Why do some people refuse to admit certain divisions are weaker than previous eras?

That was a exaggerated complain from the poster.. Nobody thinks the Floyd era is better than the Duran/Leonard/Hearns/Hagler era. Nobody. Few people will even rate Floyd above Duran.
Duran is not black and Duran is not American.
So that racism card bull**** got to stop.


The other bull**** about 'liking older eras so downgrading newer eras' is also exaggerated. Who thinks that Jack Johnson can beat Lewis? Who thinks that Marciano can beat Vitali? Who thinks that some MW in the 40's can beat Prime Roy Jones Jr? Nobody.

I was pointing more to the fact that with video evidence, it's very clear today's 175 era is many levels below the Spinks era. The 175 Division is a very rich division filled with top stars and it's decline has been pretty sickening.

I guess people like to focus more on the 'heavyweights' because of the Eastern European Fanatics standing up for K2. Which is weird, because few people say K2 is ****. Most people know they are great champions, just saying that the fighters AROUND them are much weaker.


Thomaz Adamek and Alexander Povetkin are the CLEAR #3's in terms of resume for the K2 Era. David Haye should be the CLEAR #3 in terms of h2h abilities or at the very least #4.
CAN YOU honestly see David Haye surviving the Tyson who fought Ruddock? What about Thomaz Adamek going hard against even a Prime Golota?

 

So you refuse to admit Prime Michael Spinks at 175 is better than Chad Dawson?
That's basically what you are saying right? I want to read you type that out.
Type out
"I refuse to admit LHW Mike Spinks is better than Chad Dawson because it is a completely unscientific claim""
I want to see you type that sentence out so I can use it as a sig on another site.

You are caught in a trap and you know why. We just won't say it because we both know the fighters you are thinking about and it isn't Dawson and Spinks. But your 'logic' should work with them as well right?

(assuming you even know who Michael Spinks is)

 

So Prime Wladimir vs Fraizer is just fantasy. Yes ?
You put little to no credence in h2h match ups right? So the chances of Joe knocking out Wladimir is every bit as big as the chances of Wlad taking out Joe?

"You can fantasize about head to head match ups but I will put little to no credence in it" as well.

 

I actually agree with this post. Brilliant theory about h2h's.

I also believe that h2h is pointless and pathetic. Jack Johnson vs Vitali could very well end up in a Vitali coma tose situation. It's all just guess work.

 

I agree.

You also can't prove Prime Vitali can take out Jerry Quarry, this is NOT track and field where every result is recorded. So the best thing we can say is Jerry vs VItali in a fantasy h2h is 'inconclusive'.

 

the whole thing is relative. Nobody has any clue how a fighter from today, if whisked away in a Time Machine, would do against a fighter from a different era. Saying you've watched fights and compared them, that is completely irrelevant and a useless basis for comparison. The older fighters were fighting their contemporaries, and same as today. Imagine the heavyweights right now without K2? It would probably look like a strong era, especially if you had exciting fights (Price/Pulev, Povetkin/Adamek, Haye/Chambers), but it looks weak because Wlad is so dominant. Hagler Hearns may have been a war and considered a great fight, but you can't say Martinez/Hagler would be the same, in fact, Martinez could beat Hagler, we have no way to ever know. Put a middleweight or lt-heavy from today in that era, and things could look a lot different. They'd be fighting different fighters with completely different, well, everything. If todays fighter could go back 50 years with all the current technology and advances in sports medicine and nutrition, they would most likely own their division, as long as they were a quality fighter.

 

It worked out exactly the way I wanted it to. As proven by you agreeing with everything I said.