PBF Pea Whitaker same era?

The poll is your idea. It isn't going to change my mind in the slightest.

Again, I never said that they overlap. I think they overlap with the group of fighters who most define this era. They are part of that group, just Whitaker ovelapped the beginning and Mayweather overlapped the end of that group. Not each other, but the group. And I think Mayweather was in his prime by 2000, possibly 1999.

 

Show it if you like. Like I said, most fans will look at Mayweather and Whitaker and see how far apart they are and call them seperate eras. If you ask them what era Whitaker belongs in, what will they say? SRL's era? No.....RJJ's era with DLH? Perhaps...but Mayweather started fighting right smack dab in the middle of Jones prime. Whitaker and Mayweather were prominant fighters, but they don't have a ton of prominant fighters who defined themselves at the exact same time as them, unlike Jones, DLH, Hopkins, Trinidad, etc. It's just how I see it.

And many fight fans will correlate Mayweather's era with Jones Jr's era, and Jone Jr started fighting in 1988. That's done here all the time.

And using the criteria I use, no one could realistically use it to bring the 70's era over to the 80's. The 60's and 70's was defined by the great HW's like Ali, Frazier, and Foreman. They stopped being relevant in the mid to late 70's as a whole. SRL, Duran, and the rest of the fab 4 became relevant around that time and defined their era until the very late 80's and perhaps early 90's.

 

Divac, that doesn't work at all. You are using a single fighter....Duran. I said the dominant GROUP of fighters. That would be the Fab 4 as a whole, and the majority of them were dominant and prime throughout the mid to late 80s.

You could remove Duran from the era and put him in Ali's. You could also put him in with the Fab 4, like most do. His career overlapped the two eras, but he is known for the latter. Leonard and Ali have nothing to do with each other. You are trying to use Duran as the bridge to put them together. But he is a single fighter, not a group. The bridge I am using to connect Whitaker and Mayweather is a group of fighters who defined the era who's primes overlapped with the two fighters at opposite ends. I don't believe Whitaker fought enough in the SRL era to be included in it, and there were not enough prominant great fighters around for him to have his OWN era. Same with Mayweather...he fought during the Jones, DLH, etc era as well, but at the tail end of it. There are not enough great prominant prime fighters now for Mayweather to have his own era. Most of the great fighters around now are from the era before this. You have a new era beginning over the past 2 years or so IMO.

An example of this is that I would put Mike McCallum in with the Fab 4's era because he was most prominant at the tail end of their era. I would not stick him in Jones Jr's era, nor would I give him his own era. Because there were not enough great fighters around with him to gain that type of recognition, at least not in comparison to the group before and after.

 

I will make this simpler.

Whitaker either goes in the era with the fab 4 or the era with Jones, Hopkins, and DLH. I put him with the latter.

Mayweather either goes with the the Jones, Hopkins, DLH era, or in the new era that is about to start. I put him with the former.

You give both their own era's apparently, or feel Mayweather is part of the new era with Cotto, Pavlik, Haye and the group coming up like Mijares, Donaire. Those guys are all just entering their primes. I don't put Mayweather with them. He is retired right when they are entering their primes.

 

I define Era, by fighter's Prime years.
[I use the 5 year window method]

Era can be used to discribe any amount of time
[Lifetime, Decades ect...IMO too much happens in Boxing in a short span for that]

Chavez [85-90] P4P at their best

Whitaker [88-93] P4P at their best

Toney [90-95] P4P at their best

Trinidad [94-99] P4P at their best

Jones [95-00] P4P at their best
De La Hoya [95-00] P4P at their best

Barrera [96-01] P4P at their best

Morales [98-02] P4P at their best

Hopkins [00-05] P4P at their best

Mayweather [02-07] P4P at their best
Hatton [02-07] P4P at their best
Pacquiao [03-08] P4P at their best
Cotto [07-__] P4P at their best

 

Their eras were separate but RJJ's career crossed both. Most people think Whitaker was better, and I wouldn't argue with that as they are both ATGs, but I think RJJ was the best fighter of either era- far far better at his peak than Mayweather, and Whitaker was better than Mayweather too.

 

Under that stupid logic, Tommy Hearns is also from the same era of PBF.

 

Not at all. Hearns fell from prominance in the late 80's early 90's. He last won a major title in 1991 well past his prime weight and past his prime. So by my logic, if you read the entire thing, he would belong to a different era then Jones and PBF. His era died when the fighters that defined it went with it.

 

You like era's to be short. Go for it. I don't care. I don't know why you are arguing something that is purely based on opinion and not even records and stats. I don't see why you're arguing my personal preference. I like era's to be longer and defined by a core group of fighters.

Holyfield is not in most people's top 20's of all time. I have seen him outside of people's top 40 before. Even so, I have him as part of the beginning of the Jones, DLH era. I consider Nelson part of the fab 4 era. His prime, like their's ended in the late 80's early 90's. There is nothing wrong with him. Lopez retired in 2001 and was a dominant champion from 1990 to 2001. So I again, rate him with Jones, Hopkins, Toney, etc. How do you figure he is with Whitaker and Chavez in a different era? His prime most coincided with Jones and Toney...the mid to late 90's.

That era, BTW, doesn't stand head and shoulders over the Jones era. That's ridiculous. Whitaker, Chavez, and Nelson weren't much better than Jones, Hopkins, Toney. Not to mention, there are simply MORE recognizable great fighters at the time frame I am discussing. Jones, Hopkins, Toney, Trinidad, Mosley, MAB, Morales, Calzaghe, etc.

Again, don't know why you are arguing my personal preference. I like good long era's. You like 5-7 yr eras, and that's fine. I'm not trying to prove you wrong.

 

Yes, you like short eras. According to you, since 1988, there have been at least 3 eras. That is less than 7 years an era. That is short. I like my eras to be long because I feel they mean more historically. I define them differently than most people. So what is your problem with that? It doesn't affect your opinion does it?

I am not going to repeat myself again. I view eras differently than most people and have clearly and concisely explained why. It doesn't matter that others view it differently in this instance because there is no basis or set parameters on how to seperate eras. It's pure opinion, even more so than a P4P list.