the 50's fighters were better than the 70's fighters!

I wasn't being entirely serious.

Still, name one 40+ year old fighter from a previous era (or two like Foreman) who was able to win the title pre-1990's. It never happened, the old men were all knocked off the rankings by younger men. Today an ancient Holyfield can puzzle the very ordinary Valuev with a simple strategy of moving his feet.

Of course the Klitschko brothers should be able to seriously damage the likes of Holyfield and James Toney at this point but Valuev is still a top 5 ranked title holder in this era of boxing. An old man like Holyfield being able to compete with him on even terms should not happen. Today's heavyweight division is in fact lacking in talent aside from the Klitschko brothers even though some may dispute this.

And Ruiz was a rather weak title holder, and the early 2000's certainly weren't the best era of boxing. Two former middleweights were inside the top 5 in 2003, three if you include Byrd:

Lennox Lewis, Champion

1. Vitali Klitschko
2. Chris Byrd
3. Corrie Sanders
4. Roy Jones Jr.
5. James Toney

Say what you may about Foreman's win over Moorer but Moorer was the lineal, undisputed heayweight champion at the time.

 

Is their a crowd of you guys that get together every week & try outdo each other by creating new usernames here on ESB & posting the most moronic attention seeking **** ?

I really think so, its borderline impossible for so many `new members` to be so clueless about boxing.

 

Fact: Your head is lodged in your ass, Ali was in his physical prime in 1967, even posters that have no time for Muhammad Ali acknowledge this, do some research before giving exact dates of the man, especially when they are wrong dates.

 

Evey year or so had a weaker guy in the top ten, even the 1970's.

The problem with today in regards to this is no sane boxing org would have Valuev as a top 5 heavyweight even today.

Its all about who runs you today. The ONLY reason Valuev has that belt and holding today is because of Don King.

Guys like King can relly screw up the true rankings imo.

 

I'd say Ring Magazine has proven to be quite sane. It's not like there are a lot of people that could be rated above Valuev. His ranking is just about right.

http://www.ringtv.com/ratings/heavyweight/

 

For the decade of the 1970's dumbass. That's the context in which this was written, the decade of the 70's... i.e. my point being he was in a physical decline the entire decade.

Jesus Christ, take it easy on the coffee.

 

Good Ratings, Ring

 

VK, Wlad, Ruiz base off of being robbed 2 times, Holyfiled, Hayed, Chavegv. Thats 6 right off the bat I would rank over Valuev. HEAD to HEAD by the way with fair judges lol.

 

couldn't have said it better. and as for the heavy division the 50ties where relatevely weak

 

You should have made it more clearer but I still disagree because Ali`s decline was very slow due to his style (he aint Frazier, a take 2 to land 1 type) & he got rid of the 3 n half yrs ring rust with each & every fight.
Its possible he may have peaked (for the 70s) vs Quarry, Chuvalo or even in 74 vs Foreman - that was probably the last time he weighed in at his best fighting weight of between 210 & 215 lbs... he was 224 vs Frazier in Manila just a year later.

 

the 70's and 80's are the two greatest era's in boxing history in my opinion

With fighters like these's: Muhammad Ali, Roberto Duran, Wilfred Benitez, Joe Frazier, Larry Holmes, Sugar Ray Leonard, Carlos Monzon, Salvador Sanchez, Mike Tyson,
George Foreman, Mike McCallum, Evander Holyfield, Thomas Hearns, Marvin Hagler,
Julio Cesar Chavez, Alexis Arguello, Bob Foster, Azumah Nelson, Jose Napoles,
Ruben Olivares, Arron Pryor, Wilfredo Gomez, Michael Spinks, Pernell Whitaker,

 

The sport was even more internationalized at that point, widening the talent pool globally. The US and European scenes had come a long way from its low point in the 1940s-50s. Perhaps the pools were still not as large as they had been in the 1930s, but internationalization made up for a lot of that. US boxers were still dominant talentwise.

 

Definitely at the mid to lower weights. Not so much for heavyweight post 72 and pre 86. Obviously Holmes is an ATG, but his competition was fairly poor and VERY SHALLOW. Tyson got rid of a lot of the fat-asses and drug addicts and bridged to the excellent quality of the 90's.

 

Not sure, I always felt pound for pound the best fighters came from the 20's and 30's imo. Early 40's belongs with that group.

Ross, Armstrong, Walker, McLarin, Canzi and others were great fighters imo.

 

Precisely as I see it Bill :good