If today's HW division is so crappy, then why can't the 90s fighters win a belt?

its funny to me to see so many klitschko haters in this thread and the REAL fun is that they totally expose themselves as ******ed trolls. the truth is so obvious: the last 15 years there were very good heavyweights but the bottom line is the klitschkos were better than all of them. just cause no american is able to beat the 2 best heavyweights doesnt mean "the division sucks". on top of that not even british fighters get credit. "haye is a bum, chisora is a bum".
****ing clowns

 

:deal

 

How many 45 year old fighters do you know in history that have been able to compete against the young guns successfully? Once you reach a certain age and you are past your 'sell by' date the quality of opposition no longer has to be good; they just have to be young.

Do you think James Toney would have been able to beat a prime Holyfield?
Do you think that Oliver McCall would be able to beat a prime Larry Holmes?

 

Holyfield already did against Valuev, only to be robbed. He was like 107 when he did it to. Just goes to show how crappy the era really is.

 

Lennox Lewis
Corrie Sanders
Chris Byrd
Lamon Brewster

 

Valuev wasnt the champion, Chagaev had already beaten him two years before.

 

a) the division is nearly the same now as it was since the early 2000's, (the Klitchkos are both early 2000's fighters!) we have about 2 great (n near great) huge hw's and a bunch of 30-40 year olds who are barely legitimate contenders (tho now in the past couple of years i'd say things are improving with some promising prospects); b) the title of your thread was 90's hws even if u threw in early 2000's (plus you used guyls like Mercer, holy who clearly aren't 2000's hws); c) even if we limit your argument to "early 2000's" hws, there were no stellar hws there other than the k2 and lewis but good (and not so good) hws like byrd, tyson (very briefly), brewster, holy, briggs, ruiz, barrett, maskaev, sanders, oquendo and a few others. Most of these guys have already been discussed by myself and other posters why they don't support your argument. Some grabbed belts, a lot were already older by the early 2000's, some like briggs and rahman are still getting title shots despite inactivity, beating nobodies and being near 40, and none were all that good. The "90's" hws were better all around then the "early 2000's" or whenever 2000s and that's why those guys lingered well into the 2000's; d) there's no way to "prove" exactly which is the worst era of all time; 5) if you truly believe after watching title and top contender fights from the past few years that this is a good hw era, than that is amazing

 

And that has nothing to do with your original question, does it?

 

The real trolls are the fanatics. I've heard ridiculous things from "*****s" and "*******s" (I hate using those terms) but Klitschko fan boys are even worse.

15 years ago was 1997. Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis were the top HWs. It was the tail end of a very good era where the top three fighters had past their 30th birthdays. Vitaly and Wlad were non-factors in 1997-2000. By 2000 they had both become rising contenders.

Up until 2004 neither Klitschko brother could make the claim that they were the best the division had to offer. Vitaly lost to Lewis and although he was starting to establish himself by beating Johnson, Sanders and Williams; his quality of opposition was no better than that of John Ruiz or Chris Byrd who held the WBA and IBF at that time. Rahman scaring him into retirement made him a broken promise. He looked like he had the goods but never lived up to the hype. It's only his come back that has given him a case for greatness; not the fighters he's beating but the fact that it's the best the division has to offer, which unfortunately is not much- apart from Wlad whom he'll never fight.

In 2003-2005 Wlad had some of the shakiest moments of his career. He lost to Sanders, Brewster, dropped by Williamson and up until the Peter fight there were some calling for his retirement. I was puzzled; he looked like he could be a great fighter but his chin was getting cracked by nobodies. Then came the Peter fight, then the Byrd fight. The rest is history. So Wlad has amounted to something and has a better resume than his brother by far. But even Wlad has a few too many tomato cans on his resume because frankly there aren't too many good heavyweights that are out there.

Manny Pacquaio is not American but he's beating alot of good to great fighters. Nobody is questioning his quality of opposition and even though he's not American he's embraced.

Chisora and Haye aren't bums. Haye shows a bit of promise and I think most of us can agree that it was a good win. I was never impressed with Chisora to be honest. He's not a bum by any means but he's not an "elite fighter." Put it this way, in deeper era's Chisora would be a 2nd tier contender like an Alex Stewart or Bruce Seldon type of fighter.

 

Holyfield lost decisively to Byrd and Ibragimov. He was never really a threat to top 00s heavies.

 

I've addressed the topic quite well, it appears that you are the one who is changing the topic.

It's far easier to prove which era is the best in history than to prove which era is the worst in history. This era, compared to the 70s, 80s and 90s lacks depth. Simply put, if you were to examine the best performances from the top 10 contenders/champions from the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s; you're more likely to be impressed from the first 3 eras than you are from the last two.

I'm not convinced you've seen enough footage from fighters of yesteryear otherwise you wouldn't be so steadfast in your position.

That's not a true gage of talent. Most fighters in their mid 40s don't have the energy to continue to compete against professional fighters. Those are situations where youth prevails over faded talent. Boxing has shown us numerous examples of once great fighters losing to unheralded opposition simply because father time has caught up with them.

I've already addressed this. But I will add:

15 years ago (1997) if you a top contender or you were champion; by 2007 you are likely well past your best days and in 2012 you are no longer relevant to the state of the division. There are exceptions but that isn't the rule.

 

Holyfield also turned pro in 1984.