Is this the worst era in HW boxing history?

[Max Power]

"Oleg was a champ because a trinket was up for grabs"...

Yeah, the same reason why Frazier and Norton were champs too right?

[Mr140]

Tell me what exactly did Rahamn do to deserve the belt He beat no one worth a shit for years has a draw with Tony and he is champ come on. Fact that Oleg even got a belt shows me that today it is even more of a joke to have belt then was back then no reason they should of even had a strap. Frazier and Norton beat some body that was at least top at the time i mean Rahamn was not even close to being top dog and Oleg got a trinket that is about it and there are so many flying around kinda takes the meaning of it away don't you think.

[Max Power]

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!

[Mr140]

Well i think Spinks, Foreman, Young and Ron even could give Rahman run if not beat him. I am pretty sure Foreman could smash him because his chin was tad better. Rahman can bang but he lost to a lot of guys he could not knock out ok Joe and Ken had bad chins but they gave Ali as much problems as guys that do better today. I mean old Ken gave Holmes a run for his money and look what he ended up doing Rahamn has a bangers shot but can be out boxed and fucked up him self guy lost to Ruiz for god sake and old Holyfeild. Say what you want about some old fighters getting better with age but Holyfeild depended on his speed and out put and that is the first thing to go still fucking made Rahman look bad dude had a punch thats about it ok boxer. I mean he had some good wins with Sanders and Lewis But the man was like one hit wonder because then look at the boxers he lost to right after word just saying.

[Max Power]

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

[mrbig1]

The HW division has always had great American fighters. This era there is none. They called the Joe Louis era the bum of the month club. This era is even worse than that. Who is the best American fighter in the last ten years? It's because we see fighters retiring with no money and having to fight in there 40's. James Toney is still fighting. You can count on one hand how many fighters retire with all there marbles and money in there pockets. In the HW division I can name two. Holmes and Foreman because they both made money outside the ring. What kid in there right mind wants to be a fighter? How about none.Lebron James has size speed and power. He could be a fighter in my mind. He knows the money he makes in the NBA is his. In boxing the promoter and manager can do what they want when they want. Boxing is the only sport in which there is no laws to protect them. You would be a fool to want to be a fighter today. Some will say money Mayweather has money. Why is this, Because his father and Uncle were both fighters and knows the pit falls young fighters can fall into.

[Max Power]

I don't buy any of that. A guy who really loves boxing is going to want to be a fighter. Furthermore we're talking top level boxing here, not fighting for a dollar. In Louis' day they fought month in month out because they were paid such FA the had to.

Today a fighter at that level is paid handsomely, affording them proper recuperation and training before their next fight! and a comfortable lifestyle.

Every professional boxer I see has great clothes, and the finest equipment and don't look like their eating a can of baked beans. Holyfield did not fight on because he ha to. He wanted to!

If a lot of boxers are not good at managing their finances for later life that's something else, I guess taking head shots impairs judgement somewhat.

Anyway why do you single out "great American" fighters Your saying this era is bad because Americans are not dominant? As if you are the centre of the world.

I can't believe you said that! Wilder, Jennings, Arreola are American, the only reason they are not considered "great" by your standards is because suddenly they must compete with a whole world full of talented fighters and struggle to keep up.

In the old days boxing was mainly an American and British sport with some foreign involvement. Today it is a global sport, esp with the opening up of the Eastern bloc nations and the competition has gotten that much stiffer.

Furthermore, Americans have gotten fat and lazy! They come up soft. In places like Eastern Europe, conditions are tougher and they naturally produce better fighters. If the yanks spent more time training and not listening to rap music they might enjoy more success.

All that happened to America is that you got beaten. The home ground flag of HW boxing for a hundred and fifty years was suddenly uprooted by a couple of Slavs, whisked away to the opposite side of the globe and replanted in Ukrainian soil, leaving America bitter and ashamed, full of hate, full of excuses, and shying away from the cause and the solution.

Well cry me a river. They won because they come from a far more discipined society and they train harder. Want to be great again, try harder! Yu have a population of several hundred million ppl!

[Mr140]

Well will say this america has not been hunger inn ages we are lazy in general. Hell we have ufc now which is the new click which is ok but when a guy with ten wins beats one best of all time kinda of joke. I wish we had the Tyson and Holyfeilds again we have a champ but hunger ain't there no more.