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, 03:31 PM   #16
Keueng
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,652
vCash: 9199
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

If the HW scene of today didn't have Klitschko, Arreola and Adamek would've been ATG and deemed as the modern HW rivals...
Keueng is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-10-2011, 03:36 PM   #17
AnotherFan
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,562
vCash: 500
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

Quote:
Originally Posted by badassQatari View Post

the hell are talking? 70s heavyweight was dominated by ali but it was the strongest era in history
Lewis era was stronger.
AnotherFan is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 03:38 PM   #18
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 crimson View Post
Because the problem is not really the Klits or Tyson or whomever. It is the competition. The Klits might be as good as Ali, Louis or Johnson.

The problem is we can't tell because the competition they have faced is limited. Most of their competitions is not even HoF nomination worthy let alone true HoF or ATG. We can theorize (or fantasize in cases of Klit fans) but that is about it.

It is not the bros. fault. They have done as well as you can ask them to do with the given competition they have.

You can also argue that if they have beaten Lewis most of the criticism would have been blunted.

I am one of those people who actually put a lot of stock to actual accomplishments than just theoretical H2H matchups.
How many heavyweight eras really had HOF worthy fighters?
2000s--3 (both brothers and Lewis); Byrd and Ruiz might get nominations. Toney and Jones will make it but hardly for HW accomplishments
90s: 3 in Tyson, Lewis, Holy. Bowe might get nominated. Foreman and Holmes really didn't do much in this period
80s: 3. Tyson, Holmes, Spinks (not really for what he did at heavy)
70s: 3. Ali, Frazier, Foreman. Holmes came in on the tail end. Norton didn't make it, did he?
etc.

Anyway, it's not really that much different from the other eras as far as HOF worthy fighters go, it's just that Lewis/Vit was the only fight between two of them.
Blood Green is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 03:45 PM   #19
JASPER
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,587
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vano-Irons View Post
This

I take it the OP is referring to the HW division as of now. But ask yourself this, how many of the top 10 HWs, apart from the brothers, would be considered top 10 HWs in the 90s, 80s, 70s and 60s?

Exactly! Not to mention in almost every other era outside of the top ten you have great up and coming prospects and veterans that are still hanging around. Today you have two dominate champs, weak top ten and ancient vets like 50 year old holyman and almost zero up and comers to even talk about. This is the first era where I cannot see anyone replacing the dominate champ in the near future?
JASPER is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 03:47 PM   #20
Lance_Uppercut
ESKIMO
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Alaska
Posts: 26,025
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baldwin View Post
Tyson era was weak
Klit bros
Homles

Joe louis was the real guy fighting bums. Good boxer but he fought nobodies .But considered ATG

Etc...

I dont Think they are weak at all. Asshole that dont repect dominate champions say there weak. Thats the truth

Why not make a case for them if that's how you feel. Explain to people WHY they are wrong to see them as weak. This IS the outlet to do so. But maybe bitching about it works too.
Lance_Uppercut is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 03:53 PM   #21
crimson
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,951
vCash: 500
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blood Green View Post
How many heavyweight eras really had HOF worthy fighters?
2000s--3 (both brothers and Lewis); Byrd and Ruiz might get nominations. Toney and Jones will make it but hardly for HW accomplishments
90s: 3 in Tyson, Lewis, Holy. Bowe might get nominated. Foreman and Holmes really didn't do much in this period
80s: 3. Tyson, Holmes, Spinks (not really for what he did at heavy)
70s: 3. Ali, Frazier, Foreman. Holmes came in on the tail end. Norton didn't make it, did he?
etc.

Anyway, it's not really that much different from the other eras as far as HOF worthy fighters go, it's just that Lewis/Vit was the only fight between two of them.
But an era is a subjective term and not defined by one decade, at least not in this case.

Ali also fought Liston and Paterson. Quarry if you want to count him.

Both Klits had fought who? Lewis. That is one. And lost.
crimson is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 03:57 PM   #22
SportsLeader
Chilling
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 4,615
vCash: 75
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

Terrible thread.
SportsLeader is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 04:00 PM   #23
El Bujia
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The dirty dirty.
Posts: 5,376
vCash: 500
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

They aren't. There are plenty of examples of deep, talented eras that have been dominated.
El Bujia is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 04:15 PM   #24
jeffjoiner
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Trying to make a dollar
Posts: 9,603
vCash: 5174
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

Weak eras are considered weak. It has little to do with who dominated them.

In my lifetime, JCC dominated a good era, so did Hagler. Conversely, the Klits and Bernard Hopkins have dominated pretty weak eras. That's not to say that they couldn't have held their own against consistently stronger opposition.
jeffjoiner is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 04:18 PM   #25
jeffjoiner
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Trying to make a dollar
Posts: 9,603
vCash: 5174
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keueng View Post
If the HW scene of today didn't have Klitschko, Arreola and Adamek would've been ATG and deemed as the modern HW rivals...

As an Arreola fan, I disagree. He is exciting to watch and could build a pretty decent following, but nobody will compare him to Ali or Louis ever.
jeffjoiner is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 05:01 PM   #26
makavel
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 629
vCash: 75
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Jab View Post
Because it's nostalgia. The great thing about the past is the cons are largely forgotten unless they stand out and the good times remain, so it seems a lot more perfect.
makavel is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 05:10 PM   #27
bremen
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,241
vCash: 500
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffjoiner View Post
As an Arreola fan, I disagree. He is exciting to watch and could build a pretty decent following, but nobody will compare him to Ali or Louis ever.
Right, but how does Arreola compare to #10 in Louis or Ali era?
bremen is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 05:30 PM   #28
beefman180
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,429
vCash: 500
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

Thread is mind numbingly stupid and wrong.

90's and 70's are examples of this. And that's just the heavyweight division.
beefman180 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 05:31 PM   #29
Lartize
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 522
vCash: 2468
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bremen View Post
Right, but how does Arreola compare to #10 in Louis or Ali era?
Oh.. that is a good question.
Lartize is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 05:58 PM   #30
Jack
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 11,319
vCash: 15000
Default Re: Why are dominated era's called weak?

Dominated eras are very rarely strong though. The list of fighters who have been able to dominate a strong era, for a sustained period of time, is very small. Ali didn't, Leonard didn't, Duran didn't and so on. It's a very small list, comprised of some of the very best of all time. My top three, Robinson, Armstrong and Greb, all dominated strong eras but they are the best ever for that reason.

But an era shouldn't be judged by how competitive it is. Whether it's dominated or not, is irrelevant. It could be fiercely competitive and be both excellent or poor. In a same way, a fighter who dominates doesn't necessarily have to be excellent, and a C-class fighter would dominate a D-class division.

The only true way to gauge an era is to judge each fighter as individuals. If an era is full of strong, skilled fighters, then it has to be considered a strong era. If, however, it's full of poor fighters, then it should be judged as a poor era. That's the way every sport should be judged.
Jack 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 07:11 AM.


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