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

-Really? On the same page, you were just arguing decimals as being relevant?

-Mercer had to be removed due to your statement in the first post. Holmes was not top 10 himself. Why make an exception for Holmes?

he has fought while being top 10 ranked himself

-Not relevant, you wanted to compare the averages.

 

You asked for Patterson in response to the work I did on Wlad and Tyson's Era Defining Title Reigns.

 

91-94 was pretty bad. Holyfield and Bowe had a horrible time finding quality challengers, meanwhile Moorer and Foreman are two of the weaker lineal Champions of all time. Between themselves, Holyfield and Bowe gave us some classics but eh...

Old Foreman-Best available opponent, thought of as a joke at the time.

unrankted Bert Cooper-A 3rd option because Tyson and Damani backed out of fights with Holyfield

Old Holmes-Upset the erratic Mercer to get his shot

A fat washed up unranked Dokes

Ferguson-Upset the erratic Mercer to get his shot

Moorer-Great LHW puncher but vulnerable, never really did anything but beat up fringe fighters to earn a top ranking for years

Might be one of the worst crops of lineal title challengers.

 

Yes, I'm aware I offered those theoretical dates to you. You then dug up other theoretical dates I offered previously in retort. I will once again explain I was trying to negotiate some common ground with you when doing that because you were and still are refusing to define these eras you are trying to judge. Here I'm just giving my personal opinion. I feel 91-94 was a bad time frame for HW boxing regardless of what ERA you want to divide it into. I lived through it, it was **** and frustrating.

 

-What "whole era" are you talking about?

-No, I really don't see the concern. You aren't being very clear as to what "whole era" you think is being misrepresented by saying 91-94 sucks. I'm just telling you those four specific years suck, if you want to make them into an era of its own or include a larger grouping of years to make those 4 seem less bad...that's up to you.

-I really can't be bothered by that. You asked for my opinion on what "era" I considered bad and I gave you an answer.

 

This has been explained, your just being a troll now and making me question what the point is of continuing.

 

Last time I offered to discuss 90-00 as a tentative era, you responded with this.

Really? Heres your original time frames before I even offered a bet.

"I think you need to determine what defines eras before you start to contrast them."

I see it like this:

Wlad Era 09-present
Vacant 05-09 (Byrd, Wlad)
Vitali Era 03-04
Lewis Era 99-03.
Holyfield Era 96-99
Vacant 94-96 (Moorer, Foreman, Bowe, Tyson)
Holyfield Era 91-94
Tyson Era 87-91
Vacant 85-87 (Spinks, Tyson)


Aren't you happy I went back to 91-94? That seemed to be what you wanted a few pages back. :nut

 

-Regardless of your weird hang up on this and inability to recall the context of discussions you were actually involved in just a few weeks back, I would consider 91-94 to be bad. If that simple statement creates so much confusion for you...you probably should be getting out of this game.

-You never gave original time frames in your opening post. You just listed Vitali, Wlad, Holmes, Tyson, and Louis and gave a rundown of their full career resume. That's not a time frame.

-I explained Patterson, there is nothing to correct.

 

And I'm not surprised this is getting ignored as it busts the claim you had been repeating that your method will show the same trend regardless of which RING ratings you use.


Larry Holmes using "year before" ratings and JAB's outlined method of only counting matches when they themselves were ranked that year:

#6 Shavers
#1 Norton
#8 Evangelista
#9 Ocascio
#7 Zannon
#6 Jones
#10 LeDoux
#7 Berbick
#3 Spinks
#2 Cooney
#9 Cobb
#10 Spoon
#3 David Bey
LHW Champion Spinks
HW Champion Spinks
#2 McCall

AVG. 5.19

So JAB, we can now conclude 4.25 Tyson and 4.8 Wlad rank above Holmes using your method with "YEAR BEFORE" rankings.