breaking down this heavyweight era and others: Why today stinks!!

this is taken from a letter, not an article.

any twat like you could send in a letter to ring like that. Someone could send in a letter claiming Wlad is a dwarf from the wizard of Oz. For you this would be a true source of information.

 

both of them fought a blown up MW too, seems you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

SUgar Ray Leonard was a coke head too. I suppose you want to claim he was a **** champion. And by dint of that claim, Hagler was ****, Hearns was ****, Duran was ****?


Great move there.

Utterly **** argument.

 

Your numbers are wrong as it doesn't account what the actual rankings were at the time of the fight, which is what matters. Top 10 ratings are not exact science to begin with, and fighters and rankings can be interchangable.

You picked the annual rankings the year of the fight..which would be after the fight took place.

You aren't taking losses into consideration from what I gather.

The actual RING rankings of Wlad's opponents:

Povetkin #1
Haye #2
Thompson #10
Eddie Chambers #4
Ruslan Chageav #3
Thompson #9
Ibragimov#6
Brewster #7
Brock #7
Byrd #1
Peter #9
McCline #8
Byrd#7


-The Champions of every HW Era have done a good job of meeting the top guys with a few exceptions. There has been a decline in other contenders facing each other however over years, this doesn't so much decrease the quality of the fighters but merely points to a new trend of careful management that started in the 60s.

The days of good solid 50s contenders like Nino Valdez and Tommy Jackson fighting like 20 top 10 fighters (more than greats like Tyson and Lewis) are over. In your system, Valdez and Jackson would rank above them..sure, ok.

 

-Well you can't rank an era based off a single fighter.

-Too many complex variables to draw any sort of conclusion based off such a figure.

-Does Valdez fighting over 20 top 10 fighters really make the 50s a superior era? It's more interesting to investigate the reasoning for such a freakish figure, such as the HW Championship being defended so infrequently in the 50s by Patterson and Marciano because they were such huge stadium draws they could only fight in good weather, forcing the contenders to recycle through each other over and over again in the hopes of being in good placement when it was time for the Champion to pick an opponent.

 

In your book does the the Ring rating make the quality of the fighter? In the weakest HW era known to man being ranked in the top 10 means nothing. They had a ranking but none of them were ever world class.

Just recently Boystov was #1. An out of shape bum who would not of been empolyed as a sparring partner in past era's.

 

Maybe you should ask the thread starter?

In what you quoted of my post did you not see: "Top 10 ratings are not exact science to begin with, and fighters and rankings can be interchangable. "

If you feel so strongly about ratings not measuring a fighter's worth, why don't you attack the guy who's adding ratings together and dividing them to measure quality? You should probably join me in criticizing that guy if that's how you really feel.

 

:good Not only that, did you hear the sport of boxing is dying? I've been hearing it for forty years now :!: