A detailed and comprehensive break down of the horrendous heavyweight era we are in.

Troll??
You said Ali/Foreman was a poor fight but you post one article and then tell me to use google?? rofl

You said I shouldn't judge Vitalis ability in the biggest fight of his career

You're comparing Jack Johnson era rules/fights to modern day rules and fights.

You say Ali excessively clinches so you're calling him a safety first fight.

You say this era is good/average despite one current champion getting beaten by a fat out of shape Lewis and the other being KO'd 3 times by average fighters and today at 38 he's practically untouchable.

and other bullsh1t..The only failing is you.

 

I'm sorry, but even in defending the Klitschko's, I can't in good conscience make an argument that the current era is nearly as strong as the 90s.

 

I could say plenty to a person who thinks Ali was a safety fighter but I'd rather laugh.

 

Yes to the top, no to the bottom, when was Vitali V Sanders? I really enjoyed that one.

I do miss all the great 90s fights,

 

Tyson despite being way past it went more rounds with Lewis then a prime Vitali

 

Thats what you say. For me the 90es were not that great except Holyfield and lewis... the rest was not great. Moorer was not great, Foreman was not great, Briggs was not great, Mccall was not great. And and and.
The problem is that the 90es had many champions (because of the lack of a truly great champion) so people think these champions were great but they were not. When a guy like Schulz is close in becoming World Champion it says everything! Or when and ancient Foreman beats the lineal Champ. The 90es had great times. But also weak times. Just like every other era.
Only truly great thing I see are Holyfield and lewis. the rest was nothing special for me.
The last great era was with fighters like Ali, Frazier. young Foreman or even Norton... the rest? Really nothing special.

 

The idiocy is strong is this one...

I can only assume you're very young, because the lack of common sense is astounding. You don't judge someone by one fight because people improve or regress over time. They may excel or struggle against certain styles. There may have been an exceptional circumstance in a fight that led to something major changing. Or they may simply have bad days. You know, being human and everything. So you look at all the footage you can. The more knowledge you have, the better a judgement you can make. It's called 'research'.

The fact that you can't seem to grasp this very simple concept, and have based all your opinions on a fighter based on one fight, is one of the most laughable things I have ever seen on this forum. I get that Lewis was Vitali's biggest fight. I get that as Lewis was so much better than of the others, you feel the need to judge him on that. But it's beyond stupid to base everything on that. And the fact you said earlier that the fight was fought at a slow pace leads me to believe you have not even seen it.

As a result, you probably should not comment on Vitali's career at all.

 

Great post btw
old Foreman beats the Klits

 

Yeah and Mavrovich lwent the whole distance with Lewis, your point is?

 

The 48 year old Foreman? dont think so

 

Look man he tried his best but it just wasn't good enough. But you're right I should base his ability on what?? Quiting against Byrd? Not KO'ing a one arm Briggs? Dodging Rahman? Maybe Danny Williams?? I think i'll base him off not being able to get past a fat out of shape Lewis rather then mediocre and bums.

 

I'm actually cringing right now.

 

My point is don't knock Tyson when the fighter youre defending didn't last longer then the fighter you're knocking.

Can't KO everyone.

 

wlad and vitali are god champions and good fighters for a very weak era.

 

Anthony Joshua lost to Savon at the olympics. He should have never gone close to a medal.