Explain to me how the Heavyweight division is on fire......Take away Fury v Wilder tell me in your opinion how you are over the moon with what you have seen?
I went to a burns unit and still only won 2nd prize in a beauty contest pal Jokes aside, it's not a great era
Lol no matter what i say you aint gonna agree..If you dont think the Heavyweight division is strong and going great at the moment then you are either a hater or you dont live in the real world.
It's a lot better than ten/fifteen years ago. I'd take the top three and probably a few more to beat several world champions from that era. Let's face it: Maskaev, Lyakhovich, Chagaev, Briggs, Ibragimov, Ruiz and Valuev really weren't much cop.
In a fantasy tournament in the late 60s put together by boxing writers, Ali lost to Jim Jeffries. Nat Fleischer didn’t even have Ali in his top 10 heavyweights of all time in 1968. He actually had Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Tunney and Schmeling in front of him. If you pick up a boxing mag from any era, chances are they will be slagging off the quality of the heavyweight division. Either the current fans have finally got it right after decades of rose-tinted bull****, or the heavyweight division today is actually alright in terms of quality. In terms of excitement, it’s obviously better than it has been for a long time.
Contenders back then like Tommy Morrison, David Tua, Razor Ruddock and Pinklon Thomas would comfortably beat your Dillian Whyte's, Joseph Parker's, Dominic Breazeale's, Kownacki's etc. Even the Klitschko era was probably stronger than today's. Prime Vitali & Wlad themselves were better than the big three today. Prime Povetkin would beat Wilder & possibly AJ. Pulev was or even IS better than today's contenders. David Haye was also better than the contenders today. I wouldn't pick Whyte over someone like Chagaev. Was it more boring? Yes. The big 3 today are very flawed, which makes it very exciting. They are great to watch, particularly AJ & Wilder (although I enjoy Fury's herky jerky style). They just need to bloody fight each other. Thankfully Wilder & Fury stepped up to the plate, and will be rematching again. AJ vs Wilder would be INSANE - guaranteed fireworks. It would be the most hyped I've ever been for a fight.
They'd probably fail WADA and wouldn't even see the insides of a ring. Just look at some of the guys from that era, Holyfield probably contained enough drugs to start your own mafia syndicate.
I see two approaches. One is to accept that the current testing regime is the best indicator we have at the moment and that natural justice demands that we give fighters the same presumption of innocence that anyone should expect from a modern justice system. By those criteria Joshua is, until evidence to the contrary emerges, innocent. The second approach is to indulge in innuendo and smears, saying 'they're all at it, look at his physique, you're not telling me he's not on something' etc. I think this approach snide at best. Neither approach are ideal. The chances are that the first will result in some guilty parties being exonerated, the second that some innocent people are smeared. I'm of the opinion that the second is the better one of the two. Although there does come a time, let's call it the 'Evan Fields moment' when any rational person would conclude that where there's smoke. So I'm not advocating an absolute position, but I don't much like the second approach. Finally, even once roids are taken out of the equation, I think that there's a tendency to overrate the past era's. People remember the memorable fights and not the dross. The fact is there was a lot of dross, a lot of guys who made a living based on physique rather than skill, a lot of hype and often that hype wasn't matched by the action. Modern fighters have better training, better nutrition, the advantage of all the experience of bygone era's on which to build and the addition of boxers from countries previously shut out of the pro game has made a big impact. HW boxing is doing fine.
Come on guys, how is this era much different to the "stronger ones" of years past? You have 3 "kings" in AJ / Wilder / Fury. Then you have 4/5 solid contenders outside of these in Whyte / Povetkin / Ortiz / Pulev / Parker. Then you have the fringe guys who are decent in Chisora / Miller etc. It's not much different to Ali / Frazier / Foreman and then the tree descending down from there. Before people jump down my throats I'm not saying our current 3 are better than those of times past, but the structure / levels are more or less the same on a like for like basis. I'm happy with the division.
I don't care about PEDs. For decades now, there has been cheaters who were busted, and cheaters who conveniently slipped through the net. There's plenty of smoke around Joshua with the obscene amount of muscle he put on after turning pro, the changes to his jawline/facial features and his HGH gut. This debate came about from me claiming contenders from other era's were stronger than today's contenders. You claimed they wouldn't pass drug tests despite Tommy Morrison being the only one named who is widely known to be guilty. You do know AJ's next opponent Jarrell Miller has failed for PEDs before? Nah, I'm not one of those looking at bygone eras with fondness. I'm 25 year old. I don't have any sentimental attachment to those era's. The tapes, however, clearly show me that those guys were much more skilled than the contenders today. I really don't think it's even up for debate. You talk about better training, and better nutrition. The top fighters from the 80s would often work at an incredible pace for 15 rounds, putting to shame some of the fighters we see today. if we are to shout PEDs then we must do the same with fighters today when Canelo is popping. The PEDs aren't helping him keep up a great pace for 12 rounds. Duran, Hagler, Leonard & Tyson would all be the best in their respective division today. From what I see on tape, boxing was at its pinnacle from the 70s/80s/90s. As for my original point, it speaks volumes that the past era's contenders in Povetkin & Pulev are probably the best guys today outside the top 3.
Most things in life look better when you look back briefly. In the present, we naturally spend too much time focusing on the negatives. Thinking about the past, we naturally filter out the negatives and embrace the positives from those times. I don't know why we do it, but we do. Happens with thoughts about sport and life in general. The current era is enjoyable and that's all that should matter to us fans at the moment. You can't compare their levels to past fighters too meticulously because we're only at beginning. AJ and Fury could go up another level or two. Wilder could spark both in the next 18 months. We just don't know yet and that's what makes it enjoyable. So sit back, enjoy and leave the real scrutiny for ten years time when all are retired and a new crop are attempting to emulate the achievements of today's top guys.
2003-15 says hi. You're either a Klitschko fan or have just started watching boxing recently because no fan with a clue would claim this era is worse than the Klitschko era, Adamek, Stiverne, Chagaev and Eddie Chambers were all in the top 5 for several years during that period for example, fighters who right now would struggle to get in the top 10. In fact I'd say the late 90's to early 2000's era was inferior to now, yes Lennox was in his prime but Tyson and Holyfield were past it plus Bowe, Foreman, Moorer, Morrison and Mercer were all finished by that point. Heavyweight division right now is the best it's been since the mid 90's.
I don't know why nobody sees Miller as a threat, he can punch hard and is improving. I also don't see how a drug cheat like Povetkin can be rated 5th, his time has been and gone.
