Is this era really that weak?

The era isn't weak, it's just that Floyd and Manny are so much better than the rest of the fighters. The fact that both of them are still considered 2 of the best fighters in the world even while being past their primes speaks volumes.

 

YES! Old men still rule the chumps in this era. Floyd is almost 40. Hop is 50. JMM KTFO Pacroid at almost 40. Lots of bums in this era. Wlad and Vitaly ruled at advanced age.

Let's look at the "top guys". Cotto is average. CANelo is mediocre. Margarito was a cheater. Pacroid is a cheater. Danny Garcia is so-so. Khan is so-so. Berto was a bum. .... this era sucks

 

At least half or more of mostly anyone's p4p list the fighters are from the last era.

 

General boxing media and the casual fans are actually what I was referring to. Period with one dominant champion is never viewed the same as the period of several guys being competitive to each other, regardless of the actual quality of the individuals. It often gives the unclear picture, difficult to objectively view even by the knowledgeable people.

I'm not sure about Povetkin taking full control of the division, with the main reason being his age as you have mentioned. If there were no Klitschkos for the past 3 or 4 years, then most likely, but as far as the present scenario is concerned, unlikely. It is however very possible that he wins a belt or two in the recent future.

Yes, I agree that he hasn't done much. However, his qualities speak for himself and at the time, he was favored to beat virtually everyone but the Klitschkos, and that was not because he was some kind of a "hypejob" we often see, especially in the lower divisions. I agree he talked himself into the title shot and undeservedly skipped the line. However, as far as his skills and individual quality is concerned, he is a world class heavyweight. Even in the lackluster performance he put against Wlad, he showed that he isn't a regular guy who Wlad beats without breaking a sweat. He had Wladimir very cautious for the 12 rounds, and Klitschko didn't (and couldn't) just walk through him or danced around for a few rounds before knocking him out. Wladimir was well aware of Haye's abilities and I'm sure that he knew that there was a world class guy standing in front of him. I agree that Haye had to take the risk, but it turned out that he was just too scared or cautious to do that. Perhaps he doesn't have that "all or nothing" mentality, but it doesn't mean that his quality and skills should be questioned.

For example, many people didn't think that Rigo was world class until he beat Donaire (or they rather didn't want to think that), but that doesn't mean that he wasn't world class and then magically transferred into that after that one fight.
I am sure that Haye on his best day would likely beat everyone expect Klitschko, and maybe Povetkin and Pulev, perhaps even give Wlad problems, and I'm pretty sure that most of the knowledgeable people are aware of that as well.

I think that it depends when would he have appeared. Given the situation, I don't think that he would have moved up in a situation where Tyson and Holyfield are the biggest stars, nor would he be keen to go through Lewis, simply because he would have better options from the marketability view. However, if he appeared and established himself as a CW titlist in the late 80s before (or at about the same time) Tyson established himself as a HW titlist, and used the British media to make his star (further assuming he would be the bigger name than CW Holyfield who would be the fellow titlist), then I think that he would have gone for those fights if the money was right (similar to the Wlad situation when he eventually managed to get a 50-50 deal). It is a very complex subject to discuss.

Well I have been pretty much following Povetkin throughout his both amateur and pro careers and surely I'd find it disrespectful or ignorant if a supposedly knowledgeable person claimed that he wasn't exactly an elite or a world class boxer.

He was a brilliant amateur, won the mentioned tournaments, went to the pros and took a tougher path, didn't exactly need anybody else to hype him up so he could avoid the line. I have already mentioned some stats and facts about his record etc. In a time where the only way to establish yourself is to go through the dominant champ, I'm sure that Povetkin had done everything possible be considered a legit world class. Even after his defeat, he didn't go back to the soft touches like it's often the case. He went right back into the contention and is taking on the fellow contenders, doing everything possible to get the Klitschko rematch. I think that you can't ask for more than that.

 

Yes I used the word "amazing", but you don't really need to call me on that, it doesn't have to be put out of context. Let's just say that it's very rare to see what Wladimir has done.

About the chances that someone else could go through Wladimir's reign with that much success, I still stand by that. I'm well aware of the qualities of the other past boxers and it requires not just skills and sole individual quality, but the right mentality to be capable of achieving the mentioned feat. I'm not sure if I should pick the examples, but many boxers had the skills, the quality and the right environment, but just didn't have that kind of mentality which is required to keep about the same level of dedication, motivation and many other aspects in order to stay on top for such a long time. On the other hand, some guys from the past who clearly had the required ethic and other things needed for a successful longevity, I don't believe that they would be capable of achieving that against the mentioned garniture of opponents, as much as I respect greatness and historical significance of those past champs.

I don't think that it's right to sort the boxers out strictly by the decades and declaring those to be the "eras". Ultimately, it's a wrong way to view the subject because some guys were on the top of their game in late/early periods of different respective decades. It's another not very simple subject to discuss. There are certainly other ways to view it, but I don't think that the "decades" are the right way.

 

OK - But, for the purposes of a serious discussion, where the needs of the media are of no concern, we should assume that we are able to be comfortably objective. My viewpoint on this being a weak era of Heavyweights stays fast, regardless of how competitive the division seems to be.

Agreed.

I guess I am supposed to just agree with you. It must be true because you're sure and most of "the knowledgeable people" are aware that Haye would likely beat every Heavyweight except Klitschko?

Unfortunately, I don't believe this to be the case and your comments are quite the starkest example of fallacy I have seen for some time.

On the one hand, we have been discussing Povetkin; him deserving to be considered 'world class', based on his actually proven track record and then you take this totally opposite approach to Haye, based purely on speculation.

This is nonsensical; so obviously designed to provide you with the widest possible scope for rating Wlad's level of competition, in order for you to support your claim that this is not a weak Heavyweight division.

It's only a complex subject if you give it serious consideration. There is very little likelihood that Haye would have been able to establish a successful Heavyweight campaign in the 90's - the late 80's even less so. The current era, however, provided the perfect opportunity for Haye to market himself as the 'saviour' of the Heavyweight division. Imagine him using that slogan during the time of Tyson's rapid ascent or in a division shared by Holyfield, Lewis and Tyson - he'd have been laugh out of the sport. It was neither marketable nor competitively or commercially viable. He wouldn't have gotten anywhere near demanding a 50/50 split from anyone.

But he has been able to easily market himself as a credible World Title challenger in this era. He needed little effort to get a shot and he has been able to make ridiculous demands and get away with it, to boot. Just think of how rare the circumstances have to be for a Cruiserweight champion, with a few meaningless wins at Heavyweight, to be in the position to drive the division towards, as Rafael put it, "one of the most awful big-fight performances in history."

I haven't exactly agreed that he is either "elite" or world class. I've mentioned that I will review Povetkin and think about it.

He's a good competitor but, if you keep in mind I have been suggesting this is a very weak era, then Povetkin's professional record also has to be considered in the circumstances and varying levels of competition.

 

I'm sorry but if you're going to overstate the quality of Wladimir Klitschko's reign then I am going to call you out on it, no less than you calling me out on stating his reign has been over a weak division.

I previously listed quite a number of heavyweights, amongst which are several regarded as Top-Ten All-Time Greats. There is not one Kltischko opponent, over the past ten years, who I would back to beat them - save a freak evening of considerable bad luck.

I have simply listed Boxers who were at some point or another in the Heavyweight top-ten, by decade. Where you consider an era to start and finish across these 30 years is down to you. That said, there was a natural passing of the torch nearing the end of the 70's and a fresh start at the beginning of the 90's. The 80's is more or less split between Homes and Tyson. It's not all that complicated.

In any event, it's a list of the competition a champion would likely have been faced with during those times and provides a reference point for understanding the level of Boxers who were around back then.

