The HW division: What has changed?

This is what you are doing for the heavyweights, I mean, we are talking about what the heavyweight scene is like NOW, and how weak or strong that is, so boxers from 10 years ago are not relevant to what the current condition is.
If we talk about the current scene, we are only talking about the active boxers current ability. So do you appreciate now how that it is only fair to compare it to an individual year.
And when you do that you realise that actually currently (not the last decade overal) the heavyweight division is not actually that weak, and there is more depth than at almost any other time.

Also from 1969-1971 Mac Foster was a ring magazine top 5 heavyweight, from 2009-2011 he wouldnt be.

So if you at the very least accept that cunningham and adamek are as good as mac foster and quarry, then surely you must see that the standard is higher now as cunningham isnt even a heavyweight

 

I do not think Mac foster is that strong (I remember that my dad mentioned him a bit and it was never in a good way), quarry is ok in my top 10-15 for the 70s as a decade. i rank adamek as the number 3 current and top five for the decade. Cunningham is Ok I would not say he would make my top 20 . . . maybe if he was in the 70s.

But in this practice of comparing heavyweights I always think about the conditions they fought in. would cunningham even had made it out of the gym wars of the 70s? could he deal with the racism that existed? I think there is a level of mental toughness that was back in that era that we cannot competre with today. Each era presents its challanges how would fighters deal with these challanges? when we compare do look at things in a vacuum or do we place the current fighters back in time in the previous era. I know this adds another level of complexity but it this is a fictional discussion to begin with.

conceptually I cannot see a year or a spot anaysis as an era . . . maybe if we looked at say a 5 year timeframe. all fighters that came in and out in the past five years compared to a similar timeframe. or better yet if we look at the dominate heavyweights reign.

 

So you admit you think the current heavyweight/cruisers are better than the 70s or there is a t least more depth.
Although you said earlier that this is pretty much the worst era.

 

I think we'll start to see a lot more Nordic fighters too, they are generally quite physically big people, adn with the success of kessler and think the sport will gain greater popularity. The boxing ban has also been lifted in sweden, so that will soon have an effect. Robert Helenius looks like he should be pretty strong

 

The 70's were a golden age of heavyweight boxing - even the top contenders of the 70's have became boxing folklore - guys like ernie shavers, ron lyle , jerry quarry , ken norton etc - all elite fighters who suffered because the division was ruled by titans like ali,foreman,frazier and later holmes.

The 90's had some great fighters - but the 70's were golden.

 

:-((







:dead

 

Whats changed ???

Hasim rachman is ranked No. 3 by the WBA and will soon be ranked No.1 after the Povetkin v Chageav fight - thats whats changed , thats why this era of HW boxing is a joke.

Fighters used to be ranked on merit - not on name alone , its like making pete sampras number 1 seed at wimbledon because he won it 10 years ago .

The heavyweight boxing scene sucks.

 

In theory Germany ( with real Germans too ) is where we're likely to see the next explosion of talent emerge from. With regular boxing matches there seeing around 15 million people watching it seems likely that we will see at least around 10 top level fighters emerge over the next decade or so.

Of course everywhere east of Berlin is also going to see a massive explosion of talent emerge, we're seeing this already with Poland. The fact that those nations don't live in a cultural marxist effeminate toilet state like the 'West' will also see those Countries greatly benefit boxing.

 

Correction! Marxist effeminate toilet states like the West that only find it social acceptable when monorities compete in boxing!

That is the real crux of this and all similar threads. People are just pissed that the status quo has changed in heavyweight boxing. So they spindoctor the truth to fit their liberal views on social constructs.

 

LOL . . . No, i said that He might make the top 20 but I never really thought about it that way so I need som time to think about it. Besides it is not unusual for the top cruiser or even LHW be considered within the top ten if they made the leap to HW. By considering him to be within the top 20 does not mean anything. today I would place him within the top 10 at heavy. Besides you were comparing him to Mac, who as a power puncher was more methodical and shot up the ranks to fall just as fast . . . lol.

However, I am glad you agree with my point that the US has regressed in its production of heavweights because it has not producced the "super heavyweights" of today. the largest men in the US, unlike earlier eras, simply do not box. While men that are between 190-220 do box today, that weight range was considered huge until the 80s.

 

wow, Bubby . . . actuallu agree that the US has collapsed! you finally answered your own question! /thread

 

but you said cunningham wouldnt be in your top 20 today, but maybe he would in the 70s. So therefore you think there is a stronger top 20 now than in the 70s.

I think I showed that the hw division is strong today with plenty of depth when i compared it to top ten lists of the past, but you wouldnt comment on which you thought was stronger.