Its much easier to rate a heavyweight era once youre out of it then when you are in it. Same thing goes with judging a fighter's career, you can judge it as its happening but to get a more well rounded picture and less bias picture it helps when the fighter is retired and people can reflect on it (in this case im specifically thinking of Mike Tyson and his status as a heavyweight has evolved since his retirement) I agree with other posters that during the 90s a lot of people thought the divison wss poor and the 70s era was the greatest. Time has changed this perception and the 90s is now considered not poor but pretty good (and IMO deservedly so) and some of the shine has been taken off the 70s (still a good era as well) as people reflect on it.
If you want to believe it's good clearly it's not hard to convince yourself of it. When you have to resort to touting Whyte/Povetkin II and Parker/Fa as a top notch fights to justify your opinion I think that pretty much says it all
Where are people getting this "People thought the 90's era was poor" crap from? I get the impression some are just repeating some line they heard someone say once.
A good portion of people time and time again said the 90s is nowhere near that of the 70s if i can remember correctly. But after the 90s ended and the Klitschko era began more people started respecting the classic fights that happened more
I remember it well. Tyson going to jail, Buster blimping up and eating himself out of contention, a roided up CW as the No. 1 guy in the division, mentally unstable guys like Bowe and Golota, old man Foreman wasting time, Moorer a mediocre talent, etc etc. Bowe not facing Lewis also did a lot of damage to the division's prestige. In the late 90s you had the various Tyson debacles, robbery in Lewis/Holyfield and a general lack of intrigue. I think back to the early to mid 90s fondly because you had some interesting storylines, but it was all pretty transient. It wasn't until Lewis came along that the division had a dominant champ and a face. (And then an ungratifying gradual passing of the torch from Lewis to Wladimir, kicking off a poor 10-12 years). Joshua has been top level for more than 5 years, Fury has been a mainstay, Wilder was a champ for 5 years, plus various other good or potentially fights between Povetkin, Usyk, Hunter, et al. One of the greatest upsets ever. There are some interesting fights to make. They do need to get busier, and ultimately the division has to have Joshua/Fury for the story truly to be told. Hopefully it happens.
I was responding to this post made by you: "Where are people getting this "People thought the 90's era was poor" crap from? I get the impression some are just repeating some line they heard someone say once."
The 1990s was pretty poor. I lived throught that era. People have forgotten all the dreadful heavyweight fights and only remember a few epics.
I am not real excited about heavyweight boxing today. Fury, Joshua and Usyk have fine skills. I will watch all their fights, but I don't particularly look forward to them as much as I used to look forward to watching Ali, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis. I very much hope that the best guys can fight each other and get me to change my mind. That would be fantastic. I just have a hard time getting excited about everyone fighting Chisora, or Fury facing Wallin, or Joshua vs. Pulev. Not really a fan of Wilder but at least his rants draw attention and get people talking.
Fury is a once in a century heavyweight Fighters come who set a new precedent, redefine the sport or are ahead of their time. Fury is one of them. Mike Tyson although not even a top 10 heavyweight spearheaded and exposed the full potential of the commercial market & will likely remain the most well known boxer of all time.
Who on Earth think Parker VS Fa is a top fight? Interesting one but top quality no People love a domestic so its a fight that makes a great deal of sense