Are the 90s really the golden HW decade?

total bull****. how old are you? did you see that top ten from '91? led by Holyfield?

2010 clown ****ing show

This content is protected

Yes.. Holyfield would be up there with anybody from the 70's tit for tat.. better puncher than any of them.. down goes Foreman (may he RIP.. great man) sickle punch left hooks up the wazoo.. like only Holyfield throws.. sickle punch left hook.. night night Lewis '93

Like Holyfield couldn't be champion in the 70's. Get the **** outta here.

Scrambled Bowe, who was saved by the fan man

\Who are these punks that rank Usyk above Holyfield? Where are you? Come out. I'm waiting for you.. c'mon bull**** ukraine cruiserweight GOAT. Holyfield would have KOed all of Usyk opponents but sooner better in his sleep

CST80 the leader of it. I'm not biting my lip.. I guess everybody likes you. I'll be damned.. Verhoeven should got stomped.. ****ing Usyk.. bad as Fury.. fuxking pussies

punks

 

The 90s were great in terms of excitement but weaker from a purely sporting perspective. If the top ranks throughout the decade were populated by fighters considered "washed up" in the previous decade, how could those really be considered "golden years"? On the other hand, did anyone from the 90s remain a serious contender in the subsequent decades—which are often dismissed as weak? Was there anyone making waves between 2003 and 2015 the way the likes of a heavy Foreman, Holmes, or Witherspoon did during that "golden era"? Did the 2003–2015 period see a champion as weak as Seldon, or a fighter like the battered Bruno—who finally won a title after numerous setbacks in the 80s?
The 90s era was full of fascinating characters like Cooper, Briggs, and Morrison, as well as unfulfilled potential—take Ike, for instance, one of the best fighters in history never to win a title. It was like a real-life action movie, full of upsets and constant thrills—elements that were missing during the Klitschko era—though the 90s are largely viewed through the lens of nostalgia.

 

What the **** does this have to do with anything?

 

We can speculate forever about which had the most talent, but what we know for a fact is that too many of the best match-ups didn't get made in the 90's or happened too late.

 

If the 90s were so great the top guys wouldn't have such bad losses and guys like Moorer and old Foreman wouldn't become champs

Maybe people rate Usyk over Holyfield due to not losing to the likes of Bowe and Moorer

 

For me the best decade was 1945-1955 by a mile.
In that period we had:
Walcott vs Charles 4 battles
Walcott vs Joe Louis x2
Charles vs Louis
Marciano vs Louis
Marciano vs Walcott x2
Marciano vs Charles x2
Marciano vs Moore
Walcott vs Maxim x3
Walcott vs Elmer Ray x2
Charles vs Elmer Ray x2
Charles vs Maxim x3
And we need to add some heavyweight fights of Moore and the fights of Bivins. Not need to mention Bob Satterfield, Harold Johnson, Bob Baker, Rex Layne, Roland La Starza and Nino Valdes. So really countless number of great boxers who fought against each other plenty of times.

 

The 90s didn't have the mega fights the 70s had. What was the 90s equivalents to Thrilla in Manilla or Rumble in the Jungle?

 

Really ? Who in the 90's defeats the best Ali of the 70's ? Your argument is very weak. Cherry picking the lowest element instead of comparing the best. Zzzzz

 

Good Lord. Who doesn't beat that version of Ali? Certainly Lewis, Bowe, Holy, Moorer, early 90's Tyson, Tua, Ibeabuchi... I would call another half dozen a pick 'em.