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

There's no difference.
I'm basing my speculation that Holyfield would utterly destroy the vast majority of Jack Johnson's opposition on my (probably) thousands of observations of fights where fighters as big and as fast and as good and as skillful as Holyfield - (or fighters with the same relative advantages) - walk through fighters with such gross disadvantages as Burns, Flynn, Ketchel, shot Jeffries, whoever, would have against The Real Deal.

I'm not just conjuring up any old idea out of thin air, I'm using sound reasoning based on observations, actual factual happenings. And you know that.
I readily admit it still amounts to pure speculation.
We can never know for sure. We don't know whether Muhammad Ali would beat Jean Pascal either, however strongly we believe it, but there shouldn't be any problem accepting it in principle. In fact, I would expect 99% of this forum to have absolutely no problem accepting it.

 

There is a difference. Boilermaker makes the observations that fighters who dominated their era - like Louis or Marciano - are seen as having fought in a weak era. While fighters who were competative with their peers but came out on or nea the top - like Ali or Holyfield - are seen as having fought in a golden era. He than says - based upon this observation - that if Holy would have dominated like Louis did the era wouldn´t be seen as a golden era. Conclusion: the whole perception of the era depends on the perception of Holyfield - who I rank solidly in the Top10 btw. That´s logic, not speculation. Furthermore he says, based on Holyfield´s struggle with old, past-it greats and fringe contenders, that Holyfield wasn´t that good and him beeing competative with his peers is actually a sign that the era wasn´t that good. So, here we have a controversial opinion. But it´s based on facts and logic. It´s based on what actually happened and it makes sense.

Now you are basing your argument against Boilermaker on the speculation that Holyfield would have beaten contenders/champs of peceived weake eras easily - like Burns. And while you have a point, you can draw conclusions from actual fights and based on this judge how a fighter would do against one from another era, basing the whole ranking of an era on that makes it stand on a very weak base. Simply because someone might come to different conclusions regarding your h2h scenario. Someone might for example say that Holy struggled with smaller fighters like Toney and Byrd, even Qwawi the first time around, and that while he could deal well with bigger fighters, he would always struggle with smaller ones. Thus he might not un through Jeff´s or Johnson´s or whoevers competition but might even stuggle more in eras with mostly small fighters. Now this is not an agument but it is a valid one and it would completly destroy the base of your whole point. The base of your whole opinion is based much more on speculation and your subjective perception than Boilermaker´s.

That´s THE reason why I think h2h isn´t a valid and good criteria for ranking fighters, a fun one but not a good one. Too much speculation, too subjective.

Anyway, that´s just my opinion, well, one of them.

 

Well, I can only repeat what I've already said in some way or other.

If we look at the way you've presented it above, the argument starts with "IF Holyfield had done this or that .... our perceptions would be different" (alternative reality scenario)..... and goes on to "our perceptions of the era depend on our perceptions of Holyfield".
Logical, yes. With some referencing to historical facts, yes.
But clearly the whole theory or argument is based on how an imaginary scenario might alter perceptions. These are heavily subjective and speculative things.
Therefore, to me, it seems strange that you would have such a problem with my own arguments that rest on alternative reality scenarios too, and lead to alternative perceptions.

If there's a difference in the nature of my argument and that of Boilermaker's original argument, it's to such a subtle degree I don't see much point in differentiating.

The only way to discuss or answer Boilermaker's argument on its own terms in in terms of "IF Holyfield did X, Y and Z instead of A, B, C...." ....... "IF we can imagine this alternative reality where P happens instead of Q....", because that's exactly where his theory starts.
Whether we agree with it or not, or think it makes sense or not, we have to buy into these fantasy scenarios in the first place.
And since Boilermaker chose to bring in the names of former greats (Johnson, Sullivan, Jeffries, Louis etc. or whoever) and reference their eras in his argument/theory I don't see how my line of argument deviated from that line of enquiry.

It's easy to say something like, "If Ali had blasted out Frazier and Norton in 1 or 2 rounds apiece, the 70s would be viewed as a weak era. Even him beating Foreman would be nothing special in that scenario. I feel Ali is overrated because he struggled with Norton and Frazier (and Bonavena, Young, Doug Jones whoever), and him being overrated brings up the whole perception of the era"
....... Obviously the imaginary scenario makes sense. But I'd sure as hell expect someone to come back with "regardless of him struggling and losing to guys like Norton, if you put him against the same opposition as Louis, Jeffries, Johnson, Sullivan or whoever you say is more dominant, he'd probably do just as well, almost as well, or even better."
And I would accept that argument as making sense too.

I guess if you want to draw a line against my line of argument, that's up to you. :good
You haven't convinced me I'm at all mistaken though. I guess that's a difference in personal perception too.

Here's another one for you : If Holyfield had stayed at cruiserweight he probably would have gone unbeaten for another 10 years.

