[Deleted by user.]

When was your day? I have been watching pro boxing since 1965.

 

Right, so there isn't really some general consensus, about the 1940s being a superior decade! And why would there be?... the first half of the decade was ravaged by WW2, with worldwide activity plummeting from the very busy 20s and 30s. Several world titles (HW, LHW, MW, WW, FLY) were "frozen", with not a single title fight taking place in those divisions over a period of 3-5 years.

So why anyone would single out the 1940s in particular, as a superior decade, is a bit of a mystery. Oh wait, didn't you have a grandad, who just happened to be active in... the 1940s? Mystery solved!

 

In a head to head fight, I also believe that Foreman would beat Tyson.

 

You are right buddy, Prime 1973 George Foreman hit like a mules kick.

 

I didn't say there wasn't any 'general consensus' on the Decade(s), I simply stated what was cited, discussed and attributed to that period... there are certainly reference to that in Piece's & Reports about it, on the Demise of Boxing - the TV Era, written about Killing the Small Halls, the numbers of 'active' fighters dropping, the lack of interest or need of the Sport as a livelihood because of Post War prosperity, chroniclers of Boxing writing of such Era's, Documented HOF'd fighters, Books like Mike Silvers' and so on...

is that not Documentation and Consensus?

ask a few others about the Topic, it has been discussed many times before as I said, see who else is aware of such Consensus...

you can't curb you're disdain towards me can you, IF it is ACTUAL REPORTS (either side of 20 years, before I was even Born), you want, then READ Them there are at least 600 available online with respect to 'my' grandad... but of course you'd have to admit they exist before you would dare have to acknowledge them.

as to the 1940 (30s - 50s), IF you don't want to look into the response material I know of, Ask Others, see what they have to offer.

 

Heck, you sound like you were born in 1710 when America was owned by England. Did you ever see the King or Queen?

 

So Mike Silver is one of many instrumental in establishing this "documentation and Consensus". You mean the guy who has made a career of bashing and ridiculing modern boxing? How anyone can cite him as a voice of reason, is mind-buggling!

And what is this about "of course you'd have to admit they exist before you would dare have to acknowledge them." Why would I doubt, that there are hundreds and hundreds of online reports about your grandad? So what is it, you want me to admit?

 

Well firstly, there was no "big 3" when Foreman was around in the 70's so that is a moot point.

Tyson, with respect did not reign in an era of Ali, Norton, Frasier and so on. Ruddock and Golota would have been no more than stepping stone fights for any of the top guys in the 70's. Ruddock was KO'd by a guy called David Jaco who ended his career with more losses than wins so let's not make Razor out to be any better than he was. Tyson should win those fights but they are not legacy fights. The only two great names on Tyson's CV (except an old Holmes) are Lewis and Holyfield and he was destroyed twice by Holyfield and obliterated by Lewis.

Tyson was good, but he's not the superman than many people believe. Foreman's first career alone was better than Tyson's. Foreman's comeback only served to show how inferior the 90's were by comparison. At 42 years old he gave Holyfield a better fight than either of the fights Tyson put up against Evander.

I note also that you conveniently overlook Foreman's first fight against a not "over the hill" Frasier and his destruction of Ken Norton. Chuvalo too. All three of those guys would school Razor Ruddock.

 

Tyson had as title winning fights as Foreman had wins in title fights including a robbery.

Ruddock would've smashed Norton to pieces. Go sit down.

 

Do tell, who did Ruddock beat that was any good at all?

I’ll get the popcorn.

 

Three former champs and he broke bones in Tyson's body.

 

Mike Weaver who was career 41-28-1 is one.
Micheal Dokes who held a belt but was not in any universe a champion. And even then Ruddock didn't win the rematch.
Greg Page, who had lost to old man Joe Bugner a few years earlier and lost almost every fight he ever had against anybody who was any good.

Is that it? Is that all you've got? That's the hill you are going to die on? Tyson beating Razor Ruddock a couple of times? You're having a laugh mate.

Foreman beat Norton and Frasier in their prime and then an undefeated proper heavyweight champion Michael Moorer when he was 45 yars old.

Ruddock wouldn't get near any of those guys, despite your ridiculous comment about smashing Norton to pieces.

 

Anyone with a big punch smashes Norton into bits. He lost to every big puncher he ever fought.

 

Jose Luis Garcia in 1970, George Foreman in 1974, then Earnie Shavers in 1979, and lastly Gerry Cooney in 1981.

 

Perhaps and I will concede that.

And Ruddock could punch but he ain't Foreman or Shavers in that respect either. I'd still back Norton but point duly noted.