breaking down this heavyweight era and others: Why today stinks!!

you fell apart. Insults only highlight that you are losing your argument.:yep

 

this will make JAB5239's head explode.....

This era in HW boxing is by far the best in history!!!! :hey

 

well at least i got a chuckle:good:good

 

John Tate beat Baker Tinsley, who was 2-0-0 when he fought Tate but Tinsley's career record was 14-21-0. Tinsley beat two fighters with winning records Bob Heflin 4-0-0 the first fight with Tinsley and 4-2-0 the rematch with Tinsley and the legendary Clyde Mudgett who had a trilogy with Tinsley, Mudgett was 15-10-0. 15-11-0, 16-12-0 for his fight vs Tinsley. So how much is Tinsley really worth?

Of course, Tate fought other people than Tinsley, care to name them and we can break them down, like we do for active fighters. Back when Tate was active himself, the boxing writers were all too happy to break down his opponents but once their names become historical items, viable opponents are automatic assumptions although they don't deserved to be automatically considered live opponents because they never were.

 

I'm not exactly a Klitschko fan. I have just been following boxing so long that you I know the "current era sucks" has been around forever. It actually pissed me off back then too but those were the days before interactive media, so the boxing writers had exclusive use of the soap box. I wish I kept my old boxing magazines so I could remind everyone that the previous eras weren't thought of highly either. Do you think ten years from now, you are going to be writing about how great that era is? You won't be. The future era will suck too.

 

maybe in your own delusional mind they cannot be refuted but I think I'm doing a good job refuting you by showing that the historical opponents have records built on stacks of tomato cans and opponents who would go on to be tomato cans, or has-beens.

 

I would have this exact conversation with Emanuel Steward (RIP) all the time in camp.


It isn't the best era thats for sure especially US boxing..... Emanuel would talk about the issue is kids don't box anymore... the corner neighborhood boxing gyms are mostly shut down.. amateur boxing has no funds.... only the top dog really make any decent cash ...... Emanuel would say that boxing in the US is really having major issues

 

What do you consider a great era; one with parity or one with a dominant champion?

I don't think this era is particularly bad compared to some where alphabet champions could be called "protected". I don't think the days when there would be 3-4 different champions defending their alphabet straps against questionable opponents on the same card, really more Don King puppet theater instead of actual competition was a better era.


If Vladimir Klitschko was not around, things would be chaotic but interesting due to the parity in the division. It really would be "wide open", although I think Povetkin might have "it" more than others.


I don't see The Bum of the Month Club, the Joe Walcott era, The Marciano era, Patterson era, Johansen era as being better or even the Leon Spinks, Michael Spinks era as being superior. The late 60s-early 70s and the last quarter of the Lennox Lewis era are the only eras I think are probably better than the current scene. Tyson made for an exciting era but at the time boxing writers dismissed it as Tyson dominating a field of the weakest competitors ever. I'm not even sure "exciting" is the word for it. At one time beating Tyson was like pulling the sword from the stone or beating a giant. It just didn't seem like it was going to happen. There was talent to beat Tyson but it was hidden by deceptive records and an under estimated cruiserweight, and underestimated "glass jawed robotic giant".

 

What was Holmes ranking for the second Spinks fight according to your so-called "method" again?

 

-It's been clear that I've argued your method strongly.

-If we are speaking of the present, I wouldn't say it "stinks" I think we are just in a transition stage with lots of fresh faces we don't know much about. We'll know more in a few years.

-The problem here is that you actually hijacked my findings and argument regarding the decline of "contender vs contender" match ups, and now claiming it as your own in opposition of me, and challenging me to a bet against my own claims. This is literally the most insane thing I've ever seen on these boards. I'm having trouble beliving you are serious. No, I will not bet against my own observation. And I imagine you are feeling confident when I broke down this decline earlier in the thread...really dude?