This generation of heavies...does it simply suck?

I remember the Lewis and Wlad era's very well

Everyone said they "sucked" at the time too

Same with Holmes.

"Sucked" they said.

 

Haye, another former Cruiser, annihilated a much fresher, prime Chisora.

 

Zhang would get beat up early on, score a knockdown and then gas out, TKO

Dubois would get outboxed by Tucker, Tubbs, Spinks and Holmes. Bruno could beat him. Ruddock would KO him

 

This era sucks donkey box

 

Quality of opposition is a big part of historical evaluation, 80s Tyson is severely short on that category.

"Bonecrusher" wouldn't even beat Miller let alone prime Joyce and Dubois.

You are really good at cherry-picking a few fighters to try and disprove my general claims. Yeah they weren't. Berbick also wasn't that good and Holmes was 38 coming off of a 2 year retirement. Look at the other fighters Tyson fought in the 80s. Tucker, Thomas, Tubbs, Tillis etc etc.

This is straight up a lie. Wilder was never inconsistent, he was undefeated with KOs over everyone he fought with until Fury demolished him. Dubois' only loss besides Usyk was Joyce after he got his eye socket broken. Only Ruiz fits the definition a bit and he is about 20 times more consistent than Tony "I arguably beat prime Bowe and then got KO'd by Lionel Butler a year later" Tubbs.

Holmes was 38 and coming off of a 2 year retirement after losing to Michael Spinks twice. This is like saying beating Ali is Berbick's best win. Ruddock is a much better win for Tyson, he was actually dangerous, young and in his prime.

That cruiserweight is the same natural size as Larry Holmes btw.

Then why do I keep seeing people call AJ a stiff bodybuilder that is too big for his own good? Usyk is literally the same size as Larry Holmes and bigger than Holyfield, you make it sound as if he is as big as Marciano or something.

Witherspoon was older than Usyk as well. He is past-prime but not washed, and Fury and Chisora were past-prime as well, arguably so was AJ.

Not sure if you're trolling or not but those first 3 fights happened in 80s when Holyfield was transitioning to HW, I explicitly said 90s-00s. Chazz Witherspoon was also older than Usyk by like 5 years, its quite normal early on for a moving up CW to pick an older HW bot to test himself. You can also literally see Holyfield being 5 years older than Bowe and 4 older than Cooper in your own post. Holyfield was mostly the older man in between 1990-2000s.

Foreman did nothing for a whole decade before he returned. He was a pastor, dude wasn't even working out and had to come back from obesity to get in shape for boxing. Wladimir NOW is probably in a better physical state than Foreman was throughout the entirety of 90s with that giant belly sticking out, and Usyk is much older than Holyfield was. If Wladimir came back now, took a few tune-ups and gave Usyk a good match it would legit be more acceptable than Holyfield vs Foreman.

He dropped multiple rounds to both and had to exert himself to win. Holmes frustrated him a lot, Foreman hurt him multiple times, they were geniunely tough matches for him and Holyfield was in his prime at the time.

You might want to learn how to read, I didn't call Mercer a journeyman, I said he was one of the better contenders of the era despite having close calls with literal journeymen.

Wow this surely changes a lot, ok, I can now forgive Moorer for getting KTFO'd by a 45 year old man when he had multiple times and was fresh off of a win over Holyfield.

See? This is the hypocrisy that I'm talking about. Foreman winning the title again and putting prime Holyfield in rough spots as an obese man in his 40s after a DECADE long lay-off is acceptable because "Well he is a top 5 puncher and one of the most powerful men and it just shows how incredibly powerful and badass Foreman was", but when Usyk dominates the era as the smaller and older fighter its a disgrace for the division. Pure hypocrisy. If Foreman was just that strong, then Usyk is just that skilled. Real simple.

This is literally one of my favorite Holmes bouts. He absolutely outboxed Holy. Holy did a good job taking away the jab but Holmes was timing him a lot with the right hand, frustrated him a lot with his defense on the ropes and was even out-fighting him on the inside early on. Holyfield won purely because of his physicality.

 

Mercer's best wins were before he lost to Holmes. Morrison, Damiani and Cooper. After Holmes beat him Mercer went 1-1 with Ferguson, drew with Marion Wilson, lost to Lewis + Holyfield, barely beat a 38 year old Witherspoon (some thought he lost) and then he just crushed cans while getting stopped by Klitschko and Briggs towards the end. Moorer literally beat Holyfield. These guys aren't supposed to be losing to fat has-been dinasours from two generations earlier than them. It's embarrassing, and you are only not accepting it because you are biased for the era.

