Chris Bryd TKO 10 Vitali Klitschko- Let's revist round 9

Let's put it this way, 70's Foreman beats 90's Foreman in a time machine, but there are other fighters who 90's Foreman would beat, that 70's Foreman would not beat.

 

Like who, Ali?

70s Foreman knocks 90s foreman out cold in the first couple of rounds. Unless of course you believe that 70s foreman punches himself out, but that isnt going to happen. The fact that 90s foreman could compete with and even beat some of the best from the 90s was a huge upset. But it was the complete loss of speed which ultimately meant he was not really competive with any fighter, as the 70s version would have been. For all intensive purposes, 90s Foreman should not have won a fight against a decent contender, in fact he shouldnt have even landed a serious punch. He was that slow.

 

He was never that fast to begin with. And no way the 70's Foreman KO's the 90's Foreman, especially the post title Foreman. Also, I think the 70's Foreman gets KO'd by the Holyfield who decisioned the 90's Foreman. The guy beats champion on his very fast way down and one chinny contender and you want to build a bronze statue of him. Yeah, Foreman was very good, very effective but full of holes.

 

He was that fast compared to 90s Foreman. Not so much that he was fast, but you are underestimating just how slow 90s Foreman was.

Holyfield beat Foreman quite comfortably in a much closer than expected fight. Against 70s foreman, he will face someone who lands an awful lot more, and i dare say, an awful lot harder. Not only does Holyfield fail to knock him out, he is probably KOd himself. I doubt he can survive like Ali and Young did. He doesnt have the same defence as young or the same heart and chin as Ali.

I find it absolutely bizarre that anyone can suggest that someone of Foreman's age in the 90s could compete with themselves from 20 years earlier. Is there anyone, anywhere who can do this.

 

That's not what I suggested. I suggested there were fighters the 90's Foreman could have beaten that the 70's Foreman would have lost to.

 

Fair enough, But who were they? And why?

 

Foreman's championship record in the 1970s was better.

Mercer was undefeated going in to the Holmes fight, so it's a bit unfair to call him "inconsistent" as an explanation. But, yes, he WAS inconsistent, and looked awful in many fights. In fact, Mercer's real achievements in hindsight are his LOSSES to Holyfield and Lewis. Yet Mercer is one of the names being put forth as another example of the depth and QUALITY of the division.

I followed the 90s heavyweight division from start to finish.
It had its good, it had its bad. It was no golden age.

The "hardest punchers" angle is a curious one. Even if it were true (I dont know what method you are using to measure it), it doesn't mean much. There's a lot more to having good fighters and good fights than having a big puncher or two. I guess Butterbean can hit pretty hard, he doesn't really enhance the era though.

 

I think Vitali is the best out there at the moment, but I think his performance against Lewis puts him in perspective, Lewis was undertrained and at the end of his career, He was in better condition for the first Rahman fight and Rahman blasted him. Really Vitali should have won that fight Lewis was walking through his punches and rocking him at the end.

 

this is Amee Donovan. i yearned to know her name for years. it is her in one of her post satisfaction moments of beauty.

 

And Shavers is always one of the names put forth in argument of the depth of the 70's yet he ended many a fight on the canvas. Ditto, Quarry, Norton... 30's "depth" consists of no-hopers like Buddy Baer and Abe Simon. 50's "depth" consists of borderline shot light heavies and guys with double-digits in the loss column.

Then, what per se is your choice for Golden Age? 1910-1919? Please, if the 90's were not close to being the best decade for the division, I would love to hear your arguments for which decade was better. The one where Jean Pierre Coopman fought for the title and Leon Spinks won it? The one where Dempsey sat on the title while he made films and banged starlets? Perhaps the one where Johnny Paychek and Jack Roper were allowed in the ring with the champ?

Bowe, Tyson, Ruddock, Morrison, Tua, Lewis, Moorer, Mercer, Golota, Ibeabuchi... Please present 10 heavies from any decade who can match the above list for power. I even left off old ass Foreman so you can have him for the 70's....

 

Yes.
The heavyweight division is always slow to regenerate its ranks, and never has much depth when you take a good look at it.

The emphasis you put on heavy hitters I would have thought you'd be raving about Shavers.

I dont have a choice for the best decade of heavyweights. Heavyweights kind of sucks.

(I do however believe that the ranks of professional and amateur boxing had a deeper pool of total fighters, and busier fighters, more fights, more venues, in the days before WW2. I'm not 100% sure though. It's a hypotheis that is falsifiable though.)

In response to my belief, you pass off as "fact" the completely subjective idea that the 1990s was without doubt stacked with the greatest number of talented or accomplished heavyweights. To me it looked pretty much like any other heavyweight era.

There are lots of heavy punchers in every era at heavyweight. Sure, we can make general claims about boxer A being a bigger hitter than boxer B, but I dont know how we'd measure it definitively, esp. not when including every fighter of an era against every fighter of another.

 

well, one thing is for certain...

she will take one on the chin and not quit.

 

she has shown tons of heart and grit on the footage of her i have got.

 

That's really weird, mate.

 

Yes, mate, get back to watching sweaty men, stripped to the waist, handling each other...