Which heavyweight era had more talent, the Klitschko era, or the post-Klitschko era?

Exaclty, well past prime Sasha and Waldo where force enough with them.

The post Klit era had closer fights, but if the Klits had been around in their prime later they would have been dominant just the same.

 

I feel like most people are too dumb to realize parity and quality have nothing to do with each other. You can have both, you can have just one, you can have just the other, and you can have neither.

The question is phrased unambiguously to emphasize the latter quality and people keep answering in terms of the former.

 

It was criticized for valid reasons. In overall depth of quality it didn't stack up to its three predecessor decades. It also had a big drop from the brothers to all their runners-up. But that doesn't mean this one isn't worse. Those runners-up from the aughts were superior to all but one HW today.

What you have now is (besides Usyk) a bunch of profoundly mediocre heavyweights all willing to fight each other and often putting on entertaining battles. That's well and fine, but it doesn't make them, or this era, rich in quality talent.

 

WK era was better

WK
VK
Prime Povetkin
Haye
Chambers
Tony Thompson
Peter
Pulev
Ibragimov
Jennings
Chagaev
Chisora
Byrd
Takam

 

The double K era was largely filled with drab defences against weak opposition, bar one or two. The post K era is more talented - and infinitely more entertaining.

 

I refuse to vote for any of those eras, I dont like any of them

 

Today's era has better matchmaking which is the biggest difference IMO.

 

The Klitchko's were great individually but their era almost killed HW boxing. The new era even if not perfect, brought it back to some excitement.

 

Not what was asked.

 

Not what was asked.

 

Not what was asked.

 

You’d pick Ibragimov to beat prime Fury? Everyone’s entitled to their opinion of course, I was just surprised to see that

 

Didn't the Klitschko era include everyone from the post-Klitschko era, except they all ducked the Klitschkos and never fought each other?

 

No. That's still how I see it. It's just that the two Klitschko's in their primes were better than Usyk, Joshua, Fury, and Wilder. Only the late addition of Usyk really even makes it close.

 

Really? Because I got sick of Fury, Wilder, and Joshua avoiding each other for years and then Fury's endless rematches with Wilder and Chisora. Wilder milked his belt the first what, nine defenses? It was like one of those comedy sitcom tv will they won't they relationships for seven seasons. Eventually, you just find all of the characters annoying and you stop caring if they ever get together. What was good was Usyk putting that era down like euthanizing a sick dog. I don't think his reign should be considered with that crap which preceded it. He's his own thing, a new thing. We're not in the Fury, Wilder, Joshua triumvirate anymore. We're in the Usyk era.

I will say that Joshua did show spine and fought more decent challengers than Fury or Wilder. After a phenomenal start he just ended up folding. He probably would have fought them if they didn't dodge him. Whyte, Breazeale, Klitschko, Povetkin, Parker showed guts and ambition. He stumbled with Ruiz and never recovered.