Good thing I'm not the one who is supposed to be one of the best HWs in 90s.

On paper sure. Not so much with context involved.

McCall lost to Mike Hunter and Orlin Norris lmao. He caught lightning in a bottle once, the rest of his career was consistently losing to contenders and beating anyone below that.

....Yeah? How does this change what happened lmao.

Idc.

At this point I don't even know what this conversation is supposed to be, you brought Zhang up by saying Bowe never lost to a "balding chinese dude". I guess being a balding chinese dude makes you bad at boxing.

So you are fine with fighters not fighting each other if it doesn't make sense business or career-wise? Good, then you can't complain about AJ vs Fury.

I am waiting for you to actually read my damn posts, I literally said Lewis has beaten some quality contenders in my first post. Don't answer just to argue.

Do you have any evidence for this beyond your own theories? Because for all I know Seldon had a title, and that's more than enough to fight someone.

Be a man of average intellect and read the part of my first post where I said, word for word, that Lewis has beaten some quality contenders.

Right after you tell me another era of HW boxing where a 45 year old KO'd the UNIFIED (so that you don't rage out again) champion.

This is not the same thing at all. Foreman was like a decade older than his opposition for the most part. Usyk was 5 years younger than Witherspoon, 3 years younger than Chisora, 2 years older than Fury and 3 years older than AJ, which is about the average age gap Holyfield had with his opponents. Dubois is the only odd man out being a decade younger than Usyk, and this can be explained by HWs of today fighting far less frequent and lasting much longer than the HWs of older eras. Equivalent of Foreman would be a comebacking Klitschko in today's fighter age standards and that guy wouldn't have half of Foreman's success.

I don't think so because today's fighters have already shown themselves to be good. Usyk beating them doesn't make them bad, it just makes Usyk better.

 

It mostly just sucks.
I remember before the middleweight came along
These super heavies were a brand new thing, the majority were saying they were unbeatable by any Ali - sized heavyweight. ‘It’s a new era’ , fighters from the 60s and 70s would have been too small.
Usyk completely exposed them

 

Circle of boxing life. Old heads shyte on the current eras saying how older eras and fighters were better and then as the time passes other people become old heads saying their era was the best and the current one is shyte.

Anyone remembers that after Tyson beat Spinks people were saying he still needs to prove a lot to be considered better than guys like Maciano od Dempsey? Or that during the 1991-1995 period people were complaining how shitty of the period was it, claiming Mike Tyson was still the best heavyweight in the world while in prison, and how the title changed hands between inferior guys (including a crusierweight and a light heavyweight), ultimately getting in the hands of a 45 year old. Then, after Lewis came up on top, they were saying how boring he is. And now the 90's is a like a golden age, better than the 70's even. People just can't appreciate what they have in front of them sometimes.

 

“Owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god. Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realize that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they draw the conclusion that they are gods. A heavyweight fighter is a lot like a cat. We are all gods, and we demand to be treated as such. An entire era of gods and kings on Earth, sent from heaven to claim our crowns on this hallowed ground, the ring, the squared circle of the garden of Eden made anew.”

~Deontay Wilder

For the record, I agree with 'Tay.

 

Tyson could make cruiserweight today so in today's landscape he would be a cruiserweight moving up just like Usyk.

And many heavyweights are overweight making the size difference with Usyk less extreme than weights might suggest

 

I think if you take Lewis, Wlad, Fury, Parker, Usyk back to any other era in history

They wipe out the entire division

 

Mix of both. Better than the Klitschko and Lewis era which also featured lumbering giants. Worse than the 90s skill wise, but don't know if they could handle the giants. Usyk is excellent and toppled the 2 best heavy's and the best prospect in the division in a short time period. His ATG status is secured, just more so a matter of where you rank him.

 

Parker and Fury wiping out Ali and Liston ? I’d like to see it. Usyk could compete in any era but he wouldn’t be favourite in Ali’s era, or Holmes’. Wlad and Lewis have a chance but they aren’t beating Ali or Foreman or Holmes.
Parker wiping out Ali’s era ? May as well say David Price would done as well