Has the heavyweight crisis ended?

I do agree with all those points except on Chambers and Haye. Chambers even though he's a small heavyweights, is one of the best heavyweights, and the most technically skilled boxer in the division besides the Klitschko brothers. Haye is overrated, he's just an average boxer who's fast and explosive, that's it.

 

Excellent post. People always love to romanticize periods that weren't anything special to begin with. Tyson and Holmes both fed off of a barren landscape that a lot of people forget overlapped (Both beat common opponents such as Berbick, Williams, and Smith). How can anybody sit here and say that the heavyweight landscape from the 80's was so much better than what we have now? Other than Tyson and Holmes who was there? The belts were passed around like the clap between a bunch of nondescript underachievers. The guys who could have been something were more interested in not saying no to drugs (Dokes, Biggs, Thomas, and Tucker) and the guys who actually were something didn't hold onto their belts long enough to matter.

 

when all challengers get shut out in title fights, its not a good thing....peter, arreola, gomez,
chambers is unproven, povetkin...unproven

 

Could it be that they are getting shut out because the opponent is too good? I'm a big Larry Holmes fan but I seem to remember him beating quite a few of the inexperienced "King's Kids" so let's not harp on the experience factor too much.

 

Really, no one gives a fu*k about the HW division. It's a complete joke. The Arreola/Klit fight was a disgrace in the sense that a guy as bad as Arreola can be hyped up to be a possible "next thing" at the HW division. That's how bad it is.

 

The ceiling is high so without any parity and belts trading hands you basically have two guys at the top of a division in which the 3rd best guy is nowhere near their level. There are still good potential matchups outside of any potential Klitschko fight as they render all of their opponents ineffective.

 

LOL, so the heavyweight crisis is over because Chris Arreola was able to last 10 rounds vs. Vit and lose all those rounds before the ref stopped the fight?

Log out and never post again you simple minded twat.

 

and you forget that even in the holmes-tyson era, boxing was on network tv....and was much more a mainstream commodity then it is today.....something is wrong with this picture, and speaks volumes to how bad the HW division is today...hell, even in the UK, a country that has a long boxing history, they wouldnt even buy the arreola-vitali fight.....its bad when a country like the UK won't buy a world heavyweight title fight...

 

Boxing isn't as mainstream today as it was years ago due to a litany of reasons. One of those reasons being that its flagship division lacks a true American champion. The emergence of PPV didn't help matters either.

 

I thought it was overblown then, and I certainly think it's overblown now. Ever since the re-emergence of boxing in the late 19th century, fans and journalists have whined about whatever era they were in as being "weak." Hell, you had guys in the 60s writing like this!!!! The current era is ALWAYS awful when compared to the last great one that preceeded it. Hell, in the 90s, there were a lot of articles and commentary about what a weak era it was in the HW division. Only now is it looked on as a solid era, because of course, the current era sucks. It always does, until it's over.:hey

 

I'd agree with most of that, Zak.

What I haven't liked since the end of the Lewis/Holyfield era is the willingess of fighters to simply 'share' the title.

Nobody has really taken the mantle and looked to unify the title the way those guys did, or fight the other 'champion' for only one title - I can't recall a guy vacating to avoid a pointless mandatory and take a harder fight.

Other posters getting stuck into Chambers and Haye for being overblown cruisers is unfair. I'd guess they have a lot better chance of beating a Klitschko coming in at 210-215 and (crucially) in shape, rather than simply piling weight on to get to 240lbs and compete sizewise, losing your speed and reflexes.

 

It may be better than it was a few years back but it still sux

 

I completely agree with this but as the Klitschkos dominate so totally, wouldnt you like to see them win big-style over some of the competition?

Tyson dominated in a poor era but you didn't see him boring people to death in drawn out jab-fests.

The Klitschkos fight in a very pedestrian way which is never going to excite people.

 

its been fine in europe,its america which has the supposed problem.

 

Divided eras, like the early 80s or now, of course get the most criticism. Or eras, like the late 20s/early 30s, where there was no dominant champion. And those eras are usually less interesting/exciting, but not necessarily "weak."

I'm not arguing that there aren't weak eras, or perhaps more accurately, weaker eras - but the term is VERY losely applied, and often to eras that end up looking much better in retrospect.

I'm of the opinion that this is sort of an average era. It doesn't seem like it will be one of the best, but I would certainly place it above the early 30s or early 80s, which are, imo, the two weakest eras in HW history. I think the Klistchkos will be better regarded historically by boxing fans as they are now, as will some of the other contenders you mention, including some of the smaller HWs you mention. Chambers, imo, has a lot of potential.