View Single Post
Old 10-08-2007, 08:08 PM   #66
Belt holder
ESB Addict
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Could Roland Lastarza have succeeded in other eras?

Originally Posted by hotti_killer
I don't think modern heayweights are better becuase they are bigger, again with your claims, i only rate holyfield and lewis as top ten heavyweights from the modern era, i just find it funny how people such as yourselves overlook the faults of old fighters and yet try to make out that modern fighter's are worse becuase tey have done things wrong as well.
Do you class spinks, toney and jones as heavyweights, if so you would be the first person i have ever seen do this just becuase they had a couple of fight's there.
Also which fighter's are you saying use steroids, i hope your not implying guys like haye use stroids etc as you have no evidence for this.
I also feel that the 1950's era of boxing was the weakest until the modern day, as i don't see what fighter's really sttod out as great heavyweights bar marciano and i don't count louis becuase he was not exactly as his peak, joe louis wouldn't lose or get half the results he did have after 1950 if he wasn't well past his best.
I might ask why you consider Holyfield a heavyweight when he fought at cruiserweight early in his career

Be that as it may, Spinks was heavyweight champion. Jones was the #4 rated heavyweight in 2003. Toney was the #3 rated heavyweight in 2005, and #4 in 2004 and 2006. Yes, they are heavyweights. Spinks weighed more when he fought Tyson than Holyfield did against Foreman or Bowe.

You are entitled to think any era weak you want but it doesn't necessarily make it a valid position. When Ring Magazine rated the heavyweights, six of the top 21 were active in the fifties (Louis, Marciano, Liston, Charles, Walcott, Patterson). The AP end of the century poll rated Louis, Marciano, Liston, and Walcott among their top ten heavyweights of the century. I agree with them more than you.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote