If today's HW division is so terrible, then why didn't Rahman win?

Bob Fitzsimmons was the worst era.
A light heavy (not a blown up one, but a guy who fought at 160 - 175 at the day of the bout) being the universal champ.
That's what I call worst.

 

If Fitzsimons was born today he'd be an evolutionary freak standing 6'9" and weighing 265lbs. His solar plexus punch would ruin today's heavyweight who don't know what its like to be hit to the body anymore. :tong

 

Why not just do a top 10 vs top 10 to end this conversation?
Estimated Top 10.
Lewis
Holyfield
Bowe

Gap
90'sTyson
In no particular Order
Mercer
Tua
Ike
Ruddock
Morrison
90's Fat George

vs

Today's estimated top 10
Wladimir
Vitali
Puluv
Haye
Povetkin
Tyson Fury
Adamek
Chambers
Arreloa
Thompson

The big issue I see is that the 1-4 of the 90's are clearly superior.
Especially 3 and 4. Lewis and Holyfield are comparable to a extend with Wladimir and Prime Vitali. But #3 and #4 Bowe and 90's Tyson will really really hurt Adamek and Puluv or Haye and Povetkin. Really hurt them bad.

After the top 4, it's very comparable though.

 

And Forman became a champion in the 90s. That says it all there needs to be said about the 90s

 

Gun to your head. Can the #3 of this era Adamek or Povetkin beat the #3 of the 90's Riddick Bowe? Best versions.?

 

Body punching sure is gone, which we can blame amateur boxing for.
And partly the gloves too.

 

Why didnt Ali beat Holmes or Trevor Berbick?

 

Because he was already shot ten years ago? atsch

 

Not sure how gloves are to blame, but I agree about the amateur system. I'm not even saying guys couldn't be as good because I don't believe people have evolved the way some like to think they have. But there are a lot of factors that keep contributing to the slide of heavyweight boxing. Every era has great talent, but when skills are neglected, stamina lost and guys fighting less often again top comp, I can't not see the era as anything other than dismal. The only time that may have been worse could be between the Dempsey/Tunney era and Joe Louis, in my opinion.

 

That says more about the greatness of Foreman.

 

This is not an especially hard argument to break down.

Rahman was a one hit wonder who'd been coasting off his night in Africa for the past decade. He was never especially good to begin with, and lacked the sorts of skills and attributes that would have lent themselves to a long successful career. He was a champ for all of one night, and aside from the Lewis fight, routinely failed to win at the top level of the sport.

Foreman was a top quality fighter with two wins over Frazier and one over Norton, who took a massive layoff whilst still in his twenties before his comeback ten years later. His fighting for and winning a title in the 90s was due to a mixture of luck, skill, physical attributes, careful management, and a relatively weak champion at the time. He lost and struggled against a number of contenders, not all of whom were particularly good, and was almost totally shut out by Holyfield.

If Foreman totally dominated the 90s era you'd have a point.

If a totally shot Rahman hadn't got two title opportunities in the 2000s you'd also have a point.

This era is considerably weaker than the 90s, and far less fun to watch, but it's not so doggone shitty that even an obese decrepit Rahman could win a title. If it was, I'd probably stop watching HW boxing right now.

 

Adamek isn't the #3, and Riddick Bowe got owned & retired by Golota LOL.

 

Are you saying Adamek is better than a prime Golota?

 

It says about as much as the era as Vitali failing to beat Lennox in the 2000s.

 

No. Prime Golota was one of the biggest wastes of talent in HW history.