Prime Wladimir Klichko vs Prime Golota

[Boxing Writer]

We have actual cases of guys from that era including the best of the era losing to guys from Wladimir's era.

Can you expand on this please.

I think he meant that Holyfield lost to Byrd and Ruiz, Tyson was KO'ed by Williams and stopped by McBride. But neither Tyson nor Holyfield were in their respective primes when they fought those guys.

[Tuan_Jim]

We have actual cases of guys from that era including the best of the era losing to guys from Wladimir's era.

Can you expand on this please.

I think he meant that Holyfield lost to Byrd and Ruiz, Tyson was KO'ed by Williams and stopped by McBride. But neither Tyson nor Holyfield were in their respective primes when they fought those guys.

Cojimar always does his. He vaguely alludes to things he can't state clearly because his actual arguments would collapse under scrutiny. He would insinuate the 80s crop must be greater than the 70s because Ali lost so badly to Holmes and Berbick (etc). If you scan his profile it's literally the only type of post he ever makes. He never relates any fact, or contributes anything new or interesting, he just tries to debunk proven heroes in his round about insidious way. Very boring and quite sad that a grown man chooses this for his pastime.

[Cojimar 1946]

The most famous example is Rahman knocking out Lennox Lewis in 2001. Rahman was from the same era as Wladimir having turned pro in 1994. Rahman for me wasn't even among the top 8 of that era but beat the number one or number two guy of the supposedly better era.

[Cojimar 1946]

I don't think the 80s heavyweights were better than the 70s but the gap in ability is less than people generally believe.

[Ambling Alp II]

Can you expand on this please.

I think he meant that Holyfield lost to Byrd and Ruiz, Tyson was KO'ed by Williams and stopped by McBride. But neither Tyson nor Holyfield were in their respective primes when they fought those guys.

Cojimar always does his. He vaguely alludes to things he can't state clearly because his actual arguments would collapse under scrutiny. He would insinuate the 80s crop must be greater than the 70s because Ali lost so badly to Holmes and Berbick (etc). If you scan his profile it's literally the only type of post he ever makes. He never relates any fact, or contributes anything new or interesting, he just tries to debunk proven heroes in his round about insidious way. Very boring and quite sad that a grown man chooses this for his pastime.

I know, he does this crap all the time. I have never quite sure whether he really believes what he is saying or not. He loves to argue what he knows most people disagree with. It would be one thing he had a lot of evidence to back things up but he never does. He just cherry picks one or two results that favor his argument and disregards everything that hurts his case.
I never know whether to respond to him or not.

[Ilya Muromets]

Prime Golota was a sensation that came from nowhere. Bowe was considered the top heavyweight in the world before the first fight, and that's how they introduced him in the ring. Everyone thought that it would just be a nothing fight. Golota was the first eastern European or Russian to try to move into the big time in the US. The US media called them robotic and easy to beat. But Golota totally dominated Bowe in both fights. In fact he reduced him to somneone barely able to talk coherantly. Golota did that to people because he didn't have one big knockout punch like the Klitschkos, just many many very hard blows. Of course as we all know Golota managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory in both fights. We don't know the full truth about Golota. He was both mentally unstable and also connected with the Polish mafia. What people tend to forget, though, was that Golota won the heavyweight championship not once but twice, with no monkey business at all, and both times he was robbed by a crooked New Jersey referee and thge usual crooked judges.

As for Wlad - or Vitali - yes they were on a different level. Even a prime Golota - before he hurt his shoulder in that auto accident - like he was when he fought Bowe - in my opinion he would have been an easy - though very dangerous - KO victim for either brother. They wouldn't have let him fight inside up close where he was so deadly.

[Cojimar 1946]

The thing people seem to be overlooking is that perceptions of an era change over time. Dempsey was once widely seen as the greatest heavyweight of all time and his era viewed as the best. Obviously few people today believe that but that was the common consensus as recently as the 50s. Someone's view of a good era is heavily correlated with their age.

[Ambling Alp II]

I agree with your first sentence: The thing people seem to be overlooking is that perceptions of an era change over time.

At least sometimes they do anyway. In Dempsey's case. this is partially do to the fact that he fought so long ago. Outside of of Johnson and Louis, he was probably was the best heavyweight to that point. There was probably some racial bias which was part of this as well.

As yes, there is some truth in your statement: Someone's view of a good era is heavily correlated with their age . - Many people rate fighters form when they started getting in the sport as better than those before that time; subconciously or not.