 

I agree that I didn't take the same approach with Haye and Povetkin, because I couldn't do that with Haye since he took a different path than Sasha, and thus eventually didn't prove himself as much as Povetkin did. However, we are forgetting that Haye was a fairly successful amateur, and won a World championship silver medal. He also didn't flop as a pro, but on the other hand didn't go and prove himself the way Povetkin did either.
Like you say, he was a world class cruiser. If we put that into the perspective, many "world class" heavyweights from the past were actually cruiserweights by today's standards. Don't get me wrong, I'm not using this to imply that Haye is a world class HW because of that, but now we have a question mark of whether those guys should be truly considered "world class heavyweights" from today's perspective or not.
Back on David Haye, since he moved up to HW and prior to his title shot at Wlad, he only fought Barret, Valuev, Ruiz and Harrison. Not exactly a good run. The only significant name here is Valuev, whose only other loss in pro career is Ruslan Chagaev. However, the title on the line was actually kind of a fake title, since Valuev already lost it to Chagaev, who then lost to Wladimir, but the politics prevented that title being on the line in Klitschko - Chagaev fight, and somehow gave it back to Valuev. Ironically, that same title was used by Haye as bragging power to get him a 50-50 deal. Nobody disputes that.

I would like to bring the case of Evander Holyfield, since I assume that you don't question him being the world class.

During his cruiserweight run (1986-88), Holyfield was a world class cruiserweight. However, his heavyweight run prior to the Douglas title shot wasn't exactly that impressive. It was still better that that of David Haye in my opinion, but surely not enough for you to consider him world class I assume. After Douglas, he defeated Foreman, Cooper and Holmes. Excluding Cooper who had no business fighting for a title, Foreman and Holmes were past champs who weren't anywhere near their best, and Holy received a lot of negative critics for fighting those guys. So prior to the Bowe fight, I assume that you wouldn't class Holyfield as the world class heavyweight based on the similar logic you used for Haye. Then Holyfield lost to Bowe, who himself wasn't a world class heavyweight (again based on the similar logic you used for Haye). After that fight, I think that perhaps we could agree that Holyfield wasn't exactly at his absolute prime anymore. So here comes the paradox, how does a world class cruiser, who isn't a world class heavy, magically become a world class heavy despite being past his peak (in order words, getting worse than he used to be)?

Note that I'm not questioning Holyfield being world class, just using your claims to make a similar case based on the logic you have previously used.

I agree that the current environment provided a perfect opportunity for Haye to market himself in the way he did. I also agree that he likely wouldn't do the same thing if he had appeared during the mid 90s, because he wouldn't be able to get so much attention on himself, therefore wouldn't be able to make a name of himself the way he did.
All I'm saying is that it depends on the situation and the environment. Had Haye appeared on the CW scene slightly before Holyfield did (and also slightly before Tyson won his HW title), and defeated some contenders and established himself as a CW titlist by that time, that would have allowed to use the British media to get the hype and become a big name, which would have created him the environment to entertain an opportunity to consider fighting Holyfield and eventually Tyson. Of course, that environment wouldn't be as good as he had now, but certainly better than it would be it he appeared in the 90s, when the big HW names were already established. So assuming he would be a hyped up British CW titlist and ex amateur medalist, probably the hottest name only behind a newly crowned WBC champ Tyson, then I believe that he would probably use his bragging power to talk himself into a good deal (perhaps not a 50-50 deal with Tyson, but still a very fine deal).

Well, if we are using the logic that "this era is weak because there are no good contenders" and then spin it to "it doesn't prove that he is good because this era is weak", then something is not right, since you can theoretically apply those phrases to literally any period.

Well, that's your opinion.

Well I do usually use phrases like "Klitschko era", "Holmes era", "90s era" etc to point on some periods, but that's nothing strict, and if we were to have some scientifical exact on determining which boxers fight it which "era", it would be probably hardly possible to make.

 

So, essentially, you admit there is no real consistency in the way you assess a Boxer's level of class, save your penchant for harking back to amateur achievement. And, where there is insufficient professional achievement as evidence, you will supplement this gap with favorable supposition.

