Is there any such thing as a poor era?

When we discussed this before, I questioned the basis of your claim that jabs weren't scored by many referees, and I pointed out that there are many reasons to build one's offense around the jab, other than point-scoring.

 

I am basing my claim (that jabs were not scored), on certain newspaper articles, which I will provide if you are interested.

When you got a controversial decision then, people would say "how the hell did he get the decision, he threw nothing but jabs, no proper punches".

Now I understand that the jab would still be a useful tool in that situation, but you would have a much greater focus on landing other punches.

a fighter who hid behind his jab, could loose because the other guy occasionally landed clean body punches.

 

Let's start with my main point: Do you reject my observation that the jab occupied a significantly more prominent role, in general, in the offensive repertoires of say circa 1980s heavyweights than say 1930s heavies? Most obvious in guys like Holmes, Douglas, Thomas, Tucker, Page, Tubbs, Tillis, Biggs, Williams, and even John Tate. A whole wave of big, tall heavyweights who built their offenses around their jabs, regularly doubled up their jabs, and combined their jabs with footwork to control fights and do damage from distance.

 

No.

It probably played a much bigger role in the 1930s, than it did in the 1910s, for the reasons that I have given!

 

Yes, there weak eras within certain divisions. Not even sure whybthats up for debate.

 

I think the debate is more about how much difference there is between a weak era and a strong era.

For example some people claim that Ruddock would have been a dominant champion, if only he had lived in the right era.

I don't buy that.

I think that the difference between a weak era, and a strong era, comes down to a handful of fighters.

 

Prior to them 20s body punching was very very important and scored as such

 

I will post the obvious question to the proponents of the weak era concept.

What was the biggest disparity between the champions, and the era?

If these "weak eras" exist, then there must be a case when a great champion, coincides with a weak era.

You make a lot of claims about what fighter A could have done in another era.

So when did something like that happen?

 

I think there are clear examples of a dominant champion benefitting from a weak era. You could argue sullivan, Jeffries, Johnson, and Dempsey were such. The obvious flipside to that is Ali who fought in a deep deep era although you could also argue that he left when the era started to peak and rewon his title when it started wane.

 

The only example that I really get any traction with is Sullivan.

That is how far back you have to go, to find a genuine example.

 

How do you figure? Dempsey had one legitimate HW threat. Hes next most dangerous opponent was a middleweight. 4 of his title defenses were against career lhws. You could throw an almost identical argument up about Johnson. Patterson is another that comes to mind.

 

Ok, cool. Since you agree with my main point, all that's left to figure out is when critical masses of heavyweights began using the jab in that manner, and why. Do you see this as a continuous evolution from the 1910s to the 1930s to the 1980s, or based on what you've seen and read, do you get the sense that there were particular threshold moments?

 

How was Dempsey's era strong?

He defended against complete heavyweight non-entities in Gibbons, Carpentier, Firpo and Brennan. I could pick any 4 of Lewis' defenses at random and blow these away.

 

There is an argument prevalent in almost every other major sport that the athletes have become bigger, faster and stronger. Does this hold water in boxing? Or is boxing an outlier? Or are the commentators on these other sports incorrect?

 

Poor eras? Not really bc you are comparing the fighters who fight against each other , not the era itself. An era dominated largley by one guy is labled as weak by most and usually a double standard( Louis/ Klitchko) ,the hard truth is its usually bc a dominant era champion is just that good and stands above everyone. Put some mediocre guys in other eras and they are top fighters then.It has nothing to do with weak era but giving more advantages to that fighter that he wouldnt have in his own era.

Ex: Throw a top 90's guy in the 40's and what do you think happens?

You cant be a champion easily if anything is weak,otherwise there would be many champions. Of course many guys who werent champions would be in some eras,the biggest myth in boxing is that champions in other eras get put over other era fighters bc they held a belt. Talk about fallacy logics on here.