What decade had the most depth in the hw division

[young_robbed]

They won rounds against Holyfield in a fight where they also took a brutal beating. Foreman was a punching bag in quite a few moments, he was just durable enough to keep going/standing. You're making too big of a deal about that. Besides Foreman also looked terrible in quite a few fights in the 90s even against weaker opposition. But these two guys were doing well because they are ATG's, not because this is a slight for the 90s HW division. What is your point?

Sure, they both lost, no denying that. Just saying they both had their moments. Both took a good amount of rounds from Holyfield who is a top 90s heavyweight. Foreman became a champ during this era and Holmes arguably beat McCall & beat prime Ray Mercer, so what should that tell you?

My point is, that it proves how good the 70s was given the fact that two old guys, way past their prime were able to make such an impact. That's the point. Stop playing dumb. As far as talent is concerned, the 90s was BY NO MEANS better than the 70s. the 70s had some of the best heavyweights ever. I will concede that the 90s obviously had bigger punchers. That's it, really.

Holmes does not belong in the '70s fighters' bracket. I don't want to bring up the Klitschko's for the 90s argument again that you ignored.

Whatever, he fought in the 70s, he made a dent in the 70s. I don't think he looked significantly better in the early 80s than he did in the 70s. My opinion. Nobody knew of the Klitschkos in the late 90s, nobody gave a **** about the klitschkos in the 90s.

[BKM-2010]

Sure, they both lost, no denying that. Just saying they both had their moments. Both took a good amount of rounds from Holyfield who is a top 90s heavyweight. Foreman became a champ during this era and Holmes arguably beat McCall & beat prime Ray Mercer, so what should that tell you?

First of all tell me how many rounds you think Holmes and Foreman won, which are meaningless. You don't think an old Holyfield and Lewis could atleast do the same thing in the 70s?

And what your latter question should tell me is that both of these guys were that good. It does not say anything for your argument against the 90s. Foreman and Holmes are CONSISTENTLY ranked in the top 5 ATG heavyweights for a reason.

My point is, that it proves how good the 70s was given the fact that two old guys, way past their prime were able to make such an impact. That's the point. Stop playing dumb.

If I wanted to play dumb I'd change my username to young_robbed and make idiotic, false claims about the KLitschkos. More on that below.

As far as talent is concerned, the 90s was BY NO MEANS better than the 70s.

The topic is about depth, not talent.

the 70s had some of the best heavyweights ever.

So did the 90s.

I will concede that the 90s obviously had bigger punchers. That's it, really.

Obviously? 70s did have Shavers, Foreman, Frazier, Lyle etc. Two of those names are always called THE biggest punchers of all time.

Whatever, he fought in the 70s, he made a dent in the 70s. I don't think he looked significantly better in the early 80s than he did in the 70s. My opinion. Nobody knew of the Klitschkos in the late 90s, nobody gave a **** about the klitschkos in the 90s.

Vitali won the WBO HW title in 99 by knocking out Herbie Hide which was a big deal at the time.

Wladimir was winning minor European and North American titles in the late 90s and beat Chris Byrd in the year 2000 for the WBO HW title.

Any other stupid, wrong claims you want me to refute?