Another thread made me wonder this. Most of the belt holders from the 80's had losses and weren't really thought to have much chance at longevity, or immediately lost the belt coming into the fight. I'd say he's already got a better resume than most of the non dominant, non lineal alphabet holders from the 80's and 00's. The guys that come to mind who most approximate him are: 1. Ruslan Chagaev right before his Wlad fight(both undefeated, both seen as the lesser champ in a multiple belt situation, mixed opinions but plenty who regarded him highly, strung a few low regarded title defenses together) 2. Lennox Lewis right before he lost to McCall (similar story as Ruslan, except was higher regarded and had better defenses and better resume) 3. Dustin Nichols (not really, but I'm sure someone is going to post that, so I thought I'd beat them to it) So, I highly doubt he will reach Lennox Lewis level, but I also think he'll probably go down as a better HW than Ruslan. If he beats Povetkin, he'll have a much better win than Ruslan ever did and virtually ensure a better legacy than Ruslan, and the overwhelming majority of all the non dominant alphabet belt holders.
He seems to have a good deal more power than Grant ever had, and is already more accomplished than Grant. So it might be more accurate to call Grant a poor man's Deontay Wilder. :smoke
I already told ya.. If he beats Povetkin he's the cross era comparable of John Tate. As it currently stand without the Povetkin win? Maybe Francesco Damiani if you've ever heard of him.
Nah to which? Are you saying that you think Grant had more power than Wilder? Or are you saying you think Grant was more accomplished? Or both? :smoke
Other than they are both about the same height and build and both are black American fighters, I see no similarity.
Who has more power between the two of them is debatable. But if we're talking about who was more proven to this point, then I gotta go with Grant. Grant fought life and death to beat a very formidable Andrew Golata and faced a slew of high risk - low reward men on the way up. His record isn't exactly stellar per say but certainly nowhere near as padded as Wilder's.
Perhaps, but being "more proven" isn't necessarily the same as "more accomplished". And for what it's worth, I definitely believe Wilder has better 1-punch power between the two, based on what we have seen.