Lets Say

honestly, I dont think getting KOed means ****. Ken Norton got blown away more than once, although it was against some damn hard punchers... I think that an ATG is measured on not who a guy loses to, but who they beat and what they accomplish. Dempsey and Ezzard didnt have anywhere close to clean records, but the level of competition and how good of fighters they were undoubtedly make them an ATG. However, it all depends on Wladimir's(or this hypothetical heavyweight's) opponents he beats. If his title defenses include guys like Austin...sorry, but no. I dont think today's heavyweight division is nearly as bad as some people make it out to be, although hell no not a high point... But personally, I think you really should be able to have great credentials to be an ATG. Wlad needs to unify, keep it for MORE than just 2-4 years imo, and beat solid contenders that actually deserve the shot. Im kind of picky about someone being called an ATG tho... ________ List of plymouth vehicles

If Muhammad Ali had been a fighter today, and owned the division with his skills, should he not be an all time great when all is said and done? We know his ability because of when he fought but wouldn't it have been a shame if Ali was never considered a great because of a weak division? His skills would have still been as impressive and his ability as strong. Point being any boxer who can dominate the division for years and unify shouldn't be held back by having the poor luck of being in a weak division.

That one(lets not say a specific name) of the four HW champions unifies all the belts. by beating all of todays champs. and goes on an holds his undisputed championship for 2-4 years. would him get a spot on your all tiem greats list??? or would you say the division is soo weak that its almost impossible for someone to prove greatness against this opposition?? ...Yes they should, and I do believe Wlad will accomplish all those things you just mentioned. :banana:

He's just trying to illustrate that even all-time greats, like Tyson (KO by Douglas) and Lewis (KO by McCall) have been stop by fighters on par with Sanders and Brewster (who are both easily on-par with McCall and Douglas). To answer your question, I think so. Especially if it is done by Wlad, Peter, Brewster, or some young gun that came out of nowhere. but Lewis avanged his losses..................thoough McCall not immediatly....

He's just trying to illustrate that even all-time greats, like Tyson (KO by Douglas) and Lewis (KO by McCall) have been stop by fighters on par with Sanders and Brewster (who are both easily on-par with McCall and Douglas). To answer your question, I think so. Especially if it is done by Wlad, Peter, Brewster, or some young gun that came out of nowhere. I concur my friend.

Depends on how much Povetkin,Peter,Haye improve and others who break through. Right now None of them would be amongst the greatest heavyweights of all time, to me they would just have been the best of a bad bunch.

He's just trying to illustrate that even all-time greats, like Tyson (KO by Douglas) and Lewis (KO by McCall) have been stop by fighters on par with Sanders and Brewster (who are both easily on-par with McCall and Douglas). To answer your question, I think so. Especially if it is done by Wlad, Peter, Brewster, or some young gun that came out of nowhere.

A CHAMP is not perfect ... I know very few ATG save for marciano who went undeated.. What A champ is is some who can come back from adversity and prosper Lennox gets credit for it Tyson does FFS Rahman does.. BUT Wlad cant??? Now if someone can Unify and hold the the title.. Not necesarily the belts.. but the titile of undisputed champ.. and keep it for 4 years and fight at least 10 fights in those 4 years.. Then Yes I would call that man at least an top20 ATG Heavyweight... Corrie Sanders though? In two rounds? and that wasnt the first time hed been stopped. what was that about tyson & rahman? anyway Im not saying it just for the sake of being critical.

& to elaborate, the best in the division has been KO'ed by c-level comp,so it would be hard to justify comparing him to the greats,and if its any of the others, most of their technique/physique is so seriously lacking that youd be hardpressed to say they really belong up there. A CHAMP is not perfect ... I know very few ATG save for marciano who went undeated.. What A champ is is some who can come back from adversity and prosper Lennox gets credit for it Tyson does FFS Rahman does.. BUT Wlad cant??? Now if someone can Unify and hold the the title.. Not necesarily the belts.. but the titile of undisputed champ.. and keep it for 4 years and fight at least 10 fights in those 4 years.. Then Yes I would call that man at least an top20 ATG Heavyweight...

That one(lets not say a specific name) of the four HW champions unifies all the belts. by beating all of todays champs. and goes on an holds his undisputed championship for 2-4 years. would him get a spot on your all tiem greats list??? or would you say the division is soo weak that its almost impossible for someone to prove greatness against this opposition?? If you won the lottery, and if you didn't blow it all in a whorehouse, where would you be in 2-4 years?

& to elaborate, the best in the division has been KO'ed by c-level comp,so it would be hard to justify comparing him to the greats,and if its any of the others, most of their technique/physique is so seriously lacking that youd be hardpressed to say they really belong up there.

I lean towards the latter.

Very good question......But I would think anyone who can clean out the paper champs and stay undefeated for another say 4 years or so no matter the state of the division should get some All time consideration at the least.