Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > General Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-10-2011, 06:02 PM   #31
Lacyace
Forever Knight
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Don't know.
Posts: 1,588
vCash: 200
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blood Green View Post
Norton didn't make it, did he?
etc.
Yea, he did.
Lacyace is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-10-2011, 06:12 PM   #32
Mordechai
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,968
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

imo the era is not weak but also not strong. you have amateur standouts, who were olympic champions. you have wlad klit, povetkin, solis and for ****s sake harrison(he is plain and simple upper shit). but these are 4 gold medal guys. in the ali era you had ali, frazier and foreman ( 3 gold medal guys). then today you have amateur silver medalist or world champions like haye, chagaev, ibragimov. imo adamek, young peter, thompson (this guy is 6.5 and akward as hell southpow and high workrate), ibragimov, povetkin, solis, chagaev, chambers. these guys are B level guys.haye is imo an A- fighter. and you have 2 pure A+ fighters.

in the 90 you had lewis, holyfield as pure A+ fighters with a couple of A fighters like foreman, tyson (past it), ruddock, bowe, golota and bruno. and a lot of b fighters

in the 80 you had just 2 A+ tyson and holmes and only b to c level fighter, like cooney, berbick, weaver, shavers, tucker, spinks (imo he is way overrated)

and then you have the nice 70
with ali, frazier (imo just an A-) and foreman as pure A+, plus an A- Norton, and good B's like young and shavers.

from what i see, the 90 are the strongest era

you could argue that today is the weakest era but imo it is the same like the 80 with the exception that you have two pure A+ at the same time who are not fighting against each other
Mordechai is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 06:17 PM   #33
CASH_718
"You ****ed Healy?"
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 9,547
vCash: 1644
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatle View Post
You are perfectly right, but go convince all the idiots here who criticize these eras. Rocky Marciano and Mike Tyson are good examples of this. They were so talented that their opponents honestly looked helpless. But people just assume that fighters like Ezzard Charles and Tony Tucker, who I think would have given Muhammad Ali huge problems, were bums.
Dont think anyone considers Ezzard Charles a bum..... a Light Heavyweight who was a little past it when he fought Marciano but definitely not a bum.
CASH_718 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 06:57 PM   #34
Blood Green
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 805
vCash: 2492
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordechai View Post
imo the era is not weak but also not strong. you have amateur standouts, who were olympic champions. you have wlad klit, povetkin, solis and for ****s sake harrison(he is plain and simple upper shit). but these are 4 gold medal guys. in the ali era you had ali, frazier and foreman ( 3 gold medal guys). then today you have amateur silver medalist or world champions like haye, chagaev, ibragimov. imo adamek, young peter, thompson (this guy is 6.5 and akward as hell southpow and high workrate), ibragimov, povetkin, solis, chagaev, chambers. these guys are B level guys.haye is imo an A- fighter. and you have 2 pure A+ fighters.

in the 90 you had lewis, holyfield as pure A+ fighters with a couple of A fighters like foreman, tyson (past it), ruddock, bowe, golota and bruno. and a lot of b fighters

in the 80 you had just 2 A+ tyson and holmes and only b to c level fighter, like cooney, berbick, weaver, shavers, tucker, spinks (imo he is way overrated)

and then you have the nice 70
with ali, frazier (imo just an A-) and foreman as pure A+, plus an A- Norton, and good B's like young and shavers.

from what i see, the 90 are the strongest era

you could argue that today is the weakest era but imo it is the same like the 80 with the exception that you have two pure A+ at the same time who are not fighting against each other
You're overrating the 90s. It's a pretty bad stretch to call Golata, Foreman, and Bruno "A" level considering the guys you're giving Bs and A-'s to.
Blood Green is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 07:22 PM   #35
killuminix
yes im back
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: kaunas,lietuva
Posts: 679
vCash: 75
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordechai View Post
imo the era is not weak but also not strong. you have amateur standouts, who were olympic champions. you have wlad klit, povetkin, solis and for ****s sake harrison(he is plain and simple upper shit). but these are 4 gold medal guys. in the ali era you had ali, frazier and foreman ( 3 gold medal guys). then today you have amateur silver medalist or world champions like haye, chagaev, ibragimov. imo adamek, young peter, thompson (this guy is 6.5 and akward as hell southpow and high workrate), ibragimov, povetkin, solis, chagaev, chambers. these guys are B level guys.haye is imo an A- fighter. and you have 2 pure A+ fighters.

