"In the 125 years of gloved HW's, there's been exactly 1 golden era."

that's a bold statement you are making...

i am not saying i agree with the guy but mma and k1 is getting bigger and bigger so chances are that if it keeps on growing like that and if that is what the people wanna see then the paychecks go up as well.

so it ain't unbelieveble that in the future the money for the top mma fights is gonna get bigger then the hw championship fights.

and i see all around me that especially to younger people they don't watch boxing anymore but only k1 and mma. for example the last fight of vitali and that of wlad where live on tv here in the netherlands. none of my colleagues watch'd it. but as soon as there is k1 or mma fight on tv they watch.

so the chance of mma becoming greater then boxing isn't unreal.it a question of ask and demand (and money) what the public wants the public gets

 

Agreed.

The '70s had three standout ATGs, but the remaining contenders were typical of any other era in HW history.

 

Yeah point taken but i stand by my original statement. The guy is comparing a sport thats as big as its ever been, against arguably the weakest period HW boxing has ever been, which is a little unfair. Now i dont know their purses but i'll bet 1000euro plus my left bollock that the highest paid MMA fighter this year never got anywhere near what the highest paid HW got, nevermind the even higher again purses that the likes of Mayweather gets.

No doubt these guys are good at what they do, it aint my cup of tea but thats just my opinion, doesnt mean i cant appreciate the time and effort and skill they put in, but overtake boxing?? Never. Neither popularity-wise or purse-wise (when saying that, i mean the highest paid in each sport)

 

Actually, Despite what i wrote, I quite like Ruiz too. And he enjoys such a high first class reputation, despite following the Holyfield loss to not one, but two natural middleweight/light heavyweight champions! Both pretty much dominated and outclassed him. One then got "OLD" overnight in their next fight against another light heavy adn teh other was so far overweight, they are actually unhealthy.

I can see why you would argue this. And i agree. In fact Tyson looked good early. I just think it no coincidence, that, Like ancient Jeffries against Johnson or Louis against Marciano etc, that Tyson began to fade with time and holy took over. No doubting it was a great win though. But also no doubting that Tyson was not the fighter that he once was.

I actually completely disagree with this. You cant take apart all time greats like this. Especially not when they were at the top of the game. You might claim they ducked a few or fought nobodies but taht is it.

John L Sullivan - Obliterated all opposition until he got old. Bob Fitzsimmons - Obliterated all opposition until he got old and lost to Jeffries. Jeffries - thrashed all opposition except Sharkey (who he beat twice) until he got old. Johnson - Started a bit Rocky, but once he hit his prime, he dominated all opposition he fought. Even his bad performances, he showed up out of shape and still was not really troubled, meaning he was still dominant because he didnt have to be. Jack Dempsey - ONce he hit his straps, he dominated all of his opposition. Joe Louis - Dominated all his opposition, including Schmelling who he lost first time until he got old. Marciano decisively beat all his opposition, despite keeping some fights close enough to go anyway. A little bit of the best of both worlds here, shame he didnt have longevity or hed be no 1 for many. Tyson dominated his opposition until he got old. Liston Dominated his opposition until he got old.

 

I suspect Holyfield would have slaughtered John L. Sullivan's opposition, and carried on through the likes of Corbett and Jeffries too, and reigned for about 15 + years before he got too old.

I believe it quite likely Holyfield would have run through Jack Johnson's opposition like **** through a goose, again going unbeaten for 15 years or more.

Holyfield would probably have dominated 1937 - '49 if he had been put in to substitute for Joe Louis. 25 consecutive defences might well have been a possibility for Holyfield, or a quick regaining of the title if he had managed to drop a decision or two, maybe two stints of 10 or 11 defences, or three reigns of 8 defences.

Even fat lazy Riddick Bowe could have racked up 10 or so defences in that era with the same opposition that faced Louis, or reigned for virtually ever in the Sullivan era.

A post-prison Tyson would have done well in all those eras too. Call me crazy, but I think a 1995 Tyson would have blasted the likes of Tom Sharkey and Joe Choynski away.

That's my take on Holyfield and his era.

 

The point is, how can he and his era be deemed overrated because he didn't dominated, when in fact he likely would have dominated Sullivan's era ?
That actually suggests he DID fight a better crop of fighters. Therefore how is his era getting overrated ?

Don't know if he beat Kilrain under LPR rules, it's irrelevant. But, hey, Holyfield might have broken the poor guy's neck in 30 seconds.

I believe he would have done well.

Like I said, he might have dropped a decision or two, and had to regain the title.
I don't know if Louis would have been consistent enough to match his own record if he'd had Holyfield's opposition too !

Yet he only narrowly lost his title to Holyfield, a great fighter.
If he had stuck to the Jesse Ferguson, shot Mike Dokes - type challengers I believe he reigns for MANY defences.
I can't see any of Jack Johnson's challengers standing much of a chance against Bowe.

