Almost every ATG Heavyweight presided over a "weak era"

A) Some are weaker than others.

B) Holyfield did not preside over an era. He kept losing.

 

But for brief periods of time. He didn't really have an "era" per se.

 

Half of an era is still good, but not quite remarkable.

 

I don't understand how a an with 3 undisputed title defenses doesn't have an era.

 

Larry Holmes was the best in most of the 1980s and it wasn't a weak era.

Vitali and Wlad ruled the 2000s and early 2010s and it was a weak era.

Not really something that 'one sock fits all' type of thinking.

 

Well, I guess Ali showed up at the right time. Liston in 1964 may not have been the same Liston as a year or two earlier, I guess. Time was not on Liston's side. Evander Holyfield couldn't have come at a better time than in 1990 and 1996. Perfect timing. Holmes was a bit unlucky that he fought Ali in 1980 instead of in 1978. Bad timing. The era of the Klitschko brothers is underrated. She was weak because they were so good. Calvin Brook was no worse than Trevor Berbick and Chris Byrd was no worse than Jimmy Young.

 

I don’t know. Every era has talent and every era has ineptitude. Some eras with the right arguments can be presented as being stronger than others. Sometimes legitimately and other times questionably.. For champions who rained for long periods like Louis, Holmes, Lewis and Klitschko it should be taken into consideration that maintaining dominance for a lengthy period of times is a type of strength in and of itself regardless of opposition quality. Let’s face it.. even the least competent of contenders who have nothing to lose are always going to go after the title with ferocity and that can be dangerous even for the greatest of champions.

 

You can put Lewis' wins over: Holyfield, Tyson and Vitaly (4:0) in any era you want.

 

1990s

unbelievably great, heavyweight competitive era. Holyfield probably shone the brightest.

1970s

You can't discount Ali's dominance.

 

I mean how can we prove what is the toughest era's and weakest objectively anyway? Maybe it also means no one was as dominant so a wider range fighters were allowed to express themselves more. Take Joe Louis and Wladimir Klitschko who both get rinsed for the era they were in for example they were arguably so dominant that hardly anyone would appear good against them anyway. Before them and after them you had the belts passing around none stop or no one clearly dominating and that isn't all a coincidence in my opinion.

 

To have a great era, you can't have a dominant champion. If you have a dominant champion, then they dispose of all the best contenders and mean that those contenders can't forge their own legacies, nor can they boast wins over the champion of their era. Look at Joe Louis, his best win is Max Schmeling thanks to the fact that Schmeling beat him. Louis not dominating an opponent means that that opponent gains a historic win, which elevates Louis' win in the rematch. Ali just had perfect timing with his exile btw before you ask.

 

There is basically no such thing as a weak era.

Even if you put an Everest, in an era where the rankings are made of of Snowdon's, some of them will give him problems and perhaps beat him.

That aside there is a certain circular logic, to the argument that a champion is an Everest, because he shred an era with a K2.

It is the Everest and his peers who are letting him become a K2.

I broadly agree that teh 70s and 90s were stronger than other era, but you don't know what would happen if the top men from those eras fought the top men from others.

 

Great philosophy