Comparing heavyweight eras

What is it that makes an era great? Sometimes it seems like the only "strong" eras in the history of the heavyweight boxing are 70s and 90s. All other decades can be argued to be "weak". But why? A lot of it sometimes comes from the rose coloured glasses of nostalgia, but we don't want this talk in here.

Seems like it is about the competition. If any top fighter can beat any other top fighter on any given night, the division is exciting. That's why we like the 90's where there was no long reigning top dog. The title changed hands often. Also - charismatic fighters. Guys like Holyfield, Tyson, Bowe, Lewis and even old Foreman were also characters with backstories and fanbases behind them. But that doesn't necessary translate to an era being strong strictly boxing wise.

If I told you a heavyweight era that had a blown up cruiserweight, blown up light heavyweight and a 45 year old as lineal champions was the greatest, would you say so only based off that? Today's era is sometimes marked as weak because a cruiserweight beat every top guy out there twice, despite the fact everybody was excited when AJ, Wilder and Fury were at the top as there was finally some excitement after the Wlad era.

Wlad's era but also Holmes' era, Louis' era and Tyson's era are also sometimes considered weak. But why? It's not like if there is one dominant champion there is no excitement. Just because one man is clearly above the rest doesn't mean there is something wrong with the rest of the crop. If you take the champions out of occasion any other top fighter can beat any other top fighter on any given night, which was a premise to the 90's being great. So there is competition, but not necessarily on the championship level. Why punish the great, dominating champions saying their era was weak just because they were so good?

It's really tough to objectively assess how good some fighters are and compare them between the eras. You have an eye test, but eye test can be wrong. You can shine bright facing subpar competition but it's not a given you would look like this against top dogs of other eras. But how do we define who's subpar or not? Tyson dominated the latter part of the 80's beating guys like Berbick, Thomas, Tucker, Spinks. Who says a guy like Thomas or Spinks wouldn't be long reigning champions in any other era? At the end of the day it's just an unverifiable opinion. You can only assess a fighter of what he's doing in his era.

When we exclude the top dogs, how can we determine if guys like Byrd, Ibragimov, Chagaev or Povetkin were worse than Ron Lyle, Earnie Shavers, Jerry Quarry or Oscar Bonavena? How can we determine guys like Weaver, Cooney, Witherspoon or Dokes were worse than Seldon, Bruno, McCall or Botha? Bruno, who was a title holder in the "strong" 90's actually lost to Witherspoon, a title holder in the "weak" 80's.

So, the strength of an era may be also solidified by boxers fighting across decades. Foreman was still competitive at 45 years old in the 90's. So it kind of strengthens the 70's. But doesn't it weaken the 90's at the same time? Holyfield should have become a title holder as late as 2007, so it strengthens the 90's. But how strong the 90's were if a 45 year old was the champion? And does it really strengthens the whole era? Or does it only strengthen the individual resume and legacy? Nobody says Holmes' era was strong, just because he beat a Top 5 guy in Mercer in the 90's. Nobody says Wlad's era was strong because he was competitive with AJ in 2017 while being 41.

I'm looking forward to hear your takes on the matter.

 

Or it just speaks volumes about him/his performance, since a Top 3 guy of that era blasted that guy out in 2.

 

What the fact that he was winning in Germany has to do with anything? Who were these old opponents you are referring to? Short? So you're punishing him for being bigger than everybody? Valuev was being ouboxed by these guys and he was even bigger. Dominance could be monotonous but it has nothing to do with the strength of an era. Vitali was an active title holder only 4 years out of almost 10 of Wlad's reign. He beat every other top contender except him.

 

So? It doesn't change the fact that Wlad reigned from 2006 to 2015 and Vitali was was only active from 2008 to 2012.

You were the one claiming that he fought short and old opponents, so name them. Valuev got outboxed by Chagaev and Haye who Wlad later dominated.

 

Until you don't have a proper sample on how Ngannou would fair against other heavyweights from the era, you can't blame the era for Fury wetting the bed, which he is known for doing. If Fury wasn't ducking the top competition, maybe he wouldn't be a top dog in 2023.

 

That's one way of looking at it. But based on this Holmes' era, Louis' era and Wlad's era would be considered strong and they usually aren't.

 

It's not a weakness in the division, more like a weakness in Fury's character for not wanting to face top competition and weakness of a sanctioning body that didn't enforce any mandatories.

 

There were a lot of top contenders facing each other during Wlad's era. It's just that Wlad was so dominant we forget about it.