The HW division: What has changed?

yes, fox news is so pro black its sickening . . . lol. No, the talk of this being the weakest era started Just before LL retired and when he did Byrd/ruiz ruled the division.

Man it sounds like there are a lot of fascist on this board . . . all of this superior race BS . . . would be scary if it wasn't so funny

 

two points:

you put his name with in a cluster of others and i over looked it.

what does MIGHT mean? lol

besides he is a Cruiser . . . I do not consider him a part of this discussion we are talking Heavys which have evolved everywhere except in the USA. Since you agree with that point I do not really understand your point.

 

Nobody gives a **** anymore bubby. Haye vs Klitschko already happened. The heavyweight division has nobody else.

Your wasting your time.

 

The only racist in this conversation is YOU. You make that BLATANTLY CLEAR.

And regardless of Wlad's win, it can't erase his losses to journeyman.

With that said, I think he is a very formidable opponent and a great fighter.

As far as the rest of the division though, aside from his brother and the already defeated David Haye, there is nobody worth **** in the division.

I don't see how this is debateable.

As I previously said, David Haye got beat, and Wlad isn't fighting his brother.

There is no excitement left in the heavyweight division.

Your threads are now boring and old. Please prove to people you are not a white supremicist by talking about a different division and not only WHITE fighters.

BTW, shut the **** up.

 

The purpose of bringing cunningham into the debate was to show that the usa is still producing boxers as they were in the 70s and if he was in the 70s he would be a very good heavyweight, he would be competitive with a list of;


ali
Foreman
frazier
holmes
young
norton
Quarry
Lyle
Bonavena
Shavers

As he is about the same size as these, and this is a list of my top ten from 1970-1979. (I thought you'd prefer a list of the entire decade rather than one year

However, I dont think he would fare any better in a list of;

Wladimir
Vitali
Adamek
Povetkin
Haye
Chagaev
Chambers
Dimitrenko
Boytsov
Helenius

because these boxers are generally so much bigger. And these are just the current crop not the entire era.

 

lol, cunning ham would be blown out by the top two guys today and 5 of the top guys back then . . . thanks for proving my point . . .:good

 

There are number of US boxers who are 6'5"+ so it is not the size that matters.

 

That doesn't prove your point. Cunningham would not beat 8 out the ten top heavyweights! He's already lost to Adamek. So do you think he would beat a klitscko.

Also that is a list of just the top ten heavys from today. The 70s list is a top ten from the entire decade I could find more than 5 from the last 10 years.

 

Is the hunger and desire really there now for big ass Americans to box when there's an easier option to make money in football or basketball ?

It's a long hard road in the fight game before you start seeing the cash benefits. If ever.

 

I'm not sure what the point your making is, I tried to get JASPER to comment on a like for like top ten (ie a current top ten and top ten at any point in history) but he wouldnt, so I made a top 10 of the 70s to make my point.

If you point is that this is an era considered to be strong, but actually a top ten is weaker than today's, then I agree with you

I think only two of them would definitely be in the top ten today, possibly frazier, but he would struggle against the larger opponents of today.


Where did you get this information from, do you own the magazines or did you find an internet source?