What was the hardest heavyweight era?

i don't get it....

 

We currently have Joyce at #8, and Hergovic at #9.

that in my humble estimation, is a tough era!

 

You have a strange habit of arguing against points I never made. I never said variety=skill.

Usyk's career is not over. He could end his career with multiple brutal KO losses. Or he could retire undisputed and undefeated and a lock for top 10 ATG. Or somewhere between the two extremes. We don't know yet. So far he looks excellent and I'm a fan.

Fury and Usyk are just 2 guys. The vast majority of guys in today's division are not particularly impressive. Fury literally has 1 successful title defense and Usyk has zero. Their skills are noteworthy but their resumes are fairly thin so far.

 

And how many of those fighters fit that bill?

 

You were arguing for the strength of the era based on variety. Focusing on one area, often comes at the expense of developing other areas. Ali had no offense. Frazier had no defense. Foreman punched himself out. Norton's style limited him. Young was a caricature of Ali.
The best Heavyweight of the era was Quarry, who was actually a LIGHT Heavyweight. And ever Quarry was an unfinished product.

At this point, it doesn't matter where Usyk's career goes. He has already demonstrated more skill than any of those men in their careers.

And yes, the air is thin at the top, but it's because big men are less athletic.

Gronkowski is the greatest non-QB to every play Football. Do you see him doing flips and spins like SImone Biles? If Simone Biles is a better athlete than Gronk, why isn't she an NFL Tight End?

No one questions athletes in other sports, like Basketball, Football and Baseball. But Boxing's Heavyweights are excoriated.

 

Ali did have offense. He had one of the best pull counter right hands, an ATG jab, excellent flurries. Frazier's defense was his bob and weave. Foreman punched himself out only once in more than 40 fights. Young had several differences from Ali.

Quarry was not "actually" a light heavyweight. He literally never weighed 175 in his entire career and the vast majority of his weigh ins were above 190--so I suggest you look up what the word actually means. Quarry absolutely was not the best fighter in the era, but he was fairly well rounded.

I was arguing for the strength of the era based on both style and skill, not that sheer variety alone meant it was a great era.

It absolutely matters what happens next in Usyk's career. As I mentioned his career might end in a dumpster fire and he has a thin resume. 1 win doesn't make you the best, unless you want to say Tokyo Douglas was the best ever.

 

And I am sure by the standards of that era, that actually counted for something.

Too bad we are talking all time.

I don't know why this is going over your head. He was smaller than Spinks, the same size as Patterson and Foster. He CHOSE to compete at Heavyweight, but his frame and measurements prove he was undersized. Again, a fact that no one in the world, but you, disputes. It's actually damn near comical how much smaller Quarry is at times. Do you believe Tommy Burns was also the same size as Ali, Foreman and Frazier?

I fully admit he was still unrefined and had very poor training habits. But Quarry really was the most skilled/complete: he was a Boxer-Puncher. He was undersized, and tried compensating by carrying excess weight into the ring. Look at how much they all suffered when they began carrying 10 extra pounds into the ring. Quarry, with his smaller frame, was carrying at least that. And none of them handled their beatings as well as Jerry.

People throw around the term P4P all the time these days. Most of them have no idea what it means. Pound-for-Pound Quarry was better than the rest of them. A 6'3" svelte 215 Quarry murks them all.

Funny thing is, Quarry would have no problem becoming a champion in today's Light Heavyweight division. Especially with a real trainer, not his father, who'd instill discipline and polish up his game. Conversely, the rest of them would've been chewed up and spat out at Cruiserweight by Usyk. And Frazier also by Gassiev.

 

Well, Ali and Foreman's careers ended as dumpster fires.

There's no one around today as bad as Spinks, Norton or Berbick to lose to.

Usyk ain't getting retired by no Jimmy Young.

 

Ali's jab and pull counter are still top 10 all time. I dare you to make a poll. There hasn't been a single HW other than Tyson whose head movement has been as good as Frazier's since Frazier retired. You can make a poll for that too.

Let me know when you've managed to look up what the word "actually" means bud. He never registered as a light heavyweight and not once in his entire career did he meet the light heavyweight limit.

Whether or not Quarry had the frame for the division and could have made that weight if he tried is an entirely different conversation.

You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned beatings. Quarry took plenty of losses even when he faced men closer to his own size. What was the excuse for the loss to an old Eddie Machen? It certainly wasn't because of size. Quarry had far too many losses to claim he was the most skilled in that era. He never even became champion.

Pure speculation.

The thread is about what actually happened.

More speculation and way off topic. By all means make some more threads since you can't seem to stay on topic for a single page.

Everyone knows Ali stayed in the game too long. So did Robinson, is he no longer an ATG? Chavez? You look at the whole overall career. Just like the Morrison thread, you want to cherry pick only the best moments on your side of the debate and ignore whatever's inconvenient.

I can definitely see Whyte, Brezeale, Chisora, Joyce, Areola, or Wilder potentially losing matchups with those 3.

You don't know that.

 

So you want me to make a poll as to whether Ali had great offense and Frazier had great defense!?!?!?!?

When have you ever heard anyone praise Ali for his power and Frazier for his defense?