 

No, not true. The argument is not "if Holyfield would have done this or that ... the perception would be different"., the argument is

It´s about what Holyfield actually did - and about what other fighters did in thei era and the comparison of how they are perceived based on that. That´s got nothing to do with speculation, no matter how you wanna turn it.
Again, it is NOT about Holyfield´s perception would be different if he would have done this or that.

Sure, he did to compare how their era´s are perceived as weak while Holyfield´s is perceived as "golden". To compare the dominance of those fighters within their own era, not to say how one would have done in anothers. That´s all.

But see that´s the difference. The first argument is not speculating. It´s a conclusion drawn out of the fact that every era that was dominated by a dominant champ is perceived as weak while competative era´s are perceived as golden.
The second argument is speculating how one fighter would do against numerous others. At times even under different rules. Now you may say that´s a conclusion on Holy´s actual fights, and you have a point here, as said before, but as said before there is much more speculation involved and thus rests on a very weak base compared to the first one.

I don´t wanna convince anyone and your opinion is at least as much worth as mine and we will never know who was right anyway. I just want to make clear what I mean and that you perhaps think about it.

Speculation :tong
Even if, he would have fought in a division that is "closed" at 190/200 pounds which means it´s not comparable to hws of a similar size wich fought in the "open" hw division.

 

I think the late 1890's-1900 deserve a bit of a shout out: Jeffries, Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Sharkey at the top of his game; toss in guys like Choyinski, Maher, Ruhlin, McCoy .... Pretty decent hvy division.

 

Those were heavyweights?

A very strong era or fighters who mostly labeled themselves as heavyweights, I agree.

 

I think you could call Ruhlin and Sharkey heavies, they certainly weighed in above the LHW limit and iirc above or at 200lbs. Maher never hit 2 bucks, but certainly was a HW.

 

Unforgiven,

You state that your scenario of Holyfield dominating the earlier era is the preferred scenario (even though he didnt do this in his own era). If we accept this as a plausible scenario, isnt it equally plausible that Sullivan would come in KO and dominate all of the fighters in Holyfield's era? In fact, isnt it more likely, since this is what he actually did to every single fighter in his own era, while he was in his prime?

 

No, I think the fighters of Holyfield's time were superior to the fighters in Sullivan's time.
Sullivan's men were tough as nails, or unquestionably willing at least. I don't believe they had the developed skills and experience comparable to Holyfield's best opponents, nor the physical size for the most part.

Put a prime Holyfield in with a 150 pound Charley Mitchell or a 165 pound Dominic McCaffrey and it would be a mismatch, IMO.
Put a prime Sullivan in with Bowe, Tyson, Dokes or old Foreman and he'd be at serious risk of losing, to put it mildly, IMO.
Speculation on my part, yes.
But I doubt I'm the only one here who thinks that. :good

 

As I've said many times, I disagree.
The argument implicitly (or explicitly at times) claims that the likes of Joe Louis would have done X or Y if they were in Holyfield's shoes.
To judge any single performance or career, we tend to judge against a certain standard of our choosing.
You can't claim that we can make judgments or set uniform standards, and then at the same time claim that we are judging each fighter/career/era in some sort of vacuum. You can't have it both ways.
I'm not buying it.

From Boilermaker's original post outlining the theory :

"Next we have old Holmes. Already shown up to be well past prime by Michael Spinks, and totally shot vs Mike Tyson, Old Holmes suddenty became a player again with a great losing performance vs Holyfield. Where Holy because of his style also looked good because he had such a battle. Contrast these with say the Klitchsko's or Louis who when facing this level of fighters we get a dominant KO victory and neither fighter gets credit."

^ An explicit claim that Louis or the Klitschkos dominate and KO the likes of a 1992 Holmes.
(I guess that makes David Haye, Sultan Ibragimov, Kevin Johnson, Arturo Godoy better than a '92 Holmes, huh ? ....... I guess the possibility that '92 Holmes would have gone the distance with other top 10 HW ATGs is unfathomable to Boilermaker, in spite of Holmes's great record. Anyway ...)

More :

"This gives us Riddick Bowe. Bowe was obviously a good or great even contender, either way, but he looked an all time great because of the exciting fights he had with Holyfield. Again if Holyfield had won solidly like a Joe Louis and others would have, you would be left with a fighter that struggled with Andrew Golota. It is Holys great heart and spirit that lifted both all time rankings again. "


^ An even more explicit claim. Louis and others would have beaten a '92 Riddivk Bowe solidly.
Yet somehow is not fair game for me to say what Holyfield would have done to the vast majority of Louis's challengers ??

OK.
I'll skip past what Boilermaker says about Holyfield v Moorer, which is all wrong IMO, but that's besides the point for this particular post.
And ....

