There's No Such Thing As a Weak Era/Division...

[iamboxing]

only a great champion who made potentially great fighters look good in comparison. Whenever you have an excellent boxer who dominates their era/division you'll have naysayers assume the competition was weak. Why was it weak, though? Was Frazier, Norton, Foreman and Liston rubbish or was Ali just too good?

Suddenly, Gatti is pants, Corrales was one dimensional, Oscar was washed up and Pacman was injured....it had nothing to do with Mayweather being great.

Revisionist theories are popping up about Wlad now, "oh who did he really beat anyway...forget he's 41, a win is a win...AJ is awesome. Have you seen the size of his co**?".

This idea that a fighter was only great because of a weak division needs to be put to rest. It was only weak because of his presence which testifies to his greatness.

[SensFullViolenc]

Nah, HW was weak. But I respect Wlad for dominating it for 10 years. Wish he didn't clinch so much.

What were Wlads best wins? Povetkin was good. What else? Pulev? Chagaev? Haye? Peter?

I'm sorry, if that's what you show after 10 years, that's a weak division.

I do calibrate Wlads greatness to that. Holmes dominated a much stronger division, so he's much greater than Wlad, for example.

[pacmanis1]

If you don't believe there is such things as weak divisions and eras than put down the pipe and get your eyes checked bro.