We've just had the third best heavyweight era in history

had to like the post just on the use of the word "perambulate".

 

There was some people saying it was the 1930s just to add here.

 

Fury and Usyk are solid HWs that wouldve competed in any era. Wilder and AJ arw fodder

 

I tend to see the current super heavyweights as bad prototypes of what’s coming next—guys with the height of Fury who can box like middleweights, with great power but also more athleticism and consistency, something the Gypsy Clown lacked. I’m thinking more along the lines of an Ike Ibeabuchi, but instead of 6'2", closer to 6'5"+. I’m sure this is what a promoter or trainer is looking to deliver to the world of boxing in the near future.

As for the question of whether these guys constitute the third best heavyweight era in history... maybe, H2H, mainly due to their size. Give Fury a brain and more athleticism, and I think Usyk gets sent back to cruiserweight.

 

Usyk yes, Fury no. Fury lost to McDermott, got dropped by an MMA fella on his debut and taken to a razor-thin decision, and then spent half of his prime ballooning to 28 stone. Would have been absolutely annihilated in the 70s and the 90s. Foreman, Holyfield, Lennox, and Tyson in his prime would've destroyed Fury. Prime vs prime, it wouldn't surprise me if Lennox took out Fury in 1 round.

 

So 70's is considered amazing. Interesting. In no other sports is this the case.
But the most promoted and 'iconic' Murican HW's align with it. What a coincidence! And also the era where mass media really began to amplify 'pro sports' around the world, but mostly from, guess where? Murica!

The whole era talk gets ridiculous because people can't make up their mind whether it means the competition was more interesting or the level was better. An era being more competitive doesn't mean the competition is a higher level.

For instance, when Federer and Nadal dominated tennis in the 2000's, the level was much higher than the 70's/80's. But the sport was nowhere near as competitive in terms of challengers for the top prizes. It was dominated by two people. It wasn't a weak era, it was simply that there was a big gap between the 'ATG's' and the rest. Then the pattern repeated with Djokovic and Nadal. The era's of the three best players in history were the least competitive in history in terms of titles being shared around. If tennis fans were as dumb as boxing fans they'd say these eras were a terrible level and the players were way worse.

 

I mean in all fairness, the McDermott fight was in the very beginning of his career and has very little to do with now. I think the Ngannou fight is an even bigger disgrace than you do, because I don't think he won a razor thin...I think he flat-out lost. But let's be honest that he was in disgusting shape. There simply is no taking away his career performances against Klitschko, Wilder, and Whyte.

You can do this with anyone...

Tyson- Lost to a career fringe contender in Buster Douglas, and can you believe that he rounded out his career losing to Danny Williams and McBride? Makes you think that he was lucky to get a very old version of Holmes and a bunch of drug addicts in the beginning.

Holyfield- How good could have have been losing to Moorer and Ruiz? And that knockdown against Cooper- a gatekeeper! A lot of his "greatness" came from the HGH he has shipped to his home under the name "Evan Fields" (actually, that part is 100% true)

Foreman- as he really that great, losing to the slowed-down 70's version of Ali and Jimmy Young? Hell, he lost to Tommy Morrison, and what about that gift he got against Schultz? Very lucky to have gotten a Frazier that was denuded from the fight of the century...

And on and on.

Fury is less than all these guys...in fact, significantly less. But he has a legacy of his own, and yeah, he'd have beaten some guys in any era if he could keep himself clean and trim.

 

Michael Bentt might have a word or two

 

When Wilder is the 3rd best HW of the era, you can't claim it's the 3rd best era. It proves how weak it was.

 

seriously, lol. most people dksab. even after watching for a decade, they still dksab.

 

I don't adress that guy, but it is worth noting that Wilder is AT BEST #6.

Usyk
Fury
Joshua
Dubois
Parker

Then maybe Wilder. On the other hand, given how few good fighters Wilder has actually beaten, you could plausibly have it...

Usyk
Fury
Joshua
Dubois
Parker
Ruiz
Whyte
Wilder

It really comes down to whether you like the statistic of title defenses, or actual quality wins.

I think its still too early to put Kabeyal ahead of him, but that day is coming quick.

 

I think this era could rate above the 1990s in terms of talent. Why 3rd?

 

Wilder was ranked Rings Top 3 for Eight consecutive years. The general consensus among fans over that period was he was part of the big 3 at HW until his third loss to Fury and the emergence of Usyk. What you are trying to do with revisionism. As I said when Wilder is ranked top 3 for either years, your era is trash. You seem to think 'this era' means the last 3 years. It's the last decade.