No we do not. Have a think about what you've just suggested, in terms of proven results within a given division, no matter when these results were achieved. You should, on review, be able to work out for yourself why there is no question mark.

Holyfield's claim to Greatness:


Holyfield's Heavyweight run up to the eventual Douglas bout included stoppage wins against Thomas, Dokes and Rodrigues, all of whom were ranked in The Ring Magazine's Top-Ten Heavyweight annual ratings, during that period.

The Holyfield/Dokes bout was considered one of the best Heavyweight bouts of the 1980s and earned Holyfield the WBC Continental Americas Title.

Holyfield then faced an undefeated Alex Stewart in his second defence of this title.


Holyfield had been annually ranked one place below Tyson, in The Ring Top-Ten Heavyweights for two years (Number 1 in '88, with Tyson as Ring Champ and Number 2 in '89, with Tyson as Number 1; the Ring Champion slot being vacant) and was thus positioned as the natural challenger to Tyson.

Douglas, as we know, became the surprise Champion in early 1990.

Holyfield beat Douglas comfortably. Won KO3.


Whilst giving old man Foreman a shot may have been frowned upon by Holyfield's critics, Foreman gave a very good account of himself and despite the undeserved scorn from some quarters, the bout was very popular with the public; a PPV event drawing 1.4M buys - probably a record at that time. Holyfield Won UD12.

Foreman would go on to win a world title in 1994, which begged a re-evaluation of his title shot against Holyfield, some three and half years earlier. By the time he retired, with an 81-Fight career, Foreman had only lost 5 contests and was only ever stopped once - by Muhammad Ali.


Since the scheduled November '91 Holyfield/Tyson fight had been postponed due to a Tyson training injury, and several months later Tyson had been sent to prison, hopes of that particular showdown had to be placed on hold.

The undefeated Bowe emerged as the next in line. While a Holyfield/Bowe fight was in the works (Finkel and Newman haggling), Bowe competed in a WBA Title Eliminator, while Holyfield elected to have a stay-busy fight with Larry Holmes. By the time the bout was scheduled for November '92, Bowe was ranked Number 1 by the WBA and Number 3 by both the WBC and IBF.

Holmes' [also second] comeback, while not as illustrious as Foreman's, led to him winning a decision over previously undefeated WBO Titlist, Ray Mercer, himself coming off a win by devastating KO, over Tommy Morrison. Mercer was stripped of the title for matching Holmes (as opposed to Moorer).

Larry would lose a decision to Holyfield but fight on for another ten years, during which he would compete in two more world title bouts. Holyfield Won UD12.


Bowe/Holyfield 1 is largely regarded as a classic. It won Ring Magazine Fight of the Year and Round of the Year (rnd 10), while Bowe was awarded Fighter of the Year (by The Ring Magazine and the Boxing Writers' Association). It is listed by several publications as one of the greatest Heavyweight Fights (or just fights) of All-Time. Bowe Won UD12.

Holyfield garnered a great deal of respect for his performance against Bowe, who had turned up with his game-face on. This respect would grow bigger, as Holyfield recaptured the IBF and WBA titles from Bowe in the rematch.
Losing and regaining versions of the World Title, twice more, over a subsequent period of almost 7 years, Holyfield would twice triumph over Tyson, until finally reaching the long twilight of his career.



Haye's Claim to Greatness:


Haye stopped Bonin in his first outing at Heavyweight. Bonin was not even ranked in the EBU Top-20, at the time. Haye won TKO1.

Despite not having fought at Heavyweight for over a year since Bonin, the WBC installed Haye as a Number 5 Heavyweight contender. A few months later, the WBO gave Haye a Number 3 Heavyweight ranking.


Haye's second outing at Heavyweight, against Barrett, took place a year and a half after beating Bonin (having gone back to fight two Cruiserweight unification bouts). Barrett was only ranked by the WBO, at Number 8. Haye won TKO5.

