Greatest MW era?

Because I dont buy in to the whole " classic are better BS." You should know me by now. There is NO way to gauge head to head encounters and abilities unless you get these fighters and put them in the square ring. Hype, nationality, nostalgia contributes to the ratings of classical era's. It is nothing but fantasy. Golovkin's era would look MUCH better when they all retire.

 

Looking at the post WWI era to post WWII, things always were stacked. Makes sense given the average weight of people back then, the higher proportion of athletes getting in to boxing, and how much more frequently top guys and contenders fought each other

 

It's abundantly clear that you are riding GG hard, and you never saw those fighters mentioned.

This is not a thread criticising GG.

You don't have to jump to his defence.

The question, was: "Which MW era was more stacked with talent?"

Other than GG, this current era isn't stacked with great talent.

The best MW's today, are:

Gennady Golovkin
Billy Joe Saunders
David Lemieux
Danny Jacobs
Canelo Alvarez etc.

Again, how on earth is it more of a stacked division, than one which consisted of:

Roy Jones Jr.
James Toney
Michael Nunn
Julian Jackson
Sumbu Kalambay
Gerald McClellan
Bernard Hopkins etc?

You are talking complete and utter nonsense.

If you remove GG from today's division, it isn't stacked with other great MW's.

It's nowhere near as stacked as the early 90's.

To argue otherwise just shows a complete lack of knowledge.

 

Once again you are being illogical. You cannot Gauge head to head abilities, resumes etc based off these mythical classical rankings. Everything is subjective to the core. There is no fact in any of the BS you are giving me. The only way to see who is better is if you put them in the square ring and have them fight. Yes, nationality, hype, and nostalgia contributes to these mythical era rankings. You refuse to accept this, that is your problem. Dont be butthurt about it.

 

You know what bums me out about 92's list?

Hopkins, McClellan, and Roy are on that list, and we only got four middleweight fights involving them against anyone else on it: G-Man vs Jackson 1 & 2, Roy-Tate, and Hopkins-Roy.

 

Look, you don't need a time machine to see that Mike McCallum was a better MW than David Lemieux.

You don't need a time machine to see that Roy Jones was a better MW than Canelo Alvarez.

You don't need a time machine to see that James Toney was a better MW than Billy Joe Saunders.

All you need is a good pair of eyes and an understanding of what you're looking at.

Don't try and make something simple, difficult.

If you can't see that the MW division of the early 90's was more stacked than the current one, then you need to educate yourself.

 

This is kind of wrong. If you are going to put Hopkins and RJJ in the same era you might as well add Martinez, Pirog, Lee, and Chavez to Golovkins. After all Mclellan had a short run in the 90's and Kalambay was practically done when RJJ got going. Hopkins obviously made his mark long after RJJ was in the MW scene.

You're also forgetting about talents like Derevyanchenko and Charlo before they'd even had a chance to make their mark. That's one of the problem with comparing a current era to past era's.

 

I dont need some delusional pillock online to tell me how to use logic. There is absolutely NO way to gauge head to head abilities of fighters unless you get them in to the square ring. I go by facts not myth or nostalgia/subjectivity, I go by COMMON sense. You are too emotionally invested on this classical era BS that logic for you flies out the window. Hypothetical matchups cannot be determined by mythical rankings, that are in itself inherently subjective. Build me a time machine, go back in time and get one of your old men to fight some top 5 middleweight today and see how he does, then come back to me.

 

That's fair enough.

You can add them if you want.

It won't make any difference will it.

Mirk has also specified this current era, as in today's.

This is not a campaign of hate trying to bash GG and modern fighters.

I'm simply stating that the MW division of the early 90's, was more stacked than the one of today.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who argues against that is an idiot.

Yes, GG is a great fighter.

Yes, today's division has some very good fighters in it. But the best MW's today simply don't stack up to the best MW's of the early 90's. They just don't. We're not even looking individually. We're looking at a group. There was just a better bunch of MW's back then.

