Is there any such thing as a poor era?

I look at an era as a decade + which allows every boxer to prove himself in 10 years.. And Yes I totally agree that there are strong era's and weak era's.. I think it's basic common sense to see that the Klitcho's era and the , let's say Ali era, were so drastically different comp. wise.. I mean it's true that a boxer can't help his comp. but that also works on the flip side when boxer's have extremely tough comp... So if you fall in a weak era than you better DOMINATE impressively compared to others in tough era's.. If not, then resumes, activity, etc. don't mean anything. sorry .. that's just the way the cookie crumbles

 

Firstly, Ali fought for two decades. And during the last 6 years of that he was facing the Leon Spinks and Coopman's of the world. Even if you focus on the great Frazier, Norton, Foreman nexus of the early 70's, you find guys like Jose Ramon, Jose Luis Garcia, Jack Bodell, old ass Earnie Terrell, Wepner and Bugner consistently in the top ten.

Given the greater athleticism of Klitchko's era, it's easy to find relativity. Seriously, how much catcalling would have occurred if a Chuck Wepner, Coopman, Dunn, Daniels, Stander, Ziglewicz, Roman or Evangelista showed up opposite Wlad?

 

Sure remember late 90's to late 2000's heavyweight division.

 

There are currently only 2 white american champions right now. The biggest star is not American, the GOAT in MMA is either Canadian, Brazilian or Russian.

Your statement is nonsense.

 

See, THAT is a very interesting insight. Is that actually true? I've never considered it.

 

Yep, but one has to focus on theory if yer even gonna try. Loads of times you read a criticism that doesn't even fit the bill for what the fighter is trying to do. For example if you're looking at Marciano and think criticizing his lack of defense is valid you're a bit of an idiot. Marciano was not training to be or trying to be a hit and don't be hit boxer, got no need for classic defense and that criticism doesn't fit the theory.

So often you'll see fan historians claim this era or that era was weak when in fact those men were very good at what they are meant to be very good at it's just the historian themselves have no appreciation for what that era is doing.

Then there are the excuse makers. X can't be great because of this vague excuse sort of folk. Staying with Marciano how often will one read about his era being filled with old men and so weak? Well isn't that a false equivalency? Isn't weak boxing something done in physics not in age or name? I've never read anyone trying to downplay Jersey Joe's technical prowess or what he was up to in the ring, just his age. Was it a weak era because Joe and Archie were old and Ezzard had started years before Rock? Joe's age made his punch structure go off powerline? Like ****, no one's going to go to bat for the idea that Joe had poor punch structure. No one's going to pretend like Jersey didn't fight a grueling pace. You'd be crazy to claim his timing had gone south. No one ever offers a technical breakdown of how Marciano beat Joe with Joe's age they just discredit the win in vague terms because of Joe's age.


It's like this, if I paint a dot blue and you say I'm **** at painting because it should be red your opinion is valid but it didn't even attempt to discredit the shape or form of the dot just the preference of color. That's pretty much all I read. Two sides arguing over what is more their preference to watch or read rather than honestly dissecting who tried to perform a theory and did it poorly vs who was true to theory.