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

Unforgiven,
what if i turn the question around just a little.

How highly would Walcott and Charles have ranked if Joe Louis had not got old by the time he fought them, and instead had demolished them like he probably would have if he was in his prime. Would anyone then consider these two to be top20 or 30 ATGs? Or does the fact that Louis' skills eroded to the point where he could have close exciting fights (because he was not as good as he used to be) also create the impression of a stronger era towards the end of his career?

 

I don't know.
I've always assumed the late 1940s (post-WW2) was a weaker period for HWs than the 1930s (pre-war), and that Walcott was a bit lucky to face a faded Louis.
I don't think anyone at the time was calling it a strong era.
I disagree with people who believe Walcott was easily the best man Louis beat.


On the other hand, maybe I DO overrate Holyfield, but that has nothing to do with my perception of the 1990s era - which I don't think was anything special either. I don't think Holyfield is overrated generally - I believe he's greater than Lewis and Tyson, and rarely gets enough credit for that.
Of course, my claims about what he'd do in Sullivan's era or Louis's era, or Jeffries' or Johnson's era, are just rhetorical devices to consider all possibilities.
I actually believe Holyfield was quite close to being that "dominant" in his own era and it's only by twisting or ignoring some of the facts and details that his record can seem inferior.