BoxRec

You said "Judging the performance by the outcome is just dumb."

Wlad probably is, at least among Heavyweights. Top 15 likely, definitely top 20.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑07 Nov 2018, 16:47 You said "Judging the performance by the outcome is just dumb."

It is, cause the performance suddenly should be judged by the performance itself. So it wasn't supposed to mean, what you've wanted that to.

OK, whatever.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑06 Nov 2018, 00:54 I think of Vitali's wins Corrie Sanders, Samuel Peter, Juan Carlos Gomez, Chris Arreola, Kevin Johnson, and Tomasz Adamek were ranked in the top 10. So a total of six.

Solis was ranked too. What about Hide?

Talk about your Murderer's Row!

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑11 Nov 2018, 15:29 Talk about your Murderer's Row!

Lol, not sure what top 10 is being used or why it is being used, but it certainly illustrates how abysmal this era has been. I'd favor David bey or Biggs over all of them.

Depends which era your comparing it to, it's possible they could lose to Biggs I suppose but I still can't see them losing to many top contenders from earlier eras like Galento.

Galento is always your go to isn't it? Well Galento was overrated at the time. Only beat one good fighter during his whole career and that was controversial.
Historically, that "Murderer's Row" was awful.

Galento wasn't THAT bad sheesh Alp. He defeated Lou Nova, Harry Thomas, Nathan Mann, Natie Brown, Al Ettore--- and those five men were also challengers to Louis's title. He was one of the better contenders of that era.

No, he was not very good. Nova was decent, but the rest were not very good. You can be a challenger for the title and not be very good. Watch the Max Baer fight. He was hanging on for dear life until he he was stopped.
btw- Louis fights against Ettore and Brown were before he won the title; they were not title challengers.

I stand corrected, thanks for pointing that out to me--- I hate how BoxRec doesn't list "World Title" under bouts anymore. Why'd they change it?

As for the Baer brothers.... Tony was 5'9" and Buddy was 6'7"... Physics was essentially the problem there in that particularly fight... As for Max, the bout wasn't called "The Battle of the Bums" for nothing as both men were considered passed it, and Max had the edge in size (nearly 6'3") and power and pedigree. Baer also had a helluva chin. So it wouldn't really take much of an IQ to pick who was going to win that.

I think Vitali's competition compares extremely well with many of the contenders of earlier eras. I don't think people grasp how poor some of those earlier eras are in terms of H2H.

As for Galento, people of that era saw him as a top contender and he was ranked for several years.

Height had nothing to do with the Galento-Max Baer fight. Baer was barely even using his jab. Galento was trying to grab on almost the whole fight. He lost badly because he was not in Baer' s league.

Galento was a contender for a contender for a few years. But it it was not a good era and he was overrated at the time.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑12 Nov 2018, 15:06 Height had nothing to do with the Galento-Max Baer fight. Baer was barely even using his jab. Galento was trying to grab on almost the whole fight. He lost badly because he was not in Baer' s league.

Galento was a contender for a contender for a few years. But it it was not a good era and he was overrated at the time.

The Louis era is a particularly weak era in heavyweight boxing, yes, and one can argue it wouldn't be until the 1960s that it started picking up--- the mid to late 40s and 50s were similar to the 30s-Early 40s.

However, Galento was one of the better contenders out there. Gudoy and Conn were certainly better, but outside of them virtually everyone else was identical in worth. The fact that Galento did have so many wins over other contenders, and he was the MW, LHW & HW amateur champion of NJ in the amateurs (back when state titles actually meant something) he wasn't quite the bum people made him out to be.

To call him that, in essence, would be to call Joe Louis something like a bum because Galento dropped Louis--- as did many others--- and if Galento and others were THAT bad as you say, then Louis is (in reality) one of the weaker champions in history despite 25 defenses.

Galento was only ranked by Ring for two years, 1938 and 1939. That really is not that long. It turned out that he wasn't for real and he was no longer ranked. Pastor, Farr, Schmeling, Max Baer were all clearly better than him.

To say Galento wasn't that good is not saying Joe Louis was a bum. It was a fluke. Watch the fight. Louis dominated most of the other and stopped him in the 4th round.

The era's that mentioned were not that similar.
The early 1930s lacked a true legend. However, there was a lot of depth were several very good heavyweights.
The early 1940s was overall pretty weak; but of course you had Joe Louis who was legend. There were a few other good heavyweights and several weak ones that Louis fought.
The late 1940s had more depth but Louis was declining.
The early 1950s was overall better than the the late 1940s. The late 1950s overall was a little better than the early 1950s.