That's exactly what i am saying, with 15 extra words. Wlad could never be Ali, for a multitude of reasons. Your second paragraph is excellent, hitting numerous nails on the head. Wlad is just another contender in the 70's.
If he could do that in Russia with Russian president watching their guy getting clinched to death, then yeah, I think he would manage.
Ok we will agree to heavily disagree. There's no way he's getting away with that rubbish again and again thru the 70's. The disdain the crowds would have for him would be eye opening.
He'd have to get there first, for starters. You said "He beats everyone on his way up in the 70's as well." He was whooped by two guys that weren't even top 10 contenders on the way up. Ross Puritty had lost 3 of his previous 4 fights and was 24-13-1. Wlad had 24 fights under his belt. This guy's gonna beat everyone on the way up in the 70's?!?!?!? After 41 fights Wlad was cleaned up badly by unrated Corrie Sanders before some people had a chance to look up. 41 fights. Not forgetting he was cleaned up by Brewster at the 44 fight mark. He's cleaning out the division on his way up in the 70's? Not a chance.
IMO how Wlad does in the 70s isn't to relevant historically speaking fighters should mainly be based on what they did on there own time.
The thread literally states " If he'd been dropped in to the 1970s?". He is judged on what he did in his own time. He's getting judged by how he'd do in the 70's.
Both Sanders and Bewster would easily be Top 10 contenders in the 70's. Purrity perhaps not, but title challengers in the 70's lost to similar competition and got title shots anyway.
Brewsters only win of real note is actually Wlad. He was all but shut out by Etienne and widely outpointed by Shufford. I'm far from convinced he'd be "easily" top 10. Purrity need not even be addressed. Sanders blew hot and cold but was millllles better than those other two and would be a player in the 70's.
He also blasted out Golota in the first round, who had close fights with Byrd and Ruiz. Underrated win.
I may be misunderstanding you, what was your view seemed hard to follow. Did you think Wlad's historical standing would somehow be changed by this thread or do you think the thread is unfair Wlad and shouldn't have been made?
At the end of the day, multiple title challengers in the 70's had worse defeats than Wlad had, so it's unreasonable to think, he wouldn't have gotten the shot.