Are we actually living in the strongest era of all time like every other sport ?

An emphatic no. Everything is watered down.

 

Yes, China would be amazing to see open.

Outside of cricket, which I consider a game not a sport, have they ever excelled at any sport?

Southeast Asia has long been a force in the lower weights.

 

In other words, David Allen would beat Joe Louis

 

Rolly Romero would beat Leonard and Hearns with his modern training techniques

 

Yeah, china would be excellent. India has 1.2+ billion people. Even if they don't do well at many sports, that talent pool is ****ing huge.

I wouldn't say SEA is a powerhouse, Thailand and the Philippines are very good with just under 100 champions between them - the UK has had about 110 - but the rest of South East Asia? Very very few champions. By my very quick, AI helped count, I found 5.

5.

Just over a billion people across Malaysia, Singapore, Burma, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Brunai and Timor. 5 champions between the lot.

 

Cause most sports are way easier nowadays.

Some would dominate, some would loose.

No he doesn't.
Tyson KO's him. Lewis most likely beats him too.
He might outpoint Ali and Holmes, but it will still be competitive.

Crawford is slightly bigger than prime SRR, so it's not exactly a fair comparison.

Very plausible. Haney doesn't impress me much.

They'd beat a lot of them, but there's a few that will give them huge trouble and even beat them,

Nobody beats prime Roy.
And Spinks was very awkward, he'd be a tough match for anyone.

No.
Many of the so called older boxers you mentioned are not quite old.

 

No, it's more watered down with more divisions & more titles than ever before. You've got guys that are champions tofay that never would have won the title in the one belt or even two belt era.

 

Also, there is no denying that some cultures just seem to be more adjusted to combat sports. Get some of those kids from Dagestan away from grappling and BJJ and get them into the boxing ring. Basically get any of those people with Genghis Khan blood into the ring!

 

The strongest era of boxing, was probably the Great Depression, and the results were most apparent in the lower weight classes.

 

The modern era is definitely the best overall but that started in the mid 80s when minority talent had the opportunity to fully compete and serious weight training became a staple in all sports. There has been slight but steady improvement since then but starting in 80s training was at a high level and boxing techniques had modernized to a peak level and would have changed very little since then. So since mid 80s we have been at a high level many of the competitors then would been just about as big of stars today. I can’t say the same for say Gene Tunney Red Grange George Milan or Ty Cobb. They may have been so great they could still compete at the highest level today but would definitely not dominate like they did.

 

Boxing has become more international especially the talent injected from the Iron Curtain countries in the last 30 years. The expansion was somewhat offset by the decrease in participation by Americans in the last 20 years after the US dominating boxing in the previous 125 years. Fears of brain damage have become more understood and MMA has taken some US talent away.

 

No. Boxing as an art form thrives in volume and proof. Volume and proof are at an all time low in the sport. Without volume and proof, progression stalls. The illusion of progression has thrived in the vacuum of actual development--just retire undefeated and there is no evidence against you. It means less than it used to because a smaller percentage of athletes choose boxing. The pool of competitors has shrunk dramatically, countries which used to funnel top talent into boxing no longer do. I think skillwise and knowledgewise boxing has evolved a ton over its life cycle, but probably peaked somewhere in the 1980s or 1990s. I think champions from those decades could still fight today and win titles without issue.

A sport in general is the best when the competition pool is the biggest and there is the most attention on it to increase the development. Money, eyeballs, ticket sales, when that is flowing, the energy behind boxing is flowing, the "magic" is present. Tingles when your fighter is making their ring walk. Now that we understand the human cost, the show is less attractive and as a fan, I've felt it's been "the sick man of sporting" for like 20 years.

In exceptional cases (Usyk, Crawford), I think the talent at the very top has held up in this era. I also think the average fighter is probably more educated now. But the large middle class of fighters--which, in turn, creates a strong championship picture has been carved out tremendously. These days it's very hard to make a living as a Gabe Rosado-type fighter, whereas many fighters used to be able to take tough fights, put on a show, and get a check--win, lose, or draw.

Now the goal is to string together a couple of winning streaks, build a pretty record, bet on yourself by taking one big fight, and then either retire if you lose or make another run if you win until you eventually lose, fighting only once in a while. As an athlete, this makes sense. As a viewer, though, it makes the sport predictable and stale. Predictable and stale means less money. Less money means fewer fighters. Fewer fighters mean a worse product and a less competitive sport. Boxing peaked long ago in cultural influence (Ali) and pretty recently in skill in my opinion (1990s).

 

No evidence that this is the strongest era. Really just another era. If it was Wlad wouldn’t have reigned for 15 years or Mayweather. Certainly some talent here that’s great but the skill level seems to be relatively flat since the 30s. It’s also hard to tell because ranked men fight each other so infrequently I would even say it’s a weak era the last 20.

 

We have some individual great champions ,but overall,I don't think the quality of contenders is very deep,so no, it's not a standout era,imo.