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

This is a rehash of what I wrote earlier in this thread in critique of your "method" when it was simply a comparision of Champions. You now seem to have claimed it as your own and strangely in opposition of me.

"The true stand out Champions of the last few decades: Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, and Wlad all did a good job of meeting a large number of other top 10 RING fighters. Before it is over, Wlad will likely surpass or draw even with them. But this is barking up the wrong tree.

Since the 50s there has a gradual decrease in rated contenders fighting other rated contenders. Since the introduction of the alphabet era in the 80s its became a game of belt holders vs contenders while matches between two rated contenders with no major alphabet title on the line are rare. "

And now you are arrogantly challenging me to bet against my own observation. Come on...man. What the hell are you trying to do? Have your cake and eat it to?

Just chalk this up as a failed experiment, learn from it, refine, and return with something better.

 

Everyone is waiting. What was Holmes ranking for the second Spinks fight according to your so-called "method"?

 

Vitali won a glorious "moral victory"

 

-You can't keep it straight, man. Your apparent wager was actually this incredibly vague proposal regarding a contrast of contenders:

"I'd bet money if we choose say this era and ten others, picked the top ten contenders from those eras that this era would lag towards or at the very bottom. "

-Now, you are talking something else different entirely. The difference between "Year Of" vs "Year Before" Ratings I presume. :huh

 

-I don't doubt it's original but in the context of this thread, it was an opinion I expressed last week or so and you suddenly adopted yesterday after sticking so sternly to the findings of your first "method." that only compared the resumes of Champions.

-No. I've explained why I rejected your first wager. I will not wager against my own opinion. I can't imagine anything more abusrd. I'm of the opinion that "contender vs contender" match ups have faded out, why would I bet that they haven't? And you are now trying to rub something I introduced and pushed heavily into this thread in my face like its your truimph, what are you on about?

ex.

me: "I think Pacman will beat Bradley"

you: "I propose you pay me if he does win."

me: "....."

you:" Ha, you know I'm right."

Just ass backwards insanity. Lots of luck finding a dementia patient that would accept such a bet.

 

I've noticed he made an exception for Tyson/Spinks. He certainly made no exception for #8 Wlad vs #1 Byrd in 2006. Fair, my ass.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Losing bet. He could legitimately extend the history of the world title back to the early 1860's. The periods with minimal competition among top contenders would easily exceed 20% of the total.

That aside, World War II, World War I, the early title period where you could duck challengers indefinitely, and the Color Line era would probably make the question closer than it would have been without outside intervention.

Unless you're arguing that heavyweight challengers = people with a RING ranking. In that case, you only need to deal with some of these problems because you've skipped about 2/3 of boxing history.