The 1990's. The best decade of talents at heavyweight?

Well they certainly aren't working in your favor here so I don't blame you at all for omitting them.

If you don't put much stock in ratings why mention it? And incidentally old versions of Patterson, Chuvalo and Liston made ratings too.

Bugner was on the comeback trail when he beat Denis and stopped him in three rounds.

So Foreman can beat Moorer, Savarese, Briggs, Rodriguez, etc but can't beat a journeyman who's best win was Scott Ledoux?

Ali winning a decision over Holyfield is about the only or one of the few arguments I'll rule in favor of the 70's. But Evander Still whales on plenty of guys from that period and Ali would have no easy time against the real deal.. He arguably lost two out of three to Ken Norton and was gifted in a few fights while struggling in a fair number of others.

Irrelevant comparison.. The Foreman of the 90's was a totally different fighter than that of the 70's. He had vastly improved defense, threw straiter punches, knew how to pace himself and had better ring generalship. The Foreman of the 70's had early round tenacity and aggression.. Hell I'm almost apt to thinking that the late version might have given Ali more problems.

And see I can twist that around in my favor. The best participant of the decade was a man who was laid off for four years, past his prime and yet still stood out above everyone else.

Nah.. Holyfield proved that he could survive a shilacking from countless numbers of big hitters and ones who had more size, stamina and skill than that early rendition of George. Furthermore, unlike Ali, Evander actually had some power and precision in his punches that he could hit George BACK with..

Either that or the show drops drastically in ratings due to very short air time with Norton and Frazier unable to get out of the first round.

Just a random name to fill in whatever 70's fringe bum you thought would upset Lewis.

 

Ummm. You may want to go back to page one and read the thread starter's opening statement. Because the first thing he did was list several years of 1990's ratings and made references to them..

And ratings were used in this instance to benchmark that.

And based on my earlier arguments, I can see them doing the same in the 70's.

It proves tons to me.. Because those are the level of opponents that a 70's Foreman used to get a title shot with and it worked just fine. Why should a 90's Foreman be held to a different standard if brought back in time?

Too many possible scenarios there to make one blanket statement about all of them, friend. And you're also resorting to taking the very best of the 70's and placing them against two men who weren't the best of the 90's.

No.. on the first page of the thread I clearly laid out my pros and cons about the 90's and listed some very specific criticisms of that period, while also listing the 70's as an honorable mention for best decade.. This debate you and I are having was prompted by your quote below:

That was a pretty one sided selective and transparent generalization ..And guess what?? You even referenced RANKINGS !!!! :yikes Now you see how easy it was for someone to counter that statement by pointing out the drubs who were rated in the 70's ??

Its been debated on here forever and through countless numbers of threads. Anytime someone places Norton and Frazier against the likes of Tyson, Bowe, Lewis, Tua and even an old Foreman there are plenty who favor that group over them.

 

... until the darn East Bloc guys come in to ruin things

 

Which coincides with a decline in the quality of American heavyweights.

If the eastern euro fighters hadn't turned pro, please show me which american fighter from 2000 onwards would have been placed on a similar platform to Ali, Tyson, Holyfield?

Chris Byrd?
Tony Thompson?
Eddie Chambers?
Calvin Brock?

Which goes back to the point, the eastern euros took over a waste division devoid of any talent.

And I wouldn't really call it a takeover, the only outstanding Euro heavyweights were the Klitsckos, Valuev and Povetkin, maybe Chagaev and Ibragimov.

And the best name they beat between them was a 50 year old Holyfield and/or Chris Byrd.

 

The East Bloc guys would no doubt argue that the decline in quality is perceived, and not actual, due to the fact that the US guys aren't dominating anymore

 

About the only guy on this list who might have made that 1991 top 10 is Chris Byrd, and I'd venture to say that he'd be at the bottom of it.

 

Tim Witherspoon was ranked in 1991 and he looked absolutely awful that year.
I think people get a little to enamoured with "names" without considering the condition/form some of the fighters were in at the time.
Chris Byrd at his best probably beats 2 or 3 fighters in the 1991 rankings as they were in that year ... and I'm no fan of Byrd.

 

I was watching Witherspoon's fights on local cable stations in the 90's. He made short work of the Giant Ecklund. Battered the journeyman sims. And while he didn't look spectacular against Jose Ribalta or Carl Williams, he still managed to hammer out two wins over two ranked contenders in those fights. He wasn't consistently looking good nor consistently looking bad. I do remember one thing however. Nobody of the upper echelon wanted anything to do with him. And yes Byrd might have eeked out decisions over one or two of the lowest ranking contenders which is why I gave him a chance at cracking the ratings for those years. But the fact that its still just a "maybe" confirms how weak things have become.

 

That still doesnt answer the point i made.

Name one American heavyweight since 2000 that would have gone on to be great and mentioned alongside the likes of Louis, Ali, Tyson, Holyfield had the Eastern Euros not been around?

The answer is NONE.

 

Calvin Brock was a very talented heavyweight. Its a shame that his career was cut short due to blindness in one eye and a bad shoulder injury. He was an excellent amateur winning several amateur titles and represented the US in the 2000 Sydney Olympics. He was unbeaten in his first 29 pro fights with decent wins over Timur Ibragimov, Jameel McCline, and Clifford Etienne. Its also arguable that he was robbed in his last fight against Eddie Chambers. I didn't see the fight but apparently he landed 262/587 to Chamber's 151/439. One judge gave it to Brock. He also was game against a prime Klitscko. Not sure how far he would have gone had it not been for bad luck and the absence of the K brothers. But he had potential. As it turned out things worked out for the best. He has a college degree, and a good job as a real estate banker along with all his brains in tact.

 

I'm not too familiar with Brock, but I do know he was one of the better US heavyweights after the Lewis era.

But since the retirement of Lewis, I don't feel there was anyone that would have taken the mantle of the next great American heavyweight had there been no European influx.

So I disagree with the claim that Eastern European fighters are the reason american heavyweights declined.

 

Yeah it's likely that had there been no klits the belts would have remained divided and shuffled around every several months from one holder to the next. Much like the 80's with the only difference being that there'd be no Larry Holmes or mike Tyson leading the pack.

 

The 90's has the greatest depth of talent of any decade in HW history imo

The early 90's were the peak, 1990-92 had so many great fights

 

good list

I'd take out ****ey and put in Tubbs. Tubbs beat Page and barely lost to Witherspoon in title fights. ****ey beat a bunch of washed up former contenders, than gave Holmes a decent fight, but lost.