I think this assesment applies to Tyson, but not Wlad. Tyson unified a title and flattened an entire division. Wlad still has not unfied and compiled more losses to lesser fighters while in his prime. Now, I'll agree that he has established himself as the best of his era, but I disagree that he cut through his division like a hot knife through butter.
I respectfully disagree. He's averaged losing about a round a year since Peter I, and the only thing that stopped him from unification of 3 of the 4 belts was a horrible decision by the WBA where they decided that their champion's belt (Chagaev) wouldn't be on the line. He's dominated the other titleholders and the top contenders to the point where other top fighters won't even fight him and are waiting for a decline. He's not as spectacular as Tyson was in doing it, but the dominance is on the same level. But, to reiterate my main point...I'd be hard pressed to find much of a difference between Liston/Patterson's era, Holmes' reign, Tyson's best, and the 2000's. Every time people complained about the division, usually only to boost it up once the next one came up.
NO, you should stop thinking!!! to say they wouldn'y be competitive just shows you don't know what the **** your talking about!!! not only would they be competitive, a few of them could MOST DEFINITELY walk away with wins! so bye bye:hi:
who do i think had a better era? i'll just give the nod to tyson's era. they were tougher and more willing to let their hands go, bringing them a better chance of victory.