Barrett has continued to compete, since his defeat to Haye, compiling a 1-4-2 run, in five and a half years.


It would be several days short of a year before Haye entered a Boxing ring again - This time against 'The Russian Giant', Valuev.

The WBA had installed Haye as their Number 5 Heavyweight contender, despite him not having fought and beaten another ranked WBA contender. Either way, he was given his shot at the WBA title (which seemed to be in limbo). Haye got the nod in an uneventful 12-rounder. Haye won 12MD.

Valuev never fought again, officially announcing his retirement in 2013, due to medical reasons.


Then came Ruiz, who was only recognised as a Heavyweight contender by the WBA, which had somehow ranked him at Number 1, even though he had not fought since his most recent loss to none other than Valuev. He did, however, fit one bout in, against an unknown, before facing Haye in April, 2010. Haye won TKO9.

Ruiz retired from Boxing that same month.


It would be more than another year before Wlad Klitshcko and Haye met in the ring, during which time, Haye had a fill-in fight with perennial punch-bag-on-legs, Audley Harrison. Haye Won TKO3.

Audley went on to a stoppage loss, in the first round, against Price; won Prizefighter; got stopped in the first (again) by Wilder.


Eight months later - Wladimir Klitschko Won [a Wide] UD12. Words used to characterize Haye's efforts against Wlad Klitschko have included "fell short" , "underwhelming" , "sub par" , "horrible disappointment" , "shambolic non-performance" and, of course, not forgetting Dan Rafael's "one of the most awful big-fight performances in history."

Haye blamed his little toe for this performance and was derided for doing so; he retired; came back to knock over 'lost 3 out of his last 4' Chisora; talked about a fight with Fury, which never came off, with Haye going into retirement again on medical grounds. Now, there is talk of another comeback with nothing confirmed as yet.



In summary:


These are the very separate tales of two Cruiserweights, who at different times attempted success in the Heavyweight division. There is no "paradox" - just the quite contrasting experiences and outcomes from their respective endeavors.

Whatever your interpretation of the claims you think I've made, in relation to Haye's level, you are mistaken if you believe they can be applied to Holyfield's.

You have both distorted and misapplied what you term as "similar logic", based on misconception and invalid assumptions. I hope the facts listed above will encourage you to find the flaws in your "case" by yourself.

Bar the fact that both Holyfield and Haye competed and unified titles at Cruiserweight, there is no comparison between them as Boxers, the level at which they operated or their respective career records.

Whilst I do not anticipate that you will concede on the point about Haye as a top class Heavyweight, I cannot see how many more avenues you can take to try and support what was your fairly weak position to begin with. You've gone as outlandish as one could go with this latest stretch of your imagination and, likewise, there is little more I could say on the matter.

 

There is a consistency of course, but I think that you've misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I consider a boxer "world class" when I see that his quality, abilities and other segments are on a world class level, not if he defeats "this guy" or "that guy". David Haye has demonstrated through amateur and pro career that his qualities are good enough to be considered world class, it just happened (for whatever reason) that he took different path from Povetkin and didn't achieve or accomplish even nearly as much, but I consider a boxer "world class" when I see that he is good enough, and there is no inconsistency in that.

Also, at the time Wladimir and Haye fought, David Haye was considered a world class opponent for Wlad by virtually everyone, and as far as your claims about him not being a world class opponent are concerned, you are in a big minority.

I'd also like to present another example in order to clear the possible misunderstanding about my apparent "inconsistency".

Let's start with Carl Froch. Throughout his career, he has beaten many quality opponents including Kessler, Bute, Abraham, Taylor, Pascal etc, so I guess that we can agree that he could be considered "world class". He has also made a big name of himself, became a major boxing star, even sold out the Wembley stadium and pretty much established himself among the most popular boxers.

Now we have Andre Dirrell, who had a solid amateur career, but didn't accomplish even nearly as much as Froch did in the pros. Prior to the Froch fight, he had barely beaten anyone of note. He was robbed against Froch in England, then defeated Abraham via DQ and was pretty much inactive ever since.

