Quote Originally Posted by Max Power View Post
Monte Barrett was better than any opponent for Rahman than any that Frazier or Norton fought for their titles!!

That's what I think!

All these titles, really I think we should go back to 3 titles. So we can still have eliminators etc. Sure I'll give you that the larger number of titles makes winning a single one not as "special" as it was previously the less titles their were. That to me is just a nominal thing though. Still even if we consider 6 major titles, winning any one of those is a pretty significant statement about the quality of the boxer within the criteria of the era.

On the other side, when it comes to the dominant champions like Wladimir, winning, unifying and keeping several different titles is a greater feat nominally than doing so for a single title (they are collectively harder to acquire and hold on to!)

But yeah 3 titles I think would be good. Something like the 80's situation with the WBC, WBA and the IBF.

Again, can you really imagine what would happen if you put Frazier or Norton in with Rahman? Gosh there'd be glass shards flying across the other side of the stadium. Rahman could really fuckin bang man! Just look at him!
Yeah Ken did good against Holmes, that was good I'll give you that and sure Holyfield was better than Rahman but really that fight was no thrashing or a real KO it was simply stopped because of that horrific haematoma on the Rocks head.

You know I rate Holmes quite highly really but he was in fact challenged at times by much lesser competition and even gifted somewhat. You might expect by now that I kinda consider Ray Mercer probably his best win or if not top 3 lol