If today's HW division is so terrible, then why didn't Rahman win?

everyone dont age the same dummy

 

atsch Are you seriously trying to compare the two??? Raham is shot to **** and Foreman was able to perform at his age...big difference so your shitty comparison is moot!

Edit: you say that the truth hurt...I can tell because your sorry ass thread that you cant accept this is a pretty shitty era...Deal with it!

 

What a stupid thread. Next.

 

What do you want? Stop putting words into people's mouths, people said the 90's had a better top 10, not a better top 100.

So you refuse to admit the 90's had a better top 10?

Ok. Let's take out the top 2.. Lewis Holyfield and take out the K2.


So #3 Povetkin vs #3 Riddick Bowe

#4 Puluv vs early 90's Tyson

#5 David Haye vs anybody from that top 10.. Say Prime Tua. Prime Ruddock. Prime Mercer... Anyone


How do you see those fights going?

Not to mention #1 Lewis would have cleaned either k2... Top to bottom, 90's definitely had a stronger overall top 10.

 

His thread is as stupid as yours.

 

The truth is that YDKSAB

(always wanted to say that )

 

the current HW is not the worst ever who said that?

 

Outside of the top 5-7, it's probably around the same with a slight edge to the 90's. Outside of the top 5-10, this era is much better than the 30,'s 50's, and probably the 80's.

I see what you mean, but the issue is people will focus on the top 5 a lot more than the top 25...

When they see the top 5 H2H and abilities wise along with resume is

K2
Povetkin
Adamek
Haye
Puluv
etc.. it's horrible.. But if they look further down, it's not so bad.

 

Riduculous post. A **** division doesn't mean a washed up HW would dominate it. This type of logic suggests you're either trolling, or just not very intuative about the sport.

 

I made a point earlier but you didn't respond to it. I'll expand now, some others have made good points too.

Foreman was a Top 10 ATG, who had a 10 yr break from boxing so while not in his prime, he wasn't shot in the 1990s. Rahman might not make it into the top 100 heavyweights. Foreman was competitive against another ATG in Holyfield, whom Rahman was later beaten by when Holyfield was past prime. Rahman had also been beaten 7 times (KO'd 5 times), couldn't beat a post prime bloated middleweight in Toney, and beat a guy with 16 losses to get his mandatory place for the 'title.'

I actually think the 90's is a little over-rated at times, you had Lewis and Holyfield who were ATG's and a dangerous Tyson (was best in 80's) but imo the 60's and 70's were better. There is no doubt that the current era is one of the worst, when you have the latest challengers to titles being shot Rahman, Tony Thomson and Manuel Charr, it's not a good sign.

 

Rahman is in the top 10 shot rankings, Foreman wasn't and was a much better boxer.