How many heavies in the last 25 years could beat Joe Frazier, Does it hurt ALI?

An old slow Holmes fought an even fight with McCall, who knocked out the great Lewis.

Actually, I dont think it's even worth trying to debate with you

 

Uh, as was stated in the post you just quoted here, Foreman and Holmes were "old, fat grandfathers" when they had their late-'80s-through-'90s fights. Unless you want to argue that fighters, in reality, never age and only lose when they're old because of perpetually improving competition, your argument here is patently unreasonable. Do you think Kevin McBride would have dominated the division in the late 1980s?
In this instance, it is plainly more reasonable to compare these fighters' firsthand assessments of the competition in the two eras. Neither of them noticed any self-evident gap in the competition level in favor of the '90s heavyweights (if anything, it was the opposite), and the fact that they were very competitive and won their share- Foreman even won the championship- against top '90s heavyweights while old, slow, blubbering shadows of their former selves backs this claim up.

 

And easily outpointed Mercer, who took Lewis to a debatable MD.

 

frazier would of been bigger in todays steroid fueled era. don't forget when foreman beat him in 73, frazier was on the slide. he had not been the same since the ali war. but he had been in a few other wars before that

 

Yes but there's no point arguing because he starts to babble incoherent nonsense about bums and how the the 80s were pathetic because Holmes lost in that decade less than the 90s :rofl

 

I don't want to take anything from these boxers, since they are phenomenons. I just doubt their comparison (the same way I doubt Mercer's comparison regarding the power of Lennox vs Wladimir Klitschko), since they performed WORSE in the 80ies and 90ies.

Now YOU claim that they performed worse because of their age (which is very possible) while I claim they performed worse because of a harder division.

Let's also not forget that Forman stated that the legs got weaker but the chin stronger after aging. So fat and age are not necessary a disadvantage (up to a certain point of course).

However, since I didn't spend my time with Foreman's opponents in the ring, I would suggest that everybody should value FOREMAN's OPINION more (if he has indeed stated it. url?) than MY LIMITED ANALYSIS. But you should add an asterix "*" that says that "his assessment speaks a little a different language than his record".

 

Why are you bending the truth? Holmes LOST UD12 against McCall.

 

Oh, analyzing records & performances is incoherent? No wonder oldtime-fans are sitting in their "feel-good-bubble" where noone can win against their heros.

 

He fought at heavyweight, end of. The 200lb+ limit is very recent. The lineage of the heavyweight title goes well beyond the new restrictions. Patterson was a heavyweight.

Ignoring Patterson for a minute then. Ali. He fought at heavyweight all his career and was faster than anyone else, besides Patterson. Kind of disrupts the logic that modern fighters are always faster, huh? Speed has not increased in recent years. In fact, I think the current top 10 heavyweight may well be the slowest ever.

But you're definition of who is and isn't a bum is the problem I have. I realise that fighting poor fighters is of no relevance to a fighters legacy, but it's your opinion on who is and isn't a "bum" I have an issue with.

Records don't tell the full story.

That has nothing to do with his strength. Juan Diaz is extremely strong, yet doesn't have a great punch. On the other hand, Tommy Hearns was one of the biggest punchers ever P4P yet a kitten would push him around the ring.

 

Yes, and now it's called cruiser. So he fought at what-was-called heavyweight. Why do you care so much how it was CALLED. Hitler was called a good man once. You should care what WEIGHTS Patterson fought not how these weights were CALLED.

Yeah, but we are comparing the old fighters with nowadays heavies. And this is how heavies are defined.

Yup, he WAS one. Now, he is not anymore.

Yeah, and medieval heavyweights (150+) were even faster.
Who cares that 150+ could have been called "heavyweight" once. Compare the speed in the same weight rage, not the same "TERM RANGE".

It's already a disgrace for modern fighters to call Marciano a heavyweight, but comparing SPEEDS of a 170+ or 180+ fighter with a 230+ fighter is ridiculous, just because they have been classified as "heavyweight" once.

Because they are the heaviest ever.

It's not my opinion. I have set it at 25% (= someone who loses 25% of his fights or more is a bum = below usable margin), because as soon as a fighter fought his "pro debut opponents" you see a sudden change in opponent quality: His debut opponents are 25% or worse and his better opponents are much better than 25%. And after a loss they make a tune-up fight (or two) with such a 25%-bum or two. So this 25% is a very real margin and you see it exactly at the beginning of a career and after losses. 25% is not as hard as I could have chosen it.

No, they don't. But they are close enough, especially if a boxer has had many fights.

Ahem, Diaz is 130+, of course he has not a great punch.

Also not a heavyweight. I didn't analyze any records lower than heavyweight so all of my statements regarding "bums" and "ratios" are only applicable to the big boys.

 

What he means is, I think, is that he lost by one point on two scorecards, and like 3 on the other. Was a very "evenly" contested fight, that could have gone either way.

 

i think there should be a new rule on these boards that if at least 75% of someone's posts are plain unadulterated ****,then they should be officially classified as a bum poster.we can then invite admin to BAN THE ****ER.(sorry about the language):fire

 

I guess your post meets exactly this criteria.

 

Okay. :rofl