wladimir klitschko's dominance is out of this world

Only for Wlad does the definition of an era last this long.

We would never hear of 1980 and 1990 being talked of like it was the same era. That's dominance.

 

But would he have had the same dominance in a stronger era?

That's the question.

 

Tyson's era was much much weaker

 

The 80s quality of contenders was abysmal and Holmes gets respect for his long dominance. Wlad deserves the same level of respect.

 

Much, much weaker?

How?

Let's have a look at some of the fighters that fought in Tyson's era.


Michael Spinks
Carl Williams
Tim Witherspoon
Tony Tucker
Larry Holmes
Trevor Berbick
Mike Weaver
Pinklon Thomas
Greg Page
Gerry Co*ney
Tony Tubbs
James Smith
Frank Bruno
James Douglas
Lennox Lewis
Evander Holyfield
Rid*ick Bowe
George Foreman
Ike Ibeabuchi
Michael Moorer
Oliver McCall
Donovan Ruddock
Andrew Golota
Tommy Morrison
David Tua
Ray Mercer


Compare those fighters to today's top 20, or compare them to the fighters from 2004-2014, which has been Wlad's ten years of dominance.

IMHO, There's no way Wlad would have gone ten years unbeaten, had he faced some of those guys from Mike Tyson's era.

 

He does deserve a lot of respect.

But the 80's had some very good fighters.

Unfortunately though, a lot of them had issues.

Wlad's gone undefeated from 2004-2014.

Would he have gone undefeated from 1964-1974?

1974-1984?

1984-1994?

1994-2004?


Of course I'm just looking from the 4th year onwards of each decade, due to Wlad's dominance from 2004.

But you can ask the same question looking at any point, from any decade.

Would Wlad have gone ten years unbeaten, at any point, within the last 40-50 years?

I don't think he would have.

 

Wlad with Many, esp Wlad from 2007, will be a factor in any era. Stop talking shi**. The guys from 60-70-80 have no good defense, tactics, technique and physique to compete with Klitschko.
Go watch some matches, how open they was and then talking s***.
Klitschko can KO anybody so he will be a factor in any era.
Klitschko before Many would probably lose some matches.

 

I didn't say he wouldn't be a factor.

I'm asking if he'd have had the same level of dominance in an an earlier era?

The guys from the 60's-80's, had no good defence, tactics or technique?



You need to change your username to lordtosh.

 

He is the Ring Magazine #2 P4P fighter in the World. If he savagely KO's the Stiverne-Wilder winner I suspect he will be #1.

 

How can you have the audacity to say he's greater than the likes of Ali, Holmes, Frazier, Foreman, Bowe, Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, and Marciano?

 

Not sure why people still rank active fighters Wlad could easily lose again. They all do. IF and a big if he can go to 40 and have say 22 defenses (he fights twice a year) and retires you would have to put him on there somewhere. Exactly where is conjecture. He is taking on all challenges not ducking anyone. How many guy you listed did that? Half of them?

 

Name one HOF on Wlad's resume. Who's his best win a LHW in Byrd? or Haye?

 

LMFAO better than Ali? Yo share whatever you're smoking bm, **** must be the real deal.

 

Sounds a bit like Tyson doesn't it? His best win was old Holmes or Light Heavyweight Spinks. Look at Holmes his best win is Norton or old shot Ali.

I am not saying Wlad is TBE just if he can make it to 40 and not lose again he will be somewhere in the top 10. His reign isn't any different than Holmes was the parallels are striking.