So I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you don't consider Andre Dirrell a world class boxer (or considered, since I'm not aware of Dirrell's present condition). Well, I did (still do if he didn't get significantly worse due to his absence) consider Dirrell a world class boxer because I've seen him in both ams and pros, and I surely recognized his qualities. Maybe Carl Froch has the resume, fame, popularity etc, but I know that Andre Dirrell is better than Carl Froch. He has even proven that in their fight, where Froch landed barely any punches of note and got outlanded in pretty much every single round if I'm correct, but unfortunately he was robbed of a rightful victory in England that night. He basically outclassed Froch that night, but the disgraceful judges did what they did.

So how could you tell me that Carl Froch is a world class boxer and Andre Dirrell is not? Because of accomplishments? Please. I doubt that any knowledgeable person who follows boxing could think that Froch as a boxer is a level above Dirrell. If anything, it's Dirrell who is a level above Froch (once again assuming that he is still at his best).

So there you go, I believe that I'm pretty consistent in a criteria I apply when considering boxers "world class".

As for Holyfield's and Haye's claims to greatness, I didn't ever question that Holyfield accomplished and achieved more than Haye did, I have even pointed that out myself.

 

I'm not sure where you're going with this now. It seems you are deliberately not addressing responses to flaws in your own assumptive and confused rhetoric; claiming you are "consistent". At the same time, you claim I have missed your point and then just add another debatable example for the sake of it.

I think we've easily established that what world class boils down to, for you, is your own opinion. If you think they're good enough then that's that - regardless of a lack of facts to support your view or any facts presented, which counter your stance. It doesn't matter because it's just about your opinion of what you've seen.

When you can accompany your subjective viewpoints with an appeal to the majority (e.g. I must be "in a big minority") or, worse still, the authoritative majority (e.g. "I doubt that any knowledgeable person who follows boxing could think..."), then all's the better - you must be right. Quite odd, given that it was you, at the beginning, who was being so pious about supporting opinions with facts.

Unfortunately, if you can't be objective; examine the reality of performance levels and take results into account, then there's nothing else to discuss here.

 

Yes, it is.

It's top-heavy. Manny and Floyd are indeed great, so is B-Hop. The Klits would be champs/title-holders in pretty much any era.

But the overall talent pool is weak. There really is a lack of technical skills and boxing "know-how" as opposed to, say, the 80s and 90s for example.

Pretty sizeable declined in the areas of in-fighting, footwork, and intelligent pressure.

B-Hop isn't still performing at a high level at almost 50 ONLY because he is a great fighter and genetic freak with great work ethic. He also is successful because he has the knowledge and skills, nuances of boxing that many fighters lack. The p4p list of the past few years has had a lot of guys who are old.

 

Well, I haven't noticed that you have done much to explain your own criteria of considering boxers "world class", other than questioning and trying to discredit my views. You are trying to put some kind of irony on my statements that your opinion of Haye not being considered world class is in the minority, yet failing to present anything that would back your own claims regarding that. You are also calling the Dirrell/Froch example "debatable" and even saying that I've mentioned it "just for the sake of it", yet once again failing to respond to that with an actual argument.

Also, even when I presented the facts about Povetkin's career, opposition etc (which you apparently wasn't aware of), you still "haven't exactly agreed that he is either elite or world class", and the only argument you have presented on your own was the old fashioned "but this is a very weak era" phrase. Surely that sounds very objective.

 

You CAN have a weak HW era, but still have an overall strong era of boxing. The 80s were proof of that. Sure, the HW division was weak at that time, but in the lower weights you had the Fab Four and Benitez.

Now, the sport is at its best when it has a strong HW division AND a strong era overall. For this reason, the 90s were one of the best decades for boxing. Even without the HWs, you had Chavez, Whitaker, RJJ, De La Hoya, Mosley, Trinidad, Hopkins, Toney, and Calzaghe.