Is this the worst era in HW boxing history?

[Master]

The challengers are truly awful, out of shape and could not give a toss if they win because it will be their turn again soon.

Vitali has retired but Wlad will remain and keep the titles together. It would be far worse without the Klit brothers keeping it all together.

The Klit brothers are the best but they are not great.

[Mr140]

Well max you say the 70's and 80's are so weak but Foreman and Holmes both did quite well on the come back in there 40's in the best era. Sanders was not shit in the 90's got knocked the fuck out by Rahaman look what happen with him and Wald. Vitali did ok but still lost to a fucking 38 year old Lewis a fat one at that just saying this era not the worst but think to somehow it is great is total different thing. The borthers are top 20 somewhere right now Wald keeps winning maybe higher i really don't know if he will hit the top 10.

[Max Power]

Well max you say the 70's and 80's are so weak but Foreman and Holmes both did quite well on the come back in there 40's in the best era. Sanders was not shit in the 90's got knocked the fuck out by Rahaman look what happen with him and Wald. Vitali did ok but still lost to a fucking 38 year old Lewis a fat one at that just saying this era not the worst but think to somehow it is great is total different thing. The borthers are top 20 somewhere right now Wald keeps winning maybe higher i really don't know if he will hit the top 10.

Foreman and Holmes coming back to be competitive in the 90's is not that stunning really. Boxing is a sport where experience and ring intelligence can play a greater role than athleticism when an athlete ages. Few sports are like boxing in that regard. Also they were far heftier in their comeback than they were in there younger days.

Young Holmes and young Foreman would have been no better than the others of the 90's, they would have been light and inexperienced, but faster and more output of course to compensate.

Just a quick glance at their opponents in the 90's, Foreman lost to all good contenders, even Axel Schulz. He was extremely lucky against Moorer who had dodge chin and no fucking brains. The most stunning "victory" imo was against Shannon Briggs who he was robbed against. I did not see him fight a Riddick Bowe or a Lennox Lewis or a Mike Tyson. Holmes lost to all good contenders except his stunning upset against Ray Mercer, good HW and win but reaality, Ray was a tanker, he hit hard and could take a lot of punches. He was devoid of skill and was outboxed by Morrison and Damiani as well as others until he scored good punchers chance. The shrewd experienced Holmes at 235lbs was not gonna be so silly. I did not see him fight a Riddick Bowe or a Lennox Lewis and when I seen him fight Mike Tyson it was like "a bull in an antique shop"

Sanders vs Rahman, even fight. Sanders had upper hand early on, gassed a bit, Rahman turned tides and scored a stoppage. I see this an even contest that could go either way anytime. Rahman was a tough opponent too (fuck he KO'd Lewis!) Sanders had a particular combination of features that surprised Wlad who wasn't prepared, I don't think he'd be able to replicate that. Vitali punched Sanders up in a wild shootout right?

Vitali vs Lewis is probably the most hotly controversial HW fight in all history, how that's proof of a bad era idk.

Perharps you should review the next fight Vitali vs Johnson, another top HW prospect and potential "Lewis beater" of the time. I particularly like the final thoughts of Larry Merchant...

"What must Lennox think if he is watching this? Does he see this as an opportunity for a mega fight.. Or does he see it as an opportunity, to "SAIL AWAY INTO THE SUNSET" and call it a day.

The Lennox Lewis of that fight was 250lbs, was training to fight another top HW so was fight ready. He had equal training for the specific opponent as Vitali did, chub isn't necessarily a disadvantGE at HW. Had the full experience of his entire career behind him and at 38, was not exactly ancient for a modern era HW boxer of his height and size especially.

The MAIN thing I see damaging to Lewis' performance here on paper is his years worth of ring rust. I think that was a non issue shortly after the opening of the fight. Lewis pre-fight interview was saying how good he felt and mocked Vitali at how easily he would dispatch him.

00's was not a "shit" era man. Not by a long shot.

[mrbig1]

You know people in this country don't give David Haye enough credit. He would have done very well in any era. He would have easily beat Foreman. His speed and power would have been hard to over come. Ali would have been the only one who could have beaten him. If Michael Moorer could beat Holyfield then Haye would have found it much easier. Vitali didn't even come close to hurting Chisora. Haye made it look easy. In the film I saw in training for the Fury fight Haye was taking Wilder to school. I only wish he would fight more often. When you made a ton of money like he has, it hard to have love for the sport anymore.

