Why was Marciano's era not strong?

Lufcrazy

You clearly and strongly state your case. I just disagree with the basic premise. I can't see utterly dismissing the past on the basis of size. Nor do I think within the past size was all that determining. Carnera being big by even modern standards does not make him a great fighter in his own era, or somehow greater than smaller men who had better records.

 

I don't think you get an accurate picture when your criteria is how would they do head-to-head. Due in part to drastic weight cutting and rehydration in the lower divisions and the heavyweight division being gamed by giants fighters of the past are not given a fair shake.

 

If the size of today's heavyweight fighters is the standard of measuring te strength of eras, then the 1970s was a weak era by comparison.
Yet most people would contend that the 1970s ('70 - '75 at least) was a strong heavyweight era.

 

And that's not what you said I said.

 

These are and were great fighters, they just wouldn't be HW champions today despite being much more skilled than those who are.

But men their size today, Bellew, Lebedev, Usyk, they are not on their level.

 

Those men would be champions today though. At least imo.

 

I never said it's fair.

And if it makes you feel any better Marciano, Walcott, Charles, Moore and Patterson all rank higher than Vitali in my list of retired fighters.

 

But again with you this can be broken down to size over greatness.

Your statement that welterweights becoming middleweight champions makes for a poor middleweight era proves this.

The thread is about strength of era. You can't write off a strong era just on size alone.

In Rockys day they had many many 1970s sized heavyweights (and I have listed them over and over on this thread!) With ratings as high as #1 contender. Yet what came out on top was an extraordinary bunch of 190 pounders.

 

I'm not on about fukin champions.

It's impossible to have a conversation with you.

Just go back to bleating on about Wlad being a scrawny 210 pound fighter in the 1950's.

Honestly cba carrying on with you.

 

They would not be "SuperHeavyWeight" heavyweights today, but what's so great about the SHW era??

 

"if all the best MW fighters today were natural WW men it would be perceived as weak."

You mean like Sugar Ray Robinson? Mickey Walker? Sugar Ray Leonard?

 

No I don't.

 

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

Your argument in a nutshell--if era A has 33% of the top fighters in the 180's, 33% in the 190's, and 33% in the 200 to 210 range, with era B having the same percentage breakdown, if the champion in era B is a big man of 210 and the champion in era A is a smaller man of 190 or less, era B by your definition is tougher. I don't think that logic makes much sense.

The two divisions are absolutely the same. It is the outstanding fighter who is different.

 

I am certain you will catch plenty of flak for this, but I think you have a solid point. Would the 205 lb Frazier or the 197 lb Spinks be heavyweight champions today? Both beat Ali, who was champion in his mid to late thirties weighing in the 220 range. Would that aging Ali be able to hold off the giant heavyweights of today? I have my doubts about it. The growth in size hasn't stopped yet.