 

You haven't got a clue.

Your posts just make me cringe.

You are so out of your depth and out of touch with reality on these types of threads.


Common sense?

If you actually saw a guy like Mike MCallum, you'd realise he was a better fighter than a guy like BJS.

If you saw Roy in his prime, you'd realise he was on another level to GG, Canelo and Jacobs.

If you ever saw Nunn or Kalambay at their best, you'd realise they were better fighters than David Lemieux.

We don't need a time machine.

What's wrong with you?

Would I need a time machine to back up an opinion of: "Wilfrid Benitez was a better fighter than Amir Khan"?

No.

I have good vision and an understanding of the sport.

I know what I'm looking at.

I do not need a time machine in order to confirm that Ray Leonard was better than Kell Brook.

You don't even know what the word: "stacked" means.

How is today's MW era STACKED with great talent??

Even if you think that GG was a better MW than all of the guys I've listed, you can't say that his current rivals stack up with all those other names.

I am simply stating that in the early 90's, there was a bigger group of talented MW's, than what there currently is today. I don't know how anybody can argue against that.

 

When this thread was made I refrained from posting, however the late 80's/early 90's is what came to my mind. So we basically agree. I was just pointing out some of the problems with comparing a current era to a past era.

 

The only thing cringe worthy is your nutthuggery of these classical myths that you buttress on a pedestal. Everything concerning boxing rankings are subjective, there is no facts in them. I know this topic means a lot to you since your real world is in absolute plight, BUT it is better for you to see REALITY and not fiction. Give me evidence on how a fighter today could lose to a fighter from the 90's, show me the concrete evidence, like I said, build me a time machine, get one of your ancient heros and have them fight somebody from the top 5 today and SEE how they do. Put it on video for me please, thanks.

 

There is no nuthuggery.

There is no fiction.

We don't need a time machine.


Like yourself, this is very SIMPLE:


We have 2 groups of fighters:

Group A, and group B.


Group A: (current)

Gennady Golovkin
Canelo Alvarez
David Lemieux
Danny Jacobs
Billy Joe Saunders
Royota Morata
Jermain Charlo
Hassan N'Dam
Sergiy Derevyachenko
Andy Lee
Martin Murray
Dimitri Chudinov
Matt Korobov


Group B: (early 90's)

Gerald McClellan
Mike McCallum
Sumbu Kalambay
Michael Nunn
Reggie Johnson
Nigel Benn
Julian Jackson
James Toney
Roy Jones
Steve Collins
Chris Eubank
Bernard Hopkins
Herol Graham
Michael Watson


If you can't see that group B was more STACKED than group A, then you are absolutely clueless.

I doubt that even Bailey would argue that group A was more stacked.

Again, we don't need a time machine.

Anybody with an ounce of boxing knowledge knows that Group B was stronger as a whole.

There is no bias.

No nostalgia trip.

Just plain common sense.

Group A is full of talented fighters. But it simply doesn't have the depth of Group B.

All you need to possess, is good eyesight and an understanding of what you're looking at.


If you're going to argue against the above, then you are a complete and utter embarrassment.

 

The only thing embarrassing is how you don't understand what fact and subjectivity is. What a worthless waste of space you are. You are too blinded by nostalgia and clouded by stupidity to even talk with. I am still waiting for video footage of your heroes against a top 5 modern middleweight. Send me the video through pm.

 

The best thing you can do is to slowly disappear from this thread.

With each post that you make, the dumber you look.

You've obviously never seen those guys from group B.


Do I really need to see a video of a prime version of Roy Jones fighting David Lemiuex, in order to see who was the better fighter?

Do I really need to see a video of Michael Nunn fighting BJS, in order to see who was the better fighter?

Really?

Ha!

Get out of here you damn fool.


Blinded by nostalgia in claiming that Mike McCallum was better than Chudinov?

Okay Chief.

It's pointless taking this any further.


If you seriously believe that group A is more stacked, then be prepared to be ridiculed.