[Spicoli]

I have little faith in Haye beating the best in different eras when he won't even compete in his own. Seriously...Haye would have found beating Holyfield much easier Come on man. Really.

[Mr140]

Max i didn't say the 00s was a shit era i said that it was not as great as you were saying. Holmes should of had the belt against McCall he won that fight and was robbed. Foreman gave Holyfeild a good fight and Briggs he should of got the nod have you seen the fight. When you are in 40's you are not at the top of your game and Larry was out for some time when he got in the ring with Tyson. Rahman was tough guy but i mean a old Holyfeild beat him up after his win with Lewis. Lennox was not shot but at 38 was on the slide and 250 i think was kinda heavy for him looked kinda fat in that fight but i watch it again. Anyhow i just saying that 00's arent bad but i don't think they shit on every era i feel there like the 80's only better because of the brothers pretty much thats about it.

[Max Power]

Max i didn't say the 00s was a shit era i said that it was not as great as you were saying. Holmes should of had the belt against McCall he won that fight and was robbed. Foreman gave Holyfeild a good fight and Briggs he should of got the nod have you seen the fight. When you are in 40's you are not at the top of your game and Larry was out for some time when he got in the ring with Tyson. Rahman was tough guy but i mean a old Holyfeild beat him up after his win with Lewis. Lennox was not shot but at 38 was on the slide and 250 i think was kinda heavy for him looked kinda fat in that fight but i watch it again. Anyhow i just saying that 00's arent bad but i don't think they shit on every era i feel there like the 80's only better because of the brothers pretty much thats about it.

Alright maybe I overstate the case just a little bit. You seem to be reasonable about it. Sure we can view any era in both positive and negative light. I just get so sick of the "worst HW era ever" thing getting thrown around all the time, as if all the professional HW boxers don't even know how to box or don't train anymore, modern professional combat athletes.

I guess you are right I may have exaggerated my own claims a bit to counter the thread sorry. The overall principles of what I am saying do play factors though.

Your triangulation of fights does not really add up to evidence. You can triangulate to make Holmes look bad too etc.

I ain't taking anything away from George and Larry. They are great boxers no doubt and would be a factor in any era. Beaters of Lennox Lewis though they are not (unless they are lucky). Yeah I seen the Briggs Fo9reman fight and agree it was a robbery. Well done on that one, that should have been one of his best wins.

[Max Power]

I have little faith in Haye beating the best in different eras when he won't even compete in his own. Seriously...Haye would have found beating Holyfield much easier Come on man. Really.

I think Haye and Holyfield would have been a terrific match up as well. And yeah if Moorer can beat him, why not Haye who could bust Moorers ass into next week.

Bloody look at Haye man, he is an excellent boxer. He's just injury prone, inactive and wants the fast road only. Shame on him there but.'

Holy has the chin but Haye has the punch. Haye is faster and longer and far slicker than Holyfield. Haye barely gets hit. Holyfield is a bit of a punch bag.

It's Holyfield's toughness and determination that makes him a difficult opponent for Haye, not his skills. I rate Holyfield higher obviously though because he did more.

[Spicoli]

I have little faith in Haye beating the best in different eras when he won't even compete in his own. Seriously...Haye would have found beating Holyfield much easier Come on man. Really.

I think Haye and Holyfield would have been a terrific match up as well. And yeah if Moorer can beat him, why not Haye who could bust Moorers ass into next week.

Bloody look at Haye man, he is an excellent boxer. He's just injury prone, inactive and wants the fast road only. Shame on him there but.'

Holy has the chin but Haye has the punch. Haye is faster and longer and far slicker than Holyfield. Haye barely gets hit. Holyfield is a bit of a punch bag.

It's Holyfield's toughness and determination that makes him a difficult opponent for Haye, not his skills. I rate Holyfield higher obviously though because he did more.

I'd pay the price alone just to see Haye attempt to stay in close and swap combinations with Holyfiled in a hypothetical . Holyfield was a better boxer than giving credit for though stubborn as a mule. I'd take him 7 days of the week to track Haye down, when the legs get wide and Haye is sucking wind a bit and touch him like he has never come close to being touched with combination punching. Haye also brought his ballyhooed power in with a guy said to have a weak chin and lack of fire in Wlad and did very little to nothing with it except look for singles and wait around. He really blew it. Holy would match his speed and power as it went and just be the much bigger storm.