Why are dominated era's called weak?

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.

 

lewis dominated his own era it wasnt weak ali dominated a tuff era too

 

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?

 

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.

 

atsch
the hell are talking? 70s heavyweight was dominated by ali but it was the strongest era in history

 

Good point. And you have to look at the top 10 opponents theyhave already beaten and who remain. The division is almost empty.

 

This this THIS!!!!!!! :deal

The Brothers are obviously very talented HWs, and are both in my top 20 all time (Wlad top 15). But the thing is, they never had the chance to prove their greatness in the ring. I've said who I think beat the pair of then h2h so won't go into it again.

 

The HW division became weak cause Klitschkos crippled everybody. That's the biggest ownage in boxing history.

 

You are perfectly right, but go convince all the idiots here who criticize these eras. Rocky Marciano and Mike Tyson are good examples of this. They were so talented that their opponents honestly looked helpless. But people just assume that fighters like Ezzard Charles and Tony Tucker, who I think would have given Muhammad Ali huge problems, were bums.

 

I agree with the poster's point. If an era is competitive, we deem that it's because there are great, competitive fighters involved. But if it's dominated, then it must be because it's a weak era. Thus, sometimes a dominant champ "can't win" in the public eye.
We're not going to have Bowe-Holyfield, or Ali-Frazier rivalries now, because the K's don't lose often enough.

 

I feel you dog. Ali dominated his weak era, Duran dominated his weak LW era and SRR dominated his weak era.

Everybody knows this is the strongest heavyweight era in history since we got modern training techniques and bigger athletes. Because we know one thing is for sure

size>skill everytime

 

This is something I have always thought.

You could have fighter (A) who is an A+ fighter dominate a division against fighters who are B level, and people say its a weak era.
But when you have a division full of what would have been B level fighters in that previous era, having hard fought even fights in a different era, then the division/era is considered strong.

This is very apparent now in the SMW division where Kessler from the previous era has beaten one of the S6 finalists already, but is forgotten due to the hype of someone making a tournament

 

WTF.....not all "DOMINATED" eras are considered "weak". A weak era has to do with the level of skill, talent and depth fighters have in that particular era.