Is this a terribly weak heavyweight era?

You have to look past the few names on top when determining strength or weakness of an era in a division. Fury, Joshua, Usyk is all well and fine...but what happens when you get to about 6 or 7 or 8 names down the list? You've got the likes of deflated Bulgarian fart-bag, Pulev? ...average-ass Kownacki? Ragged and war-torn Chisora?

A division has to be deep to be good. HW isn't deep, it's top-heavy.

 

I’m enjoying this era. Glad Klitschko’s don’t have any more brothers in the sport because they were boring to watch, IMO. If Usyk can compete, it could be a fun era. Also, Fury looked good last night but you don’t know which Fury is going to show up if he fights AJ. I’m cool with any combination of fights as long as they top guys fight each-other.

 

Pretty much all of them are viewed as weak at the time. I can't dig up the quotes now, but trashing the current one is a phenomenon that's been going on as long as there's been a heavyweight division.

 

There is a very esoteric truth which explains this phenomenon...

Open your minds, folks... active your chakras, expand your consciousness and be ready to receive the wisdom of the cosmos...

The reason everyone says "this era sucks" about every heavyweight era...





















































IS BECAUSE THEY ALL SUCK

 

Its the best its been since the 90's. Weak era's don't attract a huge casual audience like its doing now.

If it was a bad era nobody would care about it. All the networks haven't given the division this kind of coverage in 20 years and they constantly say this this is one of the best times for HW boxing.

The HWs are the face of boxing atm and thats because its a great division.

 

This is probably the only time in its existence when it isn't being called weak.

 

Again, everything you're talking about is centered around the few stars atop the division. "Weak" = "lack of depth". You think a division where a Pulev or Chisora or Kownacki figures into a top-10 (even back-end) has depth?

Yes weak eras attract casuals if there are three or four big names as lightning rods for attention, with everybody from the 4/5 spot down sucking.

 

Its pretty deep
It has more layers than most other divisions , which are mostly top heavy as well and bodering on unkowns outside the top 10.

Beyong the top 10 you have guys like Hunter , Hrgovic , Doubois , Joyce , Rivias , Agagba , Bakolie , Kowanaki..

The division is stacked!

 

Average-skilled contenders or unproven prospects, the lot.

Stacked my ass.

 

Thats an impressive list of names for guys ranked outside the top 10. You wouldn't find a list as good in any other division..outside the top 10

 

Yes, you will. You're overrating the shit outta those guys.

 

idk if its weak but defo exciting and way better that the klits brothers run

 

Boom, there's a reasonable answer.

 

It's a bit inconsistent and sloppy. A lot of top ten/twenty guys are huge and powerful but lack skills or world-class technique. Wilder, Whyte, Miller, Kownacki, Breazeale are really crude and lack craft compared to earlier eras. But the two top guys, Joshua and Fury, are as good as anyone in history, and Usyk is brilliant as well.