"Fast forward to the Tyson fight. An accepted all time great who was well past his best, although no one new it because of the poor standards of the contenders era's like Botha, Bruno, Seldon, etc. And this was Holy's legacy maker. Holy was good enough (and he is still a great just not as great as is thought) to beat Tyson in dominant fashion by outlasting him and taking his bombs until an out of shape Tyson tired but in the process, letting Tyson to do enough for people to still think he had plenty of speed and power to beat anyone. It was a great performance, but again if he had shut Tyson out thoroughly, as i am sure Lewis, Louis and Co would have on this night, neither would have been ranked as highly. It is because of this that most think that Tyson still had quite a lot to offer."

^ Another explicit claim. Boilermaker is SURE Lewis, Louis and co. would have shut out Tyson thoroughly (apparently Holyfield didn't !) on that night in November 1996.
****, I'm not even sure of Holyfield doing X, Y and Z against the opponents of Jack Johnson, for example. But Boilermaker is sure Joe Louis, for example, would have come forward to 1996 and beaten Tyson significantly more convincing fashion that Holyfield did.

How is Boilermaker NOT speculating in the exact same manner that you find so "not right" when I put Holyfield back in Lous's era ?

 

Boilermaker is not speculating in the same manner. He is using it to highlight what he is talking about. His argument is not resting on those speculations as yours does. Ignore those speculations of him and his argument still makes sense. Yours not.

Anyway, we are turning in circles and I go to holiday this evening. So, I end it here.

 

My argument is simple : Holyfield is not overrateed. And Holyfield did NOT under-perform in his era by top 10 HW ATG standards.

And I use my speculations of what Holyfield would have done in, say, Louis's or Johnson or Sullivan's era to highlight what I am talking about.
Not different to Boilermaker's, whose argument would actually make very little sense if he didn't use other ATGs' alleged superior capabilities to somehow try to prove that Holyfield under-performed by their standards.

I absolutely agree with Boilermaker's claim that an era would be perceived as somewhat weak if one fighter dominated all his peers thoroughly. That aspect of his argument makes perfect sense. And I don't hold up the 1990s, or any other era, as "golden".
The part of the argument I have a problem with is the claim that Holyfield might not be a legit ATG HW and that he "struggled too much" and routinely made his opponents look better than they were.
It's a constant critcism and I feel it has far less merit that is afforded it.

Have a good one. :good

 

this is not totally unrealistic, but you really need to state the cutoff point. Most people use either Dempsey or Louis as the cut off, as this coincides with the move to less rounds, and the improvements in film. Personally, i dont think it is impossible to compare era's unless you compare what fighters actually did in their own eras. Truth be told there is a reasonable argument that Joe Louis would not be a top 100 contender today because of the progression of the sport. Personally, i dont think it much of a viewpoint though, but it is pretty much the same line of thinking you have used here. It completely ignores what fighters actually did, based on what you think they might have done.

Like it was when Sullivan fought these guys! McCaffery was probably Sullivan's worst performance, and Sullivan was an out of shape alcoholic by then. Still, as this read shows he did dominate and knock him down twice on teh way to a comfortable 7 round points decision.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...J&pg=6075,5742700&dq=mccaffery+sullivan&hl=en

And i hardly think that Tyrone Booze, Terry Mims or Jeff meacham are going to last the four rounds against Sullivan, like they did against Holyfield

I cant agree with the old foreman claim, personally (young foreman maybe). Old Foreman is made for prime sullivan, even if you accept a progression of the sport. He was far, far too slow.

Holyfield may have been capable of going on the 4 round tour that Sullivan did. But i cant see him being as successful. Average fighters went 4 rounds with him all the time. How many NDs would Holy have if he took on Sullivans schedule. We know if he fought the fighters he fought, (even the average ones), he would have not won against byarn, Winbush, Booze, Qawi, Tillman, Occassio, Deleon etc. In fact, even if we kept the rules the same and only used the older scoring methods which required a KO or a clear cut (not a points) victory, then Holyfield could easily have ended up without a win (ND) against Quawi, Bowe,Ruiz, Oquendo at the least. Again, this really puts a downer on his career, i would have thought.

Anyway, i have been down a bit on Holy on this thread, and it is unfair because he was a great fighter. My point is though, that an era looked better when there are good fighters who are less successful than other fighters have been in their own era.

 

What lightheavyweight limit?

Over 158 lb = heavyweight

 

Well, Holyfield did a tremendous job in his own era, and by almost any reasonable measure his achievements and record were absolutely superb over about a 10+ year period, until he was about 37, 38 when he started losing to lesser fighters. Of course, he was clearly over-the-hill.
All attempts to portray his prime years as a series of sub-par performances are ridiculous, IMO.

Sullivan was great, I have no doubts about that. I happen to believe Holyfield was arguably almost as great, or just as great, or even greater - and I believe he proved it too.

Sullivan was knocked down by Charley Mitchell in his prime. The weights were 202 (Sullivan) and 150 (Mitchell). I don't think it matters much, but I don't hear anyone going on about it either.
But for some reason Holyfield's failure to KO an old Holmes or an old Foreman, etc. are instances that get dragged around as some sort of huge negative on his record, when they simply are not.

It's an interesting match-up. Worthy of its own thread, maybe.