Greatest MW era?

Pre-WWII too or just the strongest between the ones you named?

The era you describe did not exist.

Ray - was never a MW
Archie - Wasn't a MW in the 40's
Robinson - Wasn't really competeing as a MW until after the war, 50's really, at which point the era was over
Booker - career pretty much over by the early 40's
Chase - Wasn't on the level of Booker, Burley, etc just a quality contender same with Wade
Zale - Washed up post war
Graziano - a complete joke at MW ducked the entire division

My pick is the 1930's but there are three fairly strong and clear contenders for the honor. The above mentioned 85-95 era along with

1915-25 Middleweights (22)

Greb
Gibbons
O'Dowd
Walker
Loughren
Wilson
Smith
Houck
Darcy
Flowers
Chip
Mctigue
McGoorty
Battling Ortega
Young Ahearn

Jimmy Clabby, Gus Christie, Buck Crouse, Jimmy Clarke, Jack McCarron, Augie Ratner, Bartfield


1930-1940 Middleweights (29)

Billy Conn
Freddie Steele
Teddy Yarosz
Holman Williams
Charly Burley
Ezzard Charles
Fred Apostoli
Ken Overlin
Lloyd Marshall
Archie Moore
Tony Zale
Mickey Walker * tale end
Georgie Abrams
Eddie Booker
Billy Soose
Al Hostak
Young Corbett III
Ceferino Garcia
Solly Kreiger
Babe Risko
Vince Dundee
Marcel Thil
Kid Tunero
Brouillard
Cocoa Kid
Jack Chase
Aaron Wade
Erich Seelig
Jock McAvoy

20 Other notables : Swede Berglund, Gorilla Jones, Shorty Hogue, Ben Jeby, Chmielewski, Kid Azteca, Ben Brown, Carmen Barth, Glen Lee, Belloise, Nate Bolden, Young Terry, Bandit Romero, Anton Christoforidis, Jimmy Smith, Ralph DeJohn, Henneberry, Frank Battaglia, Allen Matthews, Balsamo

 

After Joshua beat Wlad I took him seriously, despite not looking impressive before that. Huck was washed up by the time Usyk got to him, so it was obviously a Usyk schooling guaranteed. Still the eye test is not 100 percent a sure fire way to gauge people. How a fighter does against fighter A may be impressive, but then he struggles and looks bad against fighter C and D. It all depends on the opponents you face, you may look like a god against certain opposition, but look bad against others.

 

Probably Pirogs. Undefeated!

 

There's nothing worse than seeing a casual/newb desperately scrambling around pretending to be knowledgeable.

He's obviously never seen the fighters of Group B. We know that. Because nobody, and I mean nobody, who'd seen those guys in the early 90's, would claim that today's division is more stacked.

Guys like him say that we're ignorant and are stuck in the past etc, yet he is the one who's ignorant. Because he automatically rates the fighters who he's familiar with, over the ones who he's not familiar with.

He's asking for video evidence of Roy beating BJS etc, before we can claim who was the better fighter between them.

This is the same guy who supports Todd's theory that Joe Calzaghe would have mutilated Andre Ward, despite the fact that he never mutilated an elite fighter all throughout his career, and he repeatedly struggled with lesser fighters.

The sad thing is, he's not even trolling for a joke. He's serious.

This forum needs cleansing.

 

second tripple G?

 

I'd say Haglers era, and it didnt pan out too bad just after.

they were the Group B rally cars of middleweight.

 

The Alvarez Golovkin Saunders era!

 

There is no Alvarez or Saunders era. It's the GGG and Chicken era @160 since 2010

 

I'm glad I caused you extreme butthurt. Just an FYI, this isnt the Classic section. The very fact that you woke up at 4 am in the morning just to talk about me shows how much night terrors I caused you.

 

Fighters today:
can't even fight 9 ****ing rounds without getting gassed lol
rarely use head and waist movement
rarely use feints
hardly fight the best within or around their respective divisions
don't even have the basic fundamentals of boxing down
there are a lot less registered pro fighters and amateur today than in past Era's.

www.youtube.com

^use that link and search up fights from the 90s and 80s and you will see the vast difference in quality of fighting, if you cannot see the difference in skill and technique maybe boxing isn't for you.

1989 P4P fighters
Mike Tyson, JCC, Whitaker, Nunn, Meldrick Taylor, Azumah Nelson

1995
Whitaker, RJJ, Finito Lopez, ODLH, Trinidad, Tszyu, MAB

2017
Today, there is no living legend, the closest thing we had to an ATG was Andre Ward, ut he is retired and I'm not sure he could ever beat a fighter like RJJ,
GGG lol, no legacy defining fight, already on his way out and did nothing to deserve ATG status
Canelo still has a long way too go
Spence has ways to go
Thurman lol
Crawford is not ATG

FFS, the three certain ATGs in this most recent era were old ****s that started fighting in the 90's and were too good for this era that they dominated this era despite being old as ****.

Mayweather, Pacquiao, JMM, Hopkins.. 90's fighters dominating in the 2000's, think about that for a second.

YDKSAB

 

Amazing how polarized boxing fans can be I would rate the two eras you mentioned as arguably two of the weakest eras. Perspective is everything.

 

I agree to a certain extent though it’s difficult to truly run an accurate comparison. At 168 Joe is the best however at 175 I could name several fighters that would work him over....Moore, Spinx, Matt Saad Muhammad, Langford, Dempsey, Tarver, prime Roy

 

I didn’t even read your essay because I’ve been over this with you before and nothing has changed. YREALLYDKSAB

 

Archie Moore fought 18 times at mw in the 40's. Was 161 when beaten by 155 Burley saying he was the best he ever fought. Zale was world champ in 1948 and the war over in 1945. Re Robinson. You can't ''not really compete'' until the 50's. He fought 44 times at mw in the 40's and the ''era that was over'' is this the era that does not exist? A lot of the guys you mention were more mw's in the 40's such as Kid Azteca.

 

Everything is subjective.