 

We think he would have dominated his era, but we really have no idea whatsoever. We know he didnt dominate his own era in the same way. We also know that he very, very rarely won fights in 4 rounds. I doubt he would have the same string of 4 round victories that John L had. Certainly not if he kept the schedule that John L did, although who knows.

What we do know is that he didnt dominate his oppossition that he faced in the same manner that John L domintated his. We also know, that if he had dominated his opposition in this same manner, his era wouldnt have been thought of as highly.

He might have. Although he might also have had an absolute war with him and slipped up ALA Moorer, before coming back and beating him another war, thus when this fight happens, Holyfield could instantaneously lift this era as well!

How strong would Holyfields era have looked, if Louis was consistent enough to dominate it?



Yet he only narrowly lost his title to Holyfield, a great fighter.
If he had stuck to the Jesse Ferguson, shot Mike Dokes - type challengers I believe he reigns for MANY defences.
I can't see any of Jack Johnson's challengers standing much of a chance against Bowe.[/QUOTE]

 

That's not really fair, Holmes had already become a "player" again following his big upset win over top-rated Ray Mercer.

 

True, but one cheated by using steroids and had his W turned into an NC. The other was probably also roided up beyond believe as well.

But yes, losses happen when you fight against qualified opposition often. Jack Sharkey also has some pretty bad losses, but overall he was quite good.

:good

I can, allow me:

Jeffries: enjoyed a size advantage of roughly 40 pounds on his significant opponents, yet still needed 15+ rounds to stop them. His best win is Corbett who hadn't won a fight in five years. The second-best win is a supermiddleweight who twice thrashed his face before succumbing to the inevitable weight difference. The only good opponent he faced was Johnson, but by this point James was so old that all we can conclude from the fight is that he had a big fighting hard and a good chin.

Johnson: Probably had the worst qualified average title challenger of all champions. The significant opponents of his time: Langford, Jeannette and Mcvey he blatantly ducked as a champion, when they hit their stride. People will claim he beat them, but they were teenagers back then - Langford (then 154lbs) would've fought at welterweight today. Let's also not forget that this is still the era where there is little to no talent in heavyweights over 190lbs - the exceptions being Johnson and Jeffries of course, who easily beat up their smaller counterparts. Let's also not forget that Johnson got knocked down pretty badly by a supermiddleweight and failed to impress against Marvin freaking Hart.

Dempsey: After being KO'd in 1 round only a year before hitting his peak against a fat, 37 year old Willard who came off a 3 year ring rust streak, he wins the title. He then continues to set the record for avoiding the best contender for a full seven years. In the meanwhile, he mostly fights guys who lost title eliminators to Greb, a supermiddleweight who is one of the best HW challengers, in another weak time where most HW contenders come from LHW or MW. Oh, I forgot where he defended his title against a terminally ill opponent, who was considered so ill that he was a 7:1 underdog, despite twice having gone even with Dempsey in the past! When he finally steps up to fight a qualified opponent in Tunney, he not only loses, but gets completely dominated twice, barring one knockdown.

There you go. I don't really believe what I've written above, and I'm just writing this off the top of my head, no correcting or proofreading. Haven't even gone deeper into their records. You can make any boxer or era look bad,

 

In general, and like all other similar enterprises, the overall quality is pretty evenly distributed across time.

This would be less true, the smaller the time periods considered.

(If we look at individual years, there would be more disparity. Five-year chunks, things even out more. And decade-long periods, there would be nearuniform distribution).

Obviously there would be some exceptions resulting from external influences like ww2, but in general, I think the notion of seriously weak eras is mostly myth.


I remember Holmes-bashers in the early eighties bemoaning the weakness of Holmes' competition. Thirty years on, his resume puts him in most top 5 or 6 lists.

This is partly the result of changes in the sport overall and in the way fighters fight at the top levels. (Much more at stake in terms of $$$ and commercialization. A more scientific approach to training and preparation, etc.)

And it's partly a nostalgia thing with hankerings for a past viewed through rose-tinted glasses.

 

Interesting post Boilermaker.

I view Holyfield as an all time great and A class fighter, but not quite on the level of the ATGs he's ranked alongside when it comes to ability. I reckon if all of the ATG heavyweights since Louis were pitted against each other Holyfield would come out badly, with mostly losses

For pure depth of quality fighters and the several active and more or less prime ATGs fighting in the 90s it has to be seen as a golden era. From what I've seen I even believe the 90s overall had better heavies than the 70s. Maybe controversial but this is partly based on my very high ranking of Lewis

 

I don´t know but it doesn´t seem right with me when people base their arguments on speculation like unforgiven does here. Holyfield would have done this or that. Yeah, maybe he would have, maybe he wouldn´t. We don´t know. That´s not really a good foundation for an argument. Not that I agree with Boilermaker but I think he raises an interesting point that is worthy to discuss and to be looked upon.