How Long Have Heavyweights Been All Time Worst?

Really, throughout my existence on the planet Earth the heavyweights have always been "At its all time worst condition" "lack of talent" etc. Ten years ago, those sentiments were expressed, ten years before that same thing, ten years before that and so on; heavyweights have always been at their all time worst. You could go back to the "Bum of the Month Club" that made Joe Louis famous and still that old cliches was around. Seems like the only time the "heavyweights are at their all time worst" cliche wasn't around was back when a boxer would kick a boxing journalist's ass up and down the street. Of course, those guys would get respect. But really does anybody think ten years from now the heavyweights WON'T be at their all time worst?

It also makes it seem that as a sport professional boxing is incapable of evolving like other sports.

 

If in 10 years time, an American HW is at the top of the heap, THEN the standard of heavyweights will not be at their all time worst! It might be even be declared another 'golden era'.

One thing for sure is that the first good American to appear after both Ks have retired will be proclaimed by many US boxing fans as the saviour of the division, and that he would have KOed both of them intheir primes!

 

Its been bad since the late nineties in my opinion. Although at the time they said the 90's was a weak era for heavyweights it was deceptively a good era in terms of exciting match up looking back on it, better than the 80's anyways. Riddick Bowe and Evander Holyfield had their trilogy, Lennox Lewis was maturing into the all time great there was also the likes of Oliver McCall, Shannon Briggs, Ray Mercer, Michael Moorer. David Tua, Tommy Morrison, George Foreman, Frank Bruno all exciting and world class competitors etc. There was also the "could have been" Ike Ibeabuchi.

 

Perhaps when we had the likes of Ali, Frazier and Foreman and just before that there was Patterson and Liston. Loads of other guys who were good that I don't as well probably. Maybe that was the only time.

 

Nothing wrong with this era, it fills stadiums in Europe and gets big viewing figures.

 

Pay attention; the crux of the thread is that the heavyweight division has always been dismissed as bad and for the majority of those years the heavyweight champion was from the USA. So your argument is not valid at all and your "one thing for sure" is hardly sure at all.

 

I will go so far to say that in this era there is no "color line" a heavyweight has to navigate in order to get a title fight, the mafia or crooked promoted do not have the influence over the heavyweight division that they had in previous "better" eras of the heavyweight division. There is also no Iron Curtain to keep several millions of people away from professional boxing, even the heavyweight division.

We could go through old issues of boxing magazines, stacks and stacks of them from decades back and the recurring pronouncement "the heavyweight division is at its all time worst" is constantly there. It seems like heavyweights get no respect until after they hang up their gloves then everything changes.

 

Surely the heavies in Ali's era got respect?

 

Not that much and it varied greatly at times. I don't think it was highly respected when Leon Spinks with only 8 professional fights of experience dethroned Ali. There are probably back issues of boxing magazines that say that era sucked.

I believe Ali was 36 years old when he lost his title to newby pro Leon Spinks ( 8 fights pro )
Keep in mind Klitschko is now 36 and Povetkin is a somewhat recent Olympic boxing gold medalist somewhat like Spinks. Only Povetkin most likely had several more years of international amateur boxing experience and, of course, Povetkin has way more than 8 professional fights under his belt. But what does that mean in context of gauging the division?

At least with the current heavyweight division the sun does not rise and set upon the heavyweights under contract to Don King, who pretty much stacked the deck to constantly favor his own interests, real competitive matches be damned.

 

But according to the emminent boxing publications at the time, they all sucked.

 

The HW division right now is as good as many other eras. Certainly not as bad as the 50s or early 80s.

People complain too much and always argue 'today everything is terrible' and 'back then everything was better'. It's a bunch of hogwash.

 

Wasn't "prime" Tyson era the worst?

This era doesn't seem bad.

 

The only thing this era lacks is the number 1 and 2 fighting each other.

 

I think the elimination of; a single self-absorbed promoter controlling the division, the elimination of racial segregation, the great reduction of criminal and corrupt influences, and the inclusion of heavyweights from the other side of the Iron Curtain make a compelling argument that the current era is one of the better ones for heavyweight boxing.

Ever stop and think what Ali's legacy would have been had Teofelio Stevenson fought in the pros?

 

Meatball,


50s and 80s were good eras. Don't now what you're talking about.


1920s was much worse