How many rounds did Ali go with Mildenberger? Norton? Spinks?

Do the words "Down goes Frazier!" mean nothing to you!?!?

You are the first person I have ever seen celebrate Ali's offense and Frazier's defense.

Oh wait... no you aren't. You walked back from that and tried to pretend it was all about one move each of them did. That's a strawman. No one disputes they had multiple facets to their game. You said they had specific styles, and I correctly pointed out that it came at the expense of them being complete fighters (like Usyk, Fury, Joshua, the Klitchkos, Lewis).

You feebly attempted to escape your corner by being obtuse.

I am not trying to insult you. Sorry if it comes across that way.

Yes or no, Jerry was much smaller than Ali, Foreman and Frazier? Yes or no, Jerry was the same size as noted Light Heavyweights?

The fact that you are trying to change the topic rather than confront my point head on shows you don't actually have an argument against it.

He was the most skilled of that era. He should not have been as successful as he was given that he was undersized, but he "punched above his weight" due to his superior skill and talent.

How about you make a poll asking the forum who they believed was more skilled, Quarry or Usyk?

We can do an Avatar bet.

If you are this desperate, why even bother replying? What good does this do you? I respect you as a poster. I appreciate our debates very, very much. My job is very boring. But I am not responding to questions like this.

It's absolutely not. It's an opinion that cannot be proven/substantiated. The overwhelming support for the 70's speaks to their value, but is really about nostalgia as much as anything else. I am not against anyone who has that opinion because I cannot prove them wrong. I can just show them what makes my argument better.

It's astounding that you are comparing them to Berbick, Norton and Spinks.

Almost everyone of them would have been a top contender, if not champion, in the 60's and 70's.

Ali, they consensus best of the era, needed smelling salts to survive Cooper, was splattered by the much smaller Frazier, went the distance with Terrell and Norton, was turned into a bobblehead by Shavers, and won his hallmark victory by way of "rope-a-dope". You'd bet your house on him beating all those men?

 

No, I want you to make a poll asking if Ali had a top 10 ATG jab and pull counter as well as if Frazier had top 10 ATG head movement. Can you read?

I've heard plenty of people praise Ali's jab and pull counter right hand. Last I checked those are offensive weapons. Punching power is a different conversation. I have heard several people praise Frazier's defense, in particular his head movement.

Then clearly you haven't seen many boxing documentaries, fight analysis videos, or read many articles.

I didn't walk back from anything. Since you seem to have a hard time following the conversation, you claimed Ali had NO offense and that Frazier had NO defense. Last time I checked, jabs and pull counter right hands are offensive tools, and head movement was used for defense. My point in mentioning those skills was to point out that your bold statements made no sense.

Whether Quarry was the same size as some noted light heavyweights doesn't change the fact your initial statement was flat out false. You refused to admit you were wrong and now you're doubling down with irrelevant topics to save face.

There's nothing to argue against. You used the word "actually" wrong.

Like I said, if you want to argue that Quarry could have cut weight to compete at light heavyweight, go right ahead. But your statement was false. He was never a light heavyweight.

A guy who didn't become champion and has more losses than wins at the elite level cannot be considered the most skilled of that era.

Do you have ADHD or something? When the hell were we discussing who was more skilled between Quarry and Usyk?

You went on a tangent about how Quarry was under sized and punched above his weight getting bullied by larger heavyweights as excuses for why he was unsuccessful. This is partly true to an extent, but it can't be applied to his whole career due to the fact he has losses to smaller heavyweights his own size such as Machen and Ellis. It puts holes in your argument and this is the real reason you don't want to respond.

We are debating which era was better based on what actually happened in those eras. The thread is definitely not about whether or not Quarry could have been amazing if he cut weight to light heavyweight or grew to 6'3. This is the last time I'm going to ask you to stay on topic.

As for the nostalgia accusations, I actually picked the 90's. I wasn't even born yet when the 70's occurred and I was grade school aged and not even following boxing at all during the 90's other than a few fights I saw casually.

Breazeale and Areola are trash but both have been in and out of the top 10 in recent years. The average contender nowadays just isn't that great.

I'd bet my left testicle and everything in savings that Ali beats the contenders I mentioned.

 

Who did Hrgovic beat to become ranked #9?
He's 14-0 against no hopers, non-entities, and yet he's ranked 9 in the whole world??
That suggests to me the opposite, it's not a tough era. You can stroll into the "top 10" off the back of a very few fights against nobodies.

 

Watch this space.

 

I think that 1970s is a bit overrated. It was strong at the beginning, but late 1970s was very poor for the division.

1990s seems to be the most consistent, but it also produced some of the worst lineal HWs ever (Moorer, Briggs, old Foreman).

1930s was incredibly deep, but top tier guys were quite weak outside of Louis and Schmeling.

1980s is an underrated decade with unreached potential. I think that 2020s could be quite strong in the end.

Finally, 1890s has to be among the top. You can argue that talent pool wasn't as big as later, but top fighters competed against each other consistently.

 

Ratings should not work on the principle of "janitor is sure this guy will do something great in the future".
Ratings should be based on actual results.