in the 90 you had lewis, holyfield as pure A+ fighters with a couple of A fighters like foreman, tyson (past it), ruddock, bowe, golota and bruno. and a lot of b fighters

in the 80 you had just 2 A+ tyson and holmes and only b to c level fighter, like cooney, berbick, weaver, shavers, tucker, spinks (imo he is way overrated)

and then you have the nice 70
with ali, frazier (imo just an A-) and foreman as pure A+, plus an A- Norton, and good B's like young and shavers.

from what i see, the 90 are the strongest era

you could argue that today is the weakest era but imo it is the same like the 80 with the exception that you have two pure A+ at the same time who are not fighting against each other
so your judging eras by olympic backgrounds
killuminix is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 07:22 PM   #36
rushman
Devoid is Devoid
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: putting the sensual into non-consensual
Posts: 3,652
vCash: 9205
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

One of the ways to judge whether a division is in a weak era is to compare it to other nearby divisions.

Can a good cruiser jump up and dominate the heavy division? How strong is the cruiser division when you are comparing it to the heavy division?

If the division to either side (or below only for heavies) is strong, but can't cross over and dominate, then the division you are looking at is strong.

For example, Haye was one of the top cruisers, when the cruiser division was very weak. He jumped up to heavy, and struggled against the one legit top ten fighter he faced (Valuev) before getting beaten up by Wlad.
Adamek was one of the top crusiers, when the cruiser division was a little bit better. He also struggled but managed to beat a legit top ten fighter in Arreola before getting beaten up by Vitali.

So the better fighters from a mediocre adjacent division can cross over and still hover in the top ten of the division. That tells me that the heavies are not in a golden era or a weak one, but a mediocre one.

Compare that to when Holyfield jumped up.

It isn't a perfect way to tell if an era is weak, but at least it provides a frame of reference.
rushman is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 08:11 PM   #37
Blood Green
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 805
vCash: 2492
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rushman View Post
One of the ways to judge whether a division is in a weak era is to compare it to other nearby divisions.

Can a good cruiser jump up and dominate the heavy division? How strong is the cruiser division when you are comparing it to the heavy division?

If the division to either side (or below only for heavies) is strong, but can't cross over and dominate, then the division you are looking at is strong.

For example, Haye was one of the top cruisers, when the cruiser division was very weak. He jumped up to heavy, and struggled against the one legit top ten fighter he faced (Valuev) before getting beaten up by Wlad.
Adamek was one of the top crusiers, when the cruiser division was a little bit better. He also struggled but managed to beat a legit top ten fighter in Arreola before getting beaten up by Vitali.

So the better fighters from a mediocre adjacent division can cross over and still hover in the top ten of the division. That tells me that the heavies are not in a golden era or a weak one, but a mediocre one.

Compare that to when Holyfield jumped up.

It isn't a perfect way to tell if an era is weak, but at least it provides a frame of reference.
Name an era when lightheavies and cruisers weren't able to make the top ten in heavy then.
Blood Green is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 08:16 PM   #38
praetorianJJ
Conqueror of Worlds
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Picenum
Posts: 2,530
vCash: 647
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

Because it suits the agenda
praetorianJJ is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 08:17 PM   #39
thesandman
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,304
vCash: 90
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bballchump11 View Post
I feel you dog. Ali dominated his weak era, Duran dominated his weak LW era and SRR dominated his weak era.

Everybody knows this is the strongest heavyweight era in history since we got modern training techniques and bigger athletes. Because we know one thing is for sure

size>skill everytime
If that's the case, why they all so fat then?

Why do they not have basic boxing skills?

Why can I watch fighters from the 90's who aren't much smaller, actually be in shape, have good technique, and display ring intelligence and balls, whereas todays fighters make my eyes hurt?

How come there are barely any fighters under 30 anywhere near the top of the division?



Size alone does not beat skill. Two similarly skilled guys fight, the big guy usually wins. An average big guy will often lose to an excellent small guy.

Like that little Filipino dude running around welterweight at the moment.


Todays division looks weak because it is. Take away the top 2 guys - who are good - and the rest are awful. You can watch them fight each other to see that, or watch them fight one of the brothers. It makes no difference. They just aren't that good.

The 'wasted cocaine' generation had skills these guys can only dream about.
thesandman is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > General Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013