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

Well, I think there's a very large degree of implicit speculation within Boilermaker's argument that Holyfield is overrated and made the 90s heavyweights seem of better quality than they were.

I mean, the implication is there that fighters who were more consistently dominant in their own time (Ali, Louis, Jeffries, Marciano, whoever) would likely have been so in any era, or at least in Holyfield's era (had they replaced him).
That's the only thing I get from the argument, and if that's not being argued, then I'm not sure what is.

If we can't guess that Holyfield would have done better in other eras, then how can we guess that he perform below the highest standard in his own era ?

Anyone who says "Holyfield struggled too much", "Holyfield wasn't consistent enough" must be of the opinion that SOME OTHERS (ie. a handful of greater heavyweights, who set the standard) - would have done this or that in Holyfield's era.
That's pure speculation.

Of course, if that's NOT what was being argued, and no one is claiming that others would have bettered Holyfield's overall performances in the exact same era and circumstances, then there's no way I can see how he can be said to be "overrated" or compare unfavourably with the greats.

 

I never wrote that Boilermaker is right. Read again what I wrote. I think it´s worthy to discuss, that´s all.

Your argument isn´t because it is pure speculation and has no foundation in facts. He has actual fights for some hints and evidences. Yours are pure speculation, sorry.

And of course you can say Holy is overated because he struggled with past it greats and aveage contendes even if you don´t speculate how others would have done in his era. Just by looking at what other fighters did in their era to comparable fighters.

 

It isnt that others would or would have done it in Holys era, because they did it in their own era, that isnt even debatable. The point is that if Holyfield's had blown away Bowe, Moorer , Holmes and foreman as say tyson did to Spinks, Berbick, Holmes and Bruno. Then would we really consider the 90s a Golden era? I am not saying that Dempsey, Louis and others would blow them away, just that they did blow their eras away.

As was mentioned by someone else, the idea is something worthy of discussion. I dont even know if believe in the theory myself. I must say though that I am surprised that it hasnt been argued against much stronger by more people.

 

the 90's just didn't fulfill it's potential.

no tyson-holyfield in 91. :-(

tyson jailed.

no lewis-bowe fight. :-(

foreman winning the title and going back into semi retirement.

titles being splintered because of it.

lewis-holyfield happening about 5 yrs after it should have done.

 

The whole topic is pure speculation.
As soon as we start comparing the quality of fighters in one era against the quality of those in another era we are making purely subjective judgments, and it implies almost 100% speculation.

 

I don't consider the 90s a particularly special era.

I don't believe Holyfield is overrated at all though. Looking at his career from 1984 - 1999 his resume and results are top-notch, the blemishes on his record are very very few. He probably gets less credit than he has earned.

 

I don´t agree with that. You can compare the quality of fighters by looking at what they did in their own time. General talent-level and geatness is not differing much between eras, there are factors that can make or prevent a great era - style-match-ups, great bouts (not) happening, the colour line, wars - but in general it´s very comparable. Simle a matter of statistics. So, looking at what a fighter did in his era (a fact) and comparing that to what another fighter did in another ara (also a fact) comes very close to beeing a fact in itself. Sure there is still some speculation left but much less than going ahead saying fighter XY would have done this and that in that era. Common sense actually.

 

When I say I think/believe Holyfield would have done X, Y, Z in another era, I'm really just responding to the ridiculous critcism that he somehow under-performed in his own era.
I'm no huge fan of this speculation myself, I'm just making a point.

When I say Holyfield would have run through Jack Johnson's opposition like **** through a goose, I'm just sharing with everyone my gut feeling, and doing so to make a point against what I feel is the unfair criticism.
I'm confident that MANY people on this forum have the same inklings.

Put Holyfield in the ring with Burns, Ketchel, a shot Jeffries, Marvin Hart, Fireman Jim Flynn ........... yeah, it's pure speculation but only takes a little bit of imagination. Holyfield would have mashed them up in my opinion. A 42 year old Foreman would have massacred them too, in all likelihood.
Of course, if you want to disregard all such speculation that's fair enough, but I see loads of "fantasy match-up" stuff going on in these forums, and Holyfield versus the likes of Tommy Burns are easy enough ones for me to accept. But that's just me.

If it's all a matter of statistics, then Holyfield scores high anyway. His record was statistically brilliant up until the age of, say, 36, or 37.
His losses to Bowe (unbeaten fighter 31-0) and Moorer (unbeaten fighter 34-0) were avenged. He racked up many wins over rated contenders. Etc. etc.

The criticisms of Holyfield actually seem to rest less on any statistical deficiency and more on a few critical reviews of some of the fights he won - (and the 2 or 3 that he lost near or only slightly past his prime).

 

Like said before I don´t agree with Boilermaker, neither does himself , but at least he is able to back his opinion up with arguments. You back it up with "gut-feeling". That´s my point.

 

I understand that. But I'm not sure why you have such a problem with my opinion based on gut feeling.
If I ask you how do you think Holyfield would have done against the likes of Tommy Burns, Fireman Flynn, Stanley Ketchel, surely you'd have an opinion on it, no ?
And it would be pure speculation.

Of course we can provide arguments as to why we pick one fighter over another in fantasy match-ups, or why we believe a fighter would have thrived well in another era .... arguments based on common sense and general trends, whatever. But we can always come back and say, "yeah, but it's pure speculation".

Boilermaker is purely speculating too, when he says that "the 1990s would be viewed as an inferior era IF Holyfield had been more dominant and blasted out X, Y and Z" ..... of course, it's pure speculation. Regardless that it is based on sound reasoning. It's an alternative reality scenario.
But so too is my belief that Holyfield would have run through Jack Johnson's opposition easier than Johnson did, and I think most people here would accept such as assertion is based on sound reasoning too.

For the record, Boilermaker's general argument regarding eras being viewed as weaker when there's a champion who beats several contenders in uncompetitive fights makes perfect sense to me.
It's the claim that Holyfield is over-rated and the implication that he under-performed by ATG standards that I disagree with. :good

 

Spoken as someone who truely endured this so called golden era.

I remember having the impression that for most of the decade you had Foreman, Moorer, Holyfield, Tyson, Bowe, and Lewis all floating around in their own individual bubbles. Occassionaly, they mixed with Evanders. And people complain about the Wlad and Vitali two headed monster, the 90s usually had 3 or 4 at time.

 

Sure, but I would always know it´s pure speculation and not basing anything on it. It´s fun, nothing more.

Sure we can. Wouldn´t be worth much because exactly the highlighted part though.

No, it´s based on an observation of other eras and comparing them to Holyfield´s. While there is some speculating element in there, the base of his theory is based on facts. Yours not, yours is pure speculation from the get go.

I don´t care. That´s got nothing to do with my point.

 

bodhi, the most grammatically correct ****** you'll ever come across

 

I think the best eras were the 60s, 70s and 90s.

The rest were mediocre.

 

Thanks. :thumbsup