2000 - 2010: What do you think?

I dont think its been that bad .

 

At least you're consistant:hey

 

I thought it was a pretty decent decade for boxing

Gatti V Ward trilogy
Barrera V Morales trilogy
Vasquez V Marquez quadrilogy

2 all time greats in pacman and mayweather

other great fights in:
Castillo V Corrales
Maidana V Ortiz
Sithchatchawal V Monshopour

Big events with lewis V Tyson, DeLaHoya V Mayweather/Pacman and Mayweather V hatton

and thats just of the top of my head

 

What I remember most is the first half of the decade. There were so many good fights and a lot of shockers Just off the top of my head:
Mayweather-Corrales/Castillo II/Chavez/Gatti, Corrales-Casamayor I, Corrales-Castillo I, Pacquiao-Barrera I/Marquez I, Morales-Pacquiao I, Jones-Tarver I, II, and III, Johnson-Tarver, Johnson-Jones, Mosley-de la Hoya I and II, Wright-Mosley I and II, Forrest-Mosley I and II, Mayorga-Forrest I and II, de la Hoya-Vargas, Vargas-Quartey, Vargas-Trinidad, Trinidad-Joppy, Hopkins-Trinidad, Barrera/Morales trilogy, Ward-Gatti trilogy, Ward-Augustus, Barrera-Hamed, Toney-Jirov, etc.


You're right about the heavyweights.

 

I really dont think that the problem is the champions (except that there are too many of them), or even that there is a lack of depth throughout the eras (although i do think there is).

It is the fact taht figthers just dont fight other good fighters. In the old days, you could get away with not fighting if you were champion, because the contenders had so many good fights, you could follow them, and it would add to the excitement of a championship fight.

Nowadays, If you are a fan (non diehard), you are lucky to have one fight a week which features two top 10 fighters in any weight division. In fact, probably once a month. And if you consider that there are so many weight divisions, you are unlikely to see a true champ vs champ match once a year. If you are a heavyweight boxing fan, even on diehard sites such as this one, you dont even read a single heavyweight fight result of any significance for 2, 3 or 4 weeks most of the time, and when you do, it is almost always a result where everyone knows the winner before the fight. The fact that no one fights (especially contenders) is what makes the decade look so bad.

Imagine the decade, if there were just 8 champs and each of the top 5 fighters in each weight class would actually fight each other 2 or 3 times. There would have been some great fights. Even as simple as Haye having to have fought Chagaev, Dimitrenko, Povetkin to establish himself where he is. Or for the Vitali Byrd to to have taken place, Ruiz Wlad, Tua Wlad, Tua Peter, Holyfield Povetkin, McCall Toney, McCall Byrd, McCall Klitchsko, etc. These are all fights which while some would have been bad. This is just the heavys, obviously it is much better at the lighter weights also. And at least we could measure the challengers a bit and let them develop a following.

Who does everyone think would have been the top dogs of the decade if we had the original 8 classes only and just one champ. Obviously, Wlad would have eventually emerged in the heavys, though Lennox is still no 1 for the 200s. But with more fights between and against the contenders, certainly we would know who was the better of the Klits and maybe we would give both a better chance to be seen as better than Lewis. How does everyone think the other weight classes would ahve gone down.

Who does everyone see as the number 1 fighter in each division?

 

The sad thing is that the next decade may end up being even worse in terms of quality. I like some of these up-and-comers as much as anybody, but once these stars from the late 90s/2000s retire... :?

 

The way you make is sound it is not that bad. Better than 45 years old champ and ring #1 during 90s...

 

You might laugh, but there was an overweight fighters world title around the turn of the 20th century.

 

The lower weights have had a great decade.

 

Who held it?

 

I know that Fatty Langtree contested it.

 

Skipping the ones I don't know enough about
Overweight - Wladimir for obvious reasons
Light Heavyweight - Hopkins. Dawson could be, but just doesn't have "it" yet.
Super Middleweight - Bute doesn't really have a defining win, but plenty more solid wins than anyone else at 168.
Middleweight - Sergio Martinez just avenged his close loss to the former #3 P4P and schooled the former #1 guy at Middleweight in between.
Light Middleweight - these guys are ridiculously inactive. Cintron, Williams, Dzinziruk, and Rhodes haven't fought at 154 in 8 months, Cotto, Foreman and Martirosyan in 7 months, and Sechew Powell in 10 months.
Welterweight - Pacquiao. His last two fights at 147 were against solid opponents. Floyd's win over Marquez does nothing for me and Mosley has been outboxed half a dozen times already.
Light Welterweight - Bradley has more good wins than Khan does.
Lightweight - Marquez has been flattening everyone here for a few years now.
Bantamweight - Montiel is more proven at the weight than anyone else and knocked out the kingpin of 118.


My bad, I thought you meant the currently #1 guys.

 

Shouldn't it be 2000-2009? I loved it.

 

:rofl

 

Terrible decade. The worst of all time, if we're being real. Then again this is coming from a cynical drunk, so don't take my opinions too seriously.