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

**** you, the new eras were a compromise with you that you agreed to. You were the one that kept insisting Wlad started in 06, so I gave you what you wanted and eliminated the Vacancies. Pathetic, backtracker.

 

So you just proved that Wlads era kind of sucked?

 

How you figure? Most frequent of the longer reigns.

 

Once again, I changed the timeframes to suit your agenda. It was a compromise, I asked you twice. And you said "I agree they are boxing eras," in response.

"This is just your intepretation of what you think the era is. My contention is the era started as long as Wlad has been on top the overall majority of the time. Going by that the era stinks. Using the numbers he's fought less top 10 contenders than the champs of most other era's and this supports my contention"

I gave you what you wanted. You didn't like the results. Nothing more to say :hi:

I will ignore all future posts from you.

 

1) Longer reigns mean the competition is weaker. 2) The short eras show that they fought plentiful in half the time.

Not sure if Floyd and Holyfield is much to go by tbh. I don't really care all that much about the stats arguments, as stats can be pulled out of the arse to fit any agenda, which is why they are useless.

 

-Not necessarily. In a longer time frame there is always going to be a drop off. Wlad for instance was actually busier against contenders at the start of his reign, but really slowed down past few years. 5 of the defenses in question came in his first 4 years, so he was on pace with the others.

-All the Champions are really about the same, Louis and Charles were the last really busy ones. Ali at points.

-Ha, that I can agree with. There's so much more to it than numbers.

 

You seem to agree with me. I just said you proved that Wlads era was kind of weak with the numbers you gave. Furthermore 5 in 4=1.25, which brings him in the same placing behind the same as before - some way behind still. But it is all stats.

I have nothing against the Klitchkos, but I don't really fear any in the HWs. Maybe I am biased towards the yesteryears, when I grew up in the 70s, and just don't find this time very deep or full of very strong boxers. I also feel that the refereeing is very doubtful, which to me hurt them and their legacy. They are good and smart boxers.

 

Now that you admitted that your original post does not matter and left with no proof about quality of this era, you should go and sit silent in the corner and let grownups discuss this.

This era is one of the strongest ever. The boxing is finally evolved in truly global sport. This era is supported by the largest amateur field in the history of the sport.

 

the era will be strong again once a brother holds the titles. sadly, that will be quite some time yet.

 

This era is very strong. Vladimir Klitschko is the best heavyweight living today and makes the others look bad. If Wilder were to be give a belt the haters would claim that today is the best of all time................Joe Louis had the bum of the month club. Vlad could do that..............

 

-This is also using a somewhat flawed method i was humoring JAB with, Wlad has actually defended against more top 10 opponents, they just didn't meet the Decemeber Rankings. One thing to consider about the RING rating method, they are much quicker to update in the digital age.

-I don't think the past few years have been any different from any other of the past 30 or so years that I've been around to see.

-The early 70s seem to be very strong indeed in retrospect.

_I grew up with the 80s and 90s, and i found them to be frustrating eras as well. Much like Wlad, Tyson had no peers during his reign, and while the 90s had more talent, the division was fractured with so few names mixing it up. I outlined earlier that Holyfield was involved in almost every dream match. Frustrating to never see Foreman defend his lineal claim, while Bowe, Moorer, Tyson, and Lewis never mixed it up with each other.