Is there any such thing as a poor era?

Not every fight.

Some modern fights have less jabs thrown than others.
Same thing with old school fights. There is no difference there.

 

Boxing has declined since the 80's. The 90's was the last era where we saw a notable number of HOF's and ATG's in all weight classes.
2000's and 2010's have been pretty bad.

To put it into perspective, the only boxers I am certain will have ATG careers: Lomachenko, Gonzalez, Ward, Usyk, Kovalev, Golovkin and Rigondeaux (but he's looked awful at late and is quite old).

BUT the amateur scene is more like the pros now, and we're going to have an increasing number of monsters turn pro.

 

Why didn't Baer throw more jabs against the much smaller Galento then? Seems like if there was ever a fight to maximize your use of a jab, it would be that one. Maybe he didn't understand the basics of how to beat wide power punches with jabs?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RaM5u6Z3aE

 

Gentlemen such as yourself, get a bit too comfortable with the old timers being damned based on the footage.

This makes you cast a critical eye over footage of the old timers, while accepting every technical flaw displayed by more recent fighters!

If it happened before the advent of colour film, it is a technical weakness.

If it happened after, then it is merely an unorthodox style!

 

:happy

 

What on Earth are you talking about? Show me an example of me contradicting myself that way. Are you ready to admit that you were talking out your ass when you talked about the breakthrough in heavyweight jabbing coming before Liston if it occurred at all? Or should I keep waiting for your list?

 

This is a 5 minute highlight showing the big exchanges of a full length match.

Got a longer version, where we can see full rounds?

Also, this is a matchup between two sluggers. I can find modern fights where few jabs are thrown. Can you prove a pattern of jab-less fights? There will always be exceptions. Which Baer vs. Galento probably isn't.

 

Certain eras have more depth of talent than others. Louis' era and Wlad's era were fairly thin on talent, whereas the 70's and 90's had a large number of talented guys, hence they are seen as superior eras.

 

:good

 

you have some good points there.
America didn't like it when their fat heavies stopped being the tops.
I thought at first they were just anti-British heavies because up till the 80s our big men weren't big at all so they weren't a threat.
Maybe the Klitschko brothers aren't as boring as the yanks have us believe???!

 

I am unclear on exactly what you are claiming that they did, that nobody did before them.

There have been fighters who used the jab as their primary weapon going back to the bareknuckle era.

I have never heard anybody name Liston or Ali as a boxing innovator, either at the time or subsequently.

 

They are. Specifically Wlad. Not so much Vits. But boring is boring, no matter where you're from.

 

I will tell you the main reason why I don’t but into the weak era argument.

It doesn’t necessarily follow that the stronger champions align with the stronger eras.

For example most people consider Joe Louis to be a strong champion, but consider his era to be comparatively weak.

Despite the fact that strong champions frequently crop up in weaker eras, not of them ever achieve total dominance.

There is always somebody who is able to give them a competitive fight.

This is why I would always give a champion credit for a legitimate spell of dominance.

 

Overall, in terms of decades, some are better than the other, but each decade has its share of top level pound for pound fighters.

The heavyweight eras can ebb and flow. One thing I believe people misread is inflating a person ability based on wins while ignoring when the wins happened, and factoring in losses and draws.

If there was a round robin bettween Fury, Wilder, Povetkin, Johsaua, Parker, and Martin, some would win, some would lose, but winning a match or two along would not necesarrly make one great as they would have a losing record among the top ten. 0-1 wins would be bad. 2 wins, just okay. Only the person who won 3 or more would be good. 4-5 would be very good.

In my view the best fighters should seldom lose period, and have no more than 1-2 losses and draws to non top ten level compeition. Of course if the fighter is very in-experinces, or way past their prime, the losses or draws should not count for much.

 

You are going to have to explain in clear terms, what these men who you name as the innovators, did that had not been done before.

Are you suggesting that they threw more jabs, somehow improved upon how to throw the jab, or discovered some new innovative way to use the jab?

There is an issue in the Jack Johnson era, that jabs were not scored by many referees, so a fighter who made the jab his primary weapon was often betting everything on a stoppage.

Fighters before the first world war would often lead with a left hook for this reason.