Wlad in the early 1930's ?

He wouldn't be undefeated in his early career.

In this era he has no amateur career worth speaking of, and has to fight under unfavorable circumstances early on.

This probably leads to a significant number of early losses, but that is not so much of a problem in this era.

Somewhere along the line, he hits his stride, and is taken in bay a decent promoter.

Once he has got all of his ducks in a row, things play out much as they did in his own era.

He has a significant period of dominance, perhaps looses at some point, but only age or Louis retire him.

 

So many of this sill threads. But this is pretty much what you expect when you come to the Classic part of this forum. A bunch of old senile guys who still believe that any fighter from their sad child hood or before could compete against modern talented and size fighters. Wladimir Klistchko was stopped by modern sized heavyweights who had modern skill. Wlad would of destroyed every "heavyweight" from the 1800's up until the 60's in a round or two.

 

As his career played out or his absolute best for each big match up?

He picks up more loses early on due to his chin, and before Steward he didn't have the best Defence, he'd then get to contender level and be around 2004/5 time and he'd probably beat Baer and Carnera. He'd be in trouble when he started fighting 15 founders coz he didn't have the best stamina over 12. Tho he'd waste far less energy against his much smaller foes.
He faces Joe Louis.
We get an amazing trilogy. 2-1 in Wlad's favour imo
Wlad emerges as the best HW if the 30s and dominates into the 40s

 

Wlad gives them an ass kicking, imo. He's what Primo Carnera would have been had he been a master boxer.

 

No, he is what Primo Carnera would have been, if he had top end power!

 

If we take Wlad as he was just before losing to Purity, and beamed him back to 1930... he would arrive there with a 24-0 pro record, after going 134-6 in the amateurs. So he would be quite experienced.

It's of course impossible to say, how his career would progress, if he went on from there. He may dominate the whole decade - or he may run into serious trouble against a young Louis around mid-decade. Both had the power to ko each other, so anything could happen there!

 

There were a lot of good fighters in that era, it just lacked a dominant fighter.

Max Baer is probably the most obvious stumbling block, but others would pose challenges, and I think he'd certainly pick up a few losses. If he wasn't we

George Godfrey could be another danger man.

 

According to boxrec Max Baer has the same reach as Wlad and Primo Carnera has the same reach as Tyson Fury!

 

You seem to be debating to what extent he would dominate the decade!

Was there really no Purity to challenge him!

 

Wlad had crazy longevity, if he can replicate that in 1930s he would either be a dominant Champion,, Multi-time Champion, or continuous threat. I could see him dropping the odd match to someone like Max Baer but winning trilogies.

 

I think Schmeling can pull something off here, but I agree that Baer is the biggest threat

 

Definitely possible.

That said, I'd say Wlad would probably still overall be the strongest fighter between Tunney and Louis.

 

He'd be the greatest but I really think Baer would have his number

 

Max v Wlad would have been interesting. I think Baer roughs him up like Brewster did. Then he comes back and wins in a rematch. He also probably weighs significantly less