Tuan_Jim wrote:I can't believe intelligent posters like Steve and Alp allow themselves to be baited into arguing with troll inventions like Cojimar and Kalan. Gentlemen, you are wasting your time. These idiots came to ruin the forum, and you are helping them do it. There's literally no point in reading them, never mind responding to them.
You're right but sometimes it's hard to resistTuan_Jim wrote:I can't believe intelligent posters like Steve and Alp allow themselves to be baited into arguing with troll inventions like Cojimar and Kalan. Gentlemen, you are wasting your time. These idiots came to ruin the forum, and you are helping them do it. There's literally no point in reading them, never mind responding to them.
i think there was a lot of carelessness in this era. One magazine, could've been KO or World Boxing, said that Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield, Tyson, Douglas, tossed the heavyweight championship around like a stick of dynamite.Cojimar 1946 wrote:The Holyfield-Foreman fight wasn't that competitive from what I saw. Foreman stayed on his feet but lost virtually every round and was hugely outlanded.
One problem with trying to dismiss an era is that there is generally enough overlap between eras to give us a good sense of how they compare. Hasim Rahman was from the same era as Wladimir Klitschko and had a number of contemporaries with better careers. Yet he was able to kayo a prime Lennox Lewis from the supposedly golden Holyfield/Tyson/Lewis 90s era.
If the 90s were so great why did the 1st/2nd best heavyweight of that era (Lewis) lose to the 6th/7th best fighter of the Klitschko era? Lewis won the rematch but the fact that even a out of shape/overconfident Lewis could lose to Rahman seems like evidence that the gap is not as great as you seem to think. The Moorer-Tua blowout is another good example. The fact that Tua beat him so quickly and decisively doesn't really support your idea that the 90s are a far better era.
exactly ! He competed at the highest level in 2 completely different eras, amazingAutobarn wrote:Foreman is highly rated because he demolished two Hall of Famers Joe Frazier (twice) and Ken Norton in maybe the greatest era of heavyweight boxing.
Because he featured in a remarkable multi knockdown slugfest with Ron Lyle, a heavyweight classic despite not being for the title.
Foreman also pummelled George Chuvalo into early defeat. Chuvalo having one of the hardest of heavyweight heads.
And came back to win the huge upset against Moorer with a classic come from behind KO punch 20 years after losing his title to Ali.
And had an Olympic gold medeal and was one of the most recognisable faces in boxing.
Surely there is no question?
Admit it... Frazier was fat, flabby, and a wasted Heavyweight by the time he fought Foreman. Smokin' was nearly as easy to punch as Jess Willard by that point.Ambling Alp II wrote:Exactly. The Frazier fight alone has to count for an awful lot.
To answer some criticisms- His pre-title competition. Certainly some tomato cans. However Peralta was a good fighter. Foreman didn't seem to have stamina fighters against him. He also beat Boone Kirkman who was a good fighter. Jack O'Halloran wasn't bad either. Compare that to other champions. A lot of them didn't do much more before winning the title.
-Only two successful title defenses. Come on. The third was against Ali. He won the title from Joe Frazier, not some paper champion.
Vitali would be the best of any era up to the time when Anthony Joshua took over.. Vitali Klitschko beats Lewis anytime they meet if they don't have corrupt officials and will call palming and other fouls. Vitali was winning the Lewis fight on all scorecards at the close of 6 -- even though he had blood streaming into his left eye for the majority of the fight and was half blind.Cojimar 1946 wrote:Also while it's true that Lewis beat a number of younger guys from Wlad's era he was probably the best of his own era so it makes sense to compare him with the best of the succeeding era and not guys like Grant, Golota, Briggs, Tua, and Rahman. Tua probably ranks around 5th in that era and Rahman maybe 7 or 8. Briggs, Golota, and Grant would rank even lower. Only Vital was top 3.
the beauty of treating vitali/Lewis as a mythical match up can only be appreciated when you know the true idiocy of kalan. He beats him every time, except for when Lennox whipped his ass. 
Sullivan refused to fight Jackson so we don't know if he could have beaten him or not.elmersalsa wrote:The great Peter Jackson was the second best heavyweight of his era, behind the great John L. Sullivan. He had more longevity than John L.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:My first thought is Peter Jackson over precomeback George, or top 10 in general, is hilarious. You just like to feel special for recognizing a real old name. No way is Jackson top 20.
Let's check out his record.
You're the idiot... Vitali was beating Lewis on all scorecards and only lost due to deeply slashed cuts, right on his eyelid... You hate Vitali and would never admit he was an ATG, regardless of the fact he has the 2nd highest KO ratio of any retired Heavyweight Champion, was never knocked down, and never behind on points after any fight.. He came back after a 4-year layoff at the age of 37 and won his next 10 Heavyweight Championship Fights to age 41.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:The scorecards are irrelevant ... He isn't an atg, but he would probably beat a lot of fighters who were ... I hated wlad more than vitali ... Disliking a fighter doesn't cloud my ability to rate them ... Vitali has zero wins of note