Nineties heavyweights

And in terms of quality fights The 90's arent even remotely close the only big great fights were the Holyfield-Bowe trilogy .The 70's had FOTC,Thrilla in Manilla,Norton-Holmes,Foreman-Lyle,and the Rumble in The Jungle.

 

nice. A buddy of mine fought a few of the 80's n 90's guys. He sparred a lot of them too. He swears bonecrusher smith hit way harder than tyson. was just sparring though so who knows

 

I probably know your buddy We were all pretty tight knit in that era.

Bonecrusher was just a LITTLE bit before me, so I never got in the ring with him to spar, but I here he did indeed hit like a truck.

I've heard from many people that Tysons power was actually grossly exaggerated , but it was his speed that was lethal, and never gets talked about.

I'd tend to agree. I can tell you George Foreman and Lennox Lewis hit harder, blunt force, then the Klitschkos, but Wladimir Klitschko is the guy whose punches I'd consider it harder to ship. Tyson's shots would have been incredible difficult to see coming; So tight, so blazing fast.

Wlad Klitschko's right hand, behind his jab? Power is irrelevant, that kind of punch. Its just perfectly thrown.

 

FOTC was great.

Thrilla in Manilla was two shot former greats trying to figure out who was less shot. It is shocking how dissipated both fighters look when compared to the first fight. Norton-Holmes was decent but a bit of a let down from earlier in the decade. And I've seen more science in bum fights than in Foreman-Lyle.

The 90's had the Bowe-Holyfield trilogy (a better trilogy than Ali-Frazier IMO), Tyson-Douglas, the Tyson-Ruddock series, Tyson-Holyfield I & II. Dynamite action packed shoot-outs like Moorer-Cooper and Tua-Ibeabuchi. The great Lennox Lewis had some of the best fights of his career, title and non-title. It was stacked with power punchers, a depth unrivalled by any other era: Lewis, Ruddock, Tyson, Morrison, Foreman, Tua, Moorer, McCall, Bruno, Briggs, Sanders, Ibeabuchi...

 

I've heard the same thing when a few Tyson opponents who got to talking about it. It wasn't that he was the hardest hitter in history, (although obviously he hit hard) it was all about his speed. He would launch himself at you like a fast middleweight rather than a heavyweight, be on you before you'd imagine a guy fighting at heavy could possibly be on you, and then hit you with shots so fast it seemed impossible.

I find it pretty hard to imagine what it was like for anyone who had to deal with that. Definitely makes you understand though why a style like that wasn't really made to last and Tyson could only fight at the top of his game for so long.

 

I agree, but isnt the fact that there were so many great smaller fighters suggesting that in terms of skill level they were probably much higher?

I guess it is really differentiating between skill level and head to head ability, isnt it?

 

That 90's influence is still felt today w/ the Klitschko's. Once thet have left the scene it sure does not appear as though a 2000 decade guy will dominate, although Povetkin is still viable. but the table will be set for another guy to come out and dominate, just like pockets have been available in the past.

 

I think the amount of belts have a lot to do with this. Old Foreman or Holmes could certainly get the better of some top contenders in the 70s in my eyes, however the only way I see them beating the top tier heavyweights of the 70s is with a huge stylistic advantage (Foreman/Frazier)

 

Tyson-Ruddock? Tyson-Holyfield I? Lewis-Holyfield I & II? Ibeabuchi-Tua? Tyson-Douglas? Bowe-Holyfield I, II and III? Holyfield-Moorer I? Lewis-Bruno?
Lewis-Briggs? I could keep going if you want?

 

None of those fights sans Bow-Holyfield were as good as any of the fights i mentioned imo. Also why did you mention lewis- Holyfield those fights were terrible.

 

I reckon if you took the top 4 on the 90's (Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe, Tyson) and pitted them against the 70's top 4 (Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Norton) in a round robin tourney, the 90's boys would come out on top overall.

Similarly, pitting the second tier of the 90's vs. the second tier of the 70's would also see the 90's guys coming out ahead. (Imo.)

 

Since when is Norton better than Holmes atsch

 

Holmes was by no means the finished article in the 70s compared to 81/82. I'd take a Norton in 72/73 over a 79 Holmes.