However that doesn't explain why most people think the 1970s (certainly the part of the decade) was the best era in the heavyweight division. Then the 1980s were not as good,. But then the 1990s was better than the 1980s but not as good as the 1970s. The 2000's was clearly not as good as the the 1990s.
Those opinions can't be totally about how old a person is.

However, what drives people crazy with you is that you cherry pick one result and make a broad conclusion over it. You don't seem to put any context into your opinions.
Take the 1990s. It was a good era, (though not the best). You claim it wasn't good because Lewis lost to Rahman. You overlook that Lewis won the rematch. Or that the fight was a fluke. Or that you could just as easy say Rahman was part of Lewis' era as Klitschko's.
Or that Wladimir Klitschko lost to Sanders and Purritty, who were really part of Lewis' era.
Or that Lewis beat Vitali Klitschko despite well past his best. And so on and so on.
You also seem to completely disregard the stage of a fighter's career. Of course an old fighter well past his prime will often lose to a younger fighter in his prime who is a later era. You don't seem to get that.

You like to put a guy in an era if it fits your needs. Or that you could just as easy say Rahman was part of Lewis' era as Klitschko's. You have done this before.

It's also as if you don't actually watch the fights your self. By simply watching the fights., it's pretty obvious that the heavyweight division has not been good for a really long time. You seem to be oblivious to this.
You seem to disregard someone else's point which makes your case look weak. You just keep saying the same thing over and over as if no one else has countered your argument.

[Cojimar 1946]

It depends what part of Wladimirs reign were talking about I would say 2005 to 2008 was not great but the division was improving in later years with Vitali returning and the rise of Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder and Alexander Povetkin. Povetkin for example I would expect to beat plenty of 90s contenders like Bruno Ruiz and Rahman

[Cojimar 1946]

I think Rahman pretty clearly falls into Klitschko era. He turned pro in 1994 and was born in 1972. How could he be considered part of Lewis's era?

lets look at a year by year comparison
1990 2000
1. Evander Holyfield vs Lennox Lewis
2.Mike Tyson vs Wladimir Klitschko
3.Razor Ruddock vs Vitali Klitschko
4.James Douglas vs Evander Holyfield
5.Tim Witherspoon vs David Tua
6.Carl Williams vs Chris Byrd
7.Tony Tubbs vs John Ruiz
8.Riddick Bowe vs Oliver McCall
9.Ray Mercer vs Corrie Sanders
10.George Foreman vs Henry Akinwande

1991 vs 2001
1.Evander Holyfield vs Lennox Lewis
2.Mike Tyson vs Wladimir Klitschko
3.Riddick Bowe vs Vitali Klitschko
4.Razor Ruddock vs Chris Byrd
5.Tony Tucker vs David Tua
6.Tim Witherspoon vs Evander Holyfield
7.Lennox Lewis vs John Ruiz
8.Ray Mercer vs Oliver McCall
9.Tony Tubbs vs John Ruiz
10.Larry Holmes vs Corrie Sanders

[keithmoonhangover]

How could he be considered part of Lewis's era?

Because he fought Lewis?

[Boxing Writer]

I think Rahman pretty clearly falls into Klitschko era. He turned pro in 1994 and was born in 1972. How could he be considered part of Lewis's era?

lets look at a year by year comparison
1990 2000
1. Evander Holyfield vs Lennox Lewis
2.Mike Tyson vs Wladimir Klitschko
3.Razor Ruddock vs Vitali Klitschko
4.James Douglas vs Evander Holyfield
5.Tim Witherspoon vs David Tua
6.Carl Williams vs Chris Byrd
7.Tony Tubbs vs John Ruiz
8.Riddick Bowe vs Oliver McCall
9.Ray Mercer vs Corrie Sanders
10.George Foreman vs Henry Akinwande

1991 vs 2001
1.Evander Holyfield vs Lennox Lewis
2.Mike Tyson vs Wladimir Klitschko
3.Riddick Bowe vs Vitali Klitschko
4.Razor Ruddock vs Chris Byrd
5.Tony Tucker vs David Tua
6.Tim Witherspoon vs Evander Holyfield
7.Lennox Lewis vs John Ruiz
8.Ray Mercer vs Oliver McCall
9.Tony Tubbs vs John Ruiz
10.Larry Holmes vs Corrie Sanders

I agree, Rahman is from Wlad's era, but Sanders is from Lewis' era, so...

