Worst heavyweight belt holder ever?

That's harsh.

 

Valuev, Carnera, Seldon, Akinwande, Martin, 1994/1995 Foreman Comeback.

Wilder is bad but there were much worse.

 

If the rules were properly enforced in Ruiz's fights, he would have lost against everybody he faced above the journeyman level. Because these "victories" are all so illegitimate, that's why Ruiz is the worst.:yep

 

Most of those guys spark Wilder. How are they worse?

 

Its funny because i hear that a lot but when i watch old boxing films i notice guys seem to display better skills than fighters today. Im not even reffering to the greats but actually some of there less know opponents who are far from household names.

 

Yeah I wouldn't confidently pick him to beat Carnera or any of those guys. Lean towards him beating Martin but only slightly, Seldon beats him. He lost elite heavyweights for the most part in his prime.... Wilder would be a breath of fresh air compared to the likes of Tyson, Bowe or McCall. The rest smoke him.

 

Comeback Foreman would literally kill Wilder.

 

I am comparing title defense records, not h2h.

 

Comeback Foreman didn't kill anyone. He won a robbery to terrible German nobody Axel Schultz, losing 8 rounds on most observers cards. Then he ducked Schultz for the IBF enforced rematch. Previously, he lost 10 rounds to former LHW Michael Moorer, before landing a lucky single punch. He lost a MD to Shannon Briggs.

Who exactly has 95 comeback Foreman ever "killed"? This is largely a US media created myth. His 95 comeback was a farce, carefully engineered by Don King.

Wilder would win an easy UD 12 vs. 95 Foreman. Similar to the Stiverne fight.

 

Comeback Foreman knocked out Moorer and ****ey. He was light years beyond the big fraud. Even Cooper would be a tough day for Deontay.

 

:deal

I didn't want to disrespect that guy, but it's really ignorant to compare boxing with other sports.

I really don't understand that line of thinking. Because if boxing progressed in the same manner as say swimming, today's fighters would be this best fighters of all time. Today's MW's would be the best MW's of all time. Today's HW's would be the best of all time. Yet you can clearly see that they aren't. It's just bizarre when you break it down.

There's people on here who actually think that there's a cut off point. They think it may be possible that a fighter from 30 years ago could beat a fighter of today, but a fighter from 40 years and beyond couldn't.

It's really strange.

 

Sorry I don't agree. Clearly, today's boxers are light years better than 1950s boxers. Just like today's swimmers, pole jumpers and chess players are better than their 1950s counterparts.

I don't follow your reasoning at all.

 

I was talking about 1994/1995 comeback Foreman. Who outside Moorer did he knock out again? He lost 10 rounds, got beat up by LHW Moorer. Then landed a single right hand to win the fight.

1994/1995 Foreman's title reign was an embarrassing farce. Lucky punch, gifted robberies and ducking mandatories. A terrible joke.

 

They might be. But are today's fighters the best fighters of all time, in the same way that today's swimmers and sprinters are the fastest?

Clearly not.

Today's swimmers are the fastest of all time.

Today's sprinters are the fastest of all time.

If you had a time machine and you got a sprinter from the 70's or the 80's and put them against Bolt and Gatlin, they couldn't win.

If you had a time machine and you went back to the 70's and 80's to choose a fighter to compete against a guy of today, they could most certainly win.

Boxing does not progress each decade like athletics and swimming.

This is obvious to any knowledgeable fan.

The best fighters of today aren't better than the best guys of the 80's and 90's.

The MW's today aren't the best MW's of all time.

The HW's today aren't the best HW's of all time.

Stating that a fighter today is 10x better than a fighter of yesteryear, based on athletics and swimming, is the most ridiculous and ignorant thing I've ever heard.