Why was Marciano's era not strong?

If you're interested: my post was aimed at the original premise, and the idea that Marciano's era (a very brief period, we should note) was full of small fighters making up the heavyweight ranks because there were no big talented fighters.
reznick seemed to imply it was something that was sharply contrasted by the eras that sandwiched it.

In fact, the post-Marciano eras were similarly inhabited by small guys. Apart from Liston, Ali, maybe Terrell, the next ten years after Marciano's last fight were stock full of sub-200 and sub-190 fighters right up there in the rankings.

 

Ali's first reign was a very weak era in terms of HW fighters.

There was Liston and Williams and that was pretty much it.

Maybe a more accurate description of my point would be from Louis retiring to Foreman winning the championship.

Any era were the best men were the lightest men is weak by default.

 

An era is weak when the championship fights become non competative and the challengers are unworthy. It's the klitchko era or the era we are in right now.

A champion being dominant just because he's the biggest HW was not thought to make the Willard era a good era.

The points explored in this thread have made it clear that there were real heavyweights in Rockys day and that the above 210 pounders took a very long time to catch on and finally dominate...acording to you, all the way to the second half of Ali's career.

And when they did take over it was not because there was finally enough HWs to go around and make an exclusive class of heavyweights (because there always were contenders that size) it was proberbly because the veterans retired or the smaller ones bulked up.

 

I think the best marker of the strength of an era is how often a contender has to fight and win to earn and retain a high ranking.
You can see this current era is in a weak cycle because people have Wlad ranked #1 contender (despite not having won a fight for ages) , and largely unproven prospects like 17-0 Anthony Joshua are cropping up in people's top 5s.
Men such as Jennings and Stiverne still hanging on in people's top 10s. Even a joke comebacker like David Haye gets taken seriously as a contender, despite years out of the picture.

A strong era is when the top few contenders are fighting each other often amounting to competitive fights several times in a year, just to retain their rating.

 

Did anyone suggest it did?
Why was the 30's a weak heavyweight decade?
The fights were competitive and no one dominated until Louis late in the decade.
I've no idea, it just was.
A strong era can be judged as such when the champion and top contenders can be perceived as being able to hold their own in any era.

 

Not my definition.

As I said before, if all the best MW fighters were natural WW that would be a weak era.

 

No It would not. Basillio beat Robinson and Robinson beat Lamotta. Leonard beat Hagler. Nobody says the 50s or 80s were weak middleweight eras do they?

 

That was Haglers last fight, not an era.

From Louis retiring we had champs such as Walcott, Charles, Marciano, Ingo and Patterson none of those are natural HW fighters.

For instance, today I would not expect Walcott, Charles, Ingo nor Patterson to be able to claim the world championship. Rocky I would bet on if he bulked up a bit.

Would Leonard in his prime have beaten Hagler in his? Or Monzon? Or Golovkin?

 

Leonard in his prime lost to a lightweight champion. Was Duran less a welterweight champion because he was first a lightweight?

This stuff you say about middleweight being weak if light weights and welters beat them just does not add up one bit. You are incorrect to suggest this in light of my answers to you on the subject.

Your definition of a strong era has more to do with a size comparison with today -which is universally accepted as a weak era- so your saying a weak era is actually better than a strong era so long as the weak era is artificially enhanced bigger men. It is very mixed up.

 

If all of the best men at HW today were actually CW fighters it would be a weak era.

That's not the only way to define a weak era but it is a definition.

Stop picking out individual results, I'm on about an era.

For me, the reason Marciano's era was weak was because the best men in that era were LHW and CW fighters.

 

depends if it was good to watch. Was the 90s weak because it was the Holyfeild era? He was a cruiser wasn't he? Most fans liked his fights and he was quite popular. I'm not sure you can say an era is weak when cruisers are winning HW belts. What is a cruiser anyway? By modern definition 216 Tyson of the 1980s can make cruiser with 24 hour rehydration. Ali, Holmes, even 1973 Foreman are they Cruiser too? Shall we therefore throw out the 1970s as weak?

but it is the only definition you are using. You are saying It's weak because lots of big guys (Liston and Williams included) lost to light heavyweights. When in any other weight class an era is still strong when the champion was once in a lighter division.

I'm not on about individual results. Was Henry Armstrong not fighting in strong eras? Oscar Delahoya? Chavez? Arguelo? As each of these champions won a belt did that weight class instantly become weak?

Well At least you say it is just you saying it this time. Nobody else can say this when your rule cannot be applied to any other weight class where a champion might have come from another division..

 

I don't agree with the logic. Was it easier for Gene Fullmer to win the middleweight championship from Sugar Ray Robinson who was past 35 than it would have been to win it from Bobo Olson who was in his mid-twenties? What sense does such an argument make, as Robinson twice creamed Olson before fighting Fullmer.

Take Louis. He was the greatest pre-Ali heavyweight and champion for twelve years. Sure he had gone back, but I think it no surprise at all that he was still a top contender at 36 or 37. Over the last twenty years or so, Holyfield, Lewis, and both Klitschko's have been champions in their late thirties. Nor is this totally a recent trend. Who in the 1910's won a championship from anyone who was less than 37. Willard beat a 37 year old Johnson. Dempsey beat a 37 year old Willard.

 

I would consider it weak prior to the emergence of Louis. Carnera being huge and somehow winning the title hardly proves this a strong decade? I certainly wouldn't put any money down on Carnera being champion at any time in the fifties. I would rate him an underdog against any of the fifties champions. Baer was big and had a punch and chin but was also crude and wide open on defense. I think a lot of guys in any era would outbox him.

 

The champions weren't particularly old

1950--29
1951--30, 37
1952--38, 29
1953--30
1954--31
1955--32
1956--21
1957--22
1958--23
1959--24, 26

My guess that this is below average age for the champions compared to other decades. Only Walcott was really old when he was champion.

 

It was harder to beat Sugar Ray Robinson when he was 25 then when he was 35. Comparing Gene Fullmer to Sugar Ray Robinson is apples and oranges. Sugar Ray Robinson was an outlier, perhaps the greatest boxer of all time.

When the majority of the top tier of contenders are elderly the championship boxing standards this indicates that the era is weak.