[Ambling Alp II]

Yes, and using Using Cojimar's own logic, since Sanders was not even one of the Top 10 heavyweights of the "Lewis era" and he beat Klitschko, (the top heavyweight of era) then the Lewis era would be much better than the Wladimir Klitschko era.
Of course he ignores this since it cripples his argument.

btw- Rahman began his career in 1994; Lewis last fight was 2003. That is a 9-year overlap.
Most of Rahman's prime and the majority of his fights took place when Lewis was still fighting.

So yes, you can easily justify saying that Rahman was in "Lewis' era".
Fighter's career's overlap. It's not like everyone quits at one time and another batch all comes in at the same time.

Cojimar loves to designate some being part a particular "era" when it suits his argument.

[Cojimar 1946]

Rahman agewise falls into the next era. He is significantly younger than Lewis Holyfield and Tyson and turned pro much later. He is also younger than Vitali. I cant see any argument for him being part of the earlier era. My argument is that the 2000s are comparable with the 1990s. Sanders is a top 10 heavy of Lewis era I rate him 6th

[Cojimar 1946]

Taking the position that the eras are comparable or that one is slightly better than the other one seems like a much more reasonable position than arguing that the 90s are far superior. Another point in this favour is simply going over yearly ratings. Aside from Holyfield Tyson and Lewis the guys in the top 10 seem rather unexceptional.

[keithmoonhangover]

I cant see any argument for him being part of the earlier era.

Apart from him fighting Lewis twice?

[Cojimar 1946]

So what? There are numerous examples of people fighting guys considered to be from different eras like wladimir Klitschko vs Anthony Joshua or Muhammad Ali vs Trevor Berbick. Larry Holmes fought Oliver McCall but that doesn't make them from the same era.

[keithmoonhangover]

So what? There are numerous examples of people fighting guys considered to be from different eras like wladimir Klitschko vs Anthony Joshua or Muhammad Ali vs Trevor Berbick. Larry Holmes fought Oliver McCall but that doesn't make them from the same era.

Maybe your whole era theory is complete bollocks?

[Cojimar 1946]

Not at all the argument is that the Lewis Tyson Holyfield era is much better than the subsequent era yet we have numerous cases of guys from the two eras fighting against each other which gives us some gauge of how they compare

[Ambling Alp II]

Rahman agewise falls into the next era. He is significantly younger than Lewis Holyfield and Tyson and turned pro much later. He is also younger than Vitali. I cant see any argument for him being part of the earlier era. My argument is that the 2000s are comparable with the 1990s. Sanders is a top 10 heavy of Lewis era I rate him 6th

We have given the arguments why Rahman was in Lewis' era. Not our problem if you can't see them. His career overlapped both Lewis and Klitschko. Believe it or not, fighter can fight in the same era as two different fighters.

The 2000s is not comparable to the 1990s. The 1990s was a good decade for heavyweights; the 2000s sucked.

Sanders is nowhere near the 6th best heavyweight of Lewis' era. Off of the top of my head, Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, Bowe, Ruddock, Tua, Mercer, Moorer, McCall, and Bruno were better. I am sure there are many more.

Sanders was never a contender until he beat Wladimir Klitschko. If he really was 6th, he would have several victories over other top heavyweights. He has zero.

OK, back to your nonsense and keep pretending that people aren't shooting holes in your arguments.

[Cojimar 1946]

Lewis Holyfield Tyson and Bowe all rate above Sanders past that point your argument starts to fall apart. What are Moorer and Brunos big wins that put them ahead of Sanders? Moorer has a nice win over Holyfield but little else. Bruno has a win over McCall and little else.

[Cojimar 1946]

As you pointed out many of the people who were rated in the 90s were still around in the 2000s. But wouldn't that undermine your argument that the 90s were better if many of the same guys stayed around for much of the 2000s? Lewis still was in peak form at least a until his last fight for example

[Cojimar 1946]

I would agree that the mid 2000s were not a great era and inferior to the 90s but I think the early 2000s and late 2000s were pretty good and that since 2012 things have improved substantially

[Ambling Alp II]

Whatever.

[Cojimar 1946]

The 2000s had Lennox Lewis, Vitali Klitschko, Wladimir Klitschko, Evander Holyfield, David Tua, Alexander Povetkin, Oliver McCall, Corrie Sanders, Henry Akinwande, Chris Byrd, Hasim Rahman, John Ruiz, Ruslan Chagaev, David Haye among others. That sounds weak to you?