Let's watch a little footage to compare era's. Holyfield vs. Dokes 1989 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UUjewzxfZM What can see here? Good athletic ability in both men, both displaying handspeed, with Holyfield superior. Both displaying good boxing fundamentals such as tight footwork, tight guards, variation in punching all set up properly and use of "control", with Holyfield being a superior fighter in the categories, but a nice fight none the less. Jab, in fighting, in fighting control, distance control, good timing and other nuances that shows ring IQ and just good boxing skills. I don't know how much more I can list. This was a fight in 1989 with the significance level related to championship as this in 2012 - Haye vs. Chisora 2012 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tShBLAqJ58w So we can see in difference much looser punching, bad footwork in Chisora's case. Lesser ring control abilities in Haye, loose defensive responsibility in Haye, loopier punching in Haye. Bad jab in Chisora, plodding characteristics in Chisora. Lesser handspeed in both in respect to the previous fight above and no in fighting ability even on the same plane as the fight above. And if you can't see the difference and see that the 2012 combatants are just simply weaker, then you're watching with rosey colored glasses. What else can be said? This has been a trash era.
I picked Haye because he's a top rated HW of this era and Wladimir couldn't put him away despite his poorer footwork, defensive lapses and loose punching. The fight I posted is directly relative to Holy V Dokes era for era. You said this era is on point with the 80s and 90s. I just debunked that with two video's. Of course anyone knows that already that isn't a fool.
I've been reading here more often than posting since I joined. I'm not trying to come off that way, but look at this Elroy and other Klitschko fans that make them out to be something they aren't for whatever obsessive reason. They come off as sanctimonious and self righteous and have nothing to back it up. I'm a big fan of historical fighters that people like him act like are nothing due to being from a previous time, which is unfounded and has no logic or evidence. So I'm posting up stuff for analysis that can be debated. I feel I'm correct on this particular thing, meaning that they're overrated and this era doesn't even slightly compare to a strong era, which they proclaim boastfully that it's one of the best. Boastfully, when we're watching these atrocious fights that display limited skillsets, a degrade in athletic ability. If it's not obvious, then let's watch video that can't tell a lie and point out the obvious to put the myths to bed.
Povetkin would easily beat the majority of HW champions of the last 100 years. Many of the classic era champs wouldn't even be contenders today.
The fact that Wlad has come back from being seen as a boxing Bambi who could barely stay on his feet to being the towering figure that no heavyweight can come close to toppling does go a long way to making him an ATG. It is common to say 'it is how a fighter comes back from a defeat...' etc - well, I think he has done a great job of coming back - don't you? Besides that, the man LOOKS like the heavyweight champion of the world, he is a great role model, a gentleman, puts a bit of theatre into his ring walks and generally is good for the sport. I would much rather have Wlad as the figurehead of the sport than any other heavyweight. The argument about modern era fighters beating fighters of the past is largely moot simply due to the ever growing size of a heavyweight boxer, the greats of the past are cruisers or light heavys today.
Is this the same Povetkin who was getting battered by the cruiser weight Huck? Prior to the Wlad fight many people were expecting Wlad to KO him easily but because he lasted the distance and made Wlad look bad he's now a heavyweight who could compete in any era. Gotta love Klittard revisionism. :nut
Of course Povetkin would be competitive in any era. That's a no-brainer. Competitive means he would win a couple of rounds and have his moments against the leading HW fighters in any era, even if he lost the fight. Note I didn't say he'd beat all HW champions in the history of the sport. I said he'd beat the majority of them (> 50%), especially the classic era ones. If you disagree with that then we have little else to discuss. It's just common sense to me.
He really does have to rank somewhere 13-18 though... Quantity is capable of improving a legacy over time as opposed to great individual quality. At a certain point, he's better than a whole bunch of lineal champs before him from Ingemar to Moorer to Vitali to Burns... And then he surpasses and rivals a whole bunch of guys who are generally accepted as top 20 HW greats. Wladimir makes that bunch easily. Therefore, he is an ATG in his division, which happens to be rich in history.
Ok you have clarified your definition of competitive. I could see Povetkin doing what you are saying against top heavyweight contenders of previous era's just not the true champions. If you include title holders as champions he might beat a few of them, the Hides, Seldon's, McCall's etc. I wouldn't favour him over very many, if any of the true champions like Lewis, Ali, Foreman, Liston, Frazier, Holmes etc.
There were not only c level HW there was one A level(Vitali) but he never faced him, it is unfortunate that they are brothers but it does take away that he DID NOT face best fighter beside him.