and even there he'd be rowing upstream.

 

They would have a harder time because there were boxers who were as tall as them and none of the brothers liked fighting with boxers as tall as themselves. However, I would still favor them over any of the current fighters. To be honest, I would favor 40-year-old Wlad if Fury gave him a rematch in 2016.

Interesting story. 41-year-old Wlad returns after a 2-year break and almost knocks out AJ, giving him the best fight of the last decade. Meanwhile, 38-year-old Holmes, who is also returning after 2 years, is outclassed by Mike Tyson, who at the same time easily destroys other difficult rivals of Holmes, such as Berbick, Williams, Spinks, and yet many people still claim that a better-prepared Larry would have won easily, and in general it was the 1980s hopeless. The same Holmes, who is already over 40 years old, is, next to Foreman, a leading player of the 90s, which the same people say is the golden age of HW. It's hard to understand this logic.

 

Joshua never gets past prime Klit brothers. I'm fully confident in that.

Usyk beats them both. I'm fully confident in that.

Fury, much harder to call.

 

You are an underrated poster. Excellent break down.

This content is protected

 

As I've always maintained: the very cream of the crop right now aint too bad. Good versions of Fury, AJ and especially Usyk are a handful for anybody. But besides those, the division is fairly soft. I have no doubt that the Klitschkos would have done just fine in this era.