Last 20 yrs Stack Well Against Other Era's...Why Does It Get A Bad Rep????

They are all haters stuck on the past!

 

I wouldnt say the modern era is **** its just that the HW division, until Wlad's dominance, was in limbo for a few years. After Lennox retired and Vitali was hurt people started getting impatient with the division. Even today since Wlad is considered a "not exciting HW champ" many people are unhappy with the sport. The truth is the rest of the divisions are just fine now, and even though Wlad isnt the most explosive HW, he is a damn good fighter and knows how to win. He still has a good KO percentage so people should stop bitching.

 

I think it stacks up well against any era

 

It does stack up well...but its the change in culture that has seen it compared less favourably.

The best dont fight the best as much anymore...Title fights are over 12 rounds instead of 15 or 20. More divisions, more titles mean the dilution of what it means to be a world champion.
Fighters care more about money then legacy...Therefore fighters are protected from risk because a single loss can destroy a career. That wasnt case in years gone by and people moved on from a loss pretty quickly back in the day.

There is also the likely hood that the waning popularity of boxing and the emergence and increased popularity of other sports has seen the talent pool get smaller.
50 years ago boxing was a global sport..boxers were household names in not just there own patch of the world.

In my list of top 30 fighters I would have around 10 or so that have fought in these eras. But I dont think boxing as a sport has progressed like others.

 

i have 18 fighters in my top 100 from this era...

1.Whitaker
2.Chavez
3.Jones
4.Lewis
5.Holyfield
6.Hopkins
7.Pacquiao
8.Mayweather
9.Lopez
10.De La Hoya
11.Trinidad
12.Mosley
13.Barrera
14.Morales
15.Calzaghe
16.Tyson
17.Marquez
18.McCallum

i think it's just an ok era...very underrated era considering how the business and politics changed the sport