When all is said and done GGG's era will overshadow FMJ's cherry era.

Jacobs says he's interested. It's just too bad the Triple Duck isn't interested in a fair purse split. He's rather keep fighting the TOMATO CANs and pay them chump change...

 

GTFO. Everyone can say they're interested. Bumlovkin is pricing himself out. He hasn't done the numbers to warrant more than the 10 million GBP is offering, outta here with that BS. Besides, Bumlovkin allowed Alvarez to fight interim fights, stop defending him. I'm a bigger fan of Boxing than you are, you Bumlovkinite.

 

I hope you get banned for that demographic remark you racist. Supporter of EE fighters go to castefootball or stormfront you POS.

 

Are we calling it Golovkin's era already? Are we all on board with this rubric? Is it based on whoever is most popular at the time? So like 2000-2006 would be the De La Hoya era? And 2007-2010 would be the Pacquiao era? I can kind of see 90-2000 as the Mike Tyson era, 64-77 being the Ali era, 37-48 being the Joe Louis era, and 19-26 being the the Dempsey era; but what do you do with the 80s? That's the 4 kings era: Hagler, Leonard, Hearns, and Duran. And should we divy up 48-58 between Charles, Moore, and others or give it all to Robinson?

As of now, Canelo's still a bigger draw than Golovkin. Gonzalez is higher pound for pound. So in what way is it Golovkin's era?

 

A few counter points for you here first off I agree and said Mayweather didn't beat a prime Oscar but Hoya was #6 in 06" & #3 in 07" you take a look at the top 5-10 and tell me who beats him.

Second you mislead with your information yes Oscar fought 3 times in 4 years after Mosley II which most consider a bad Decsion in Shanes favor in 03" he fought twice in 04 both at a higher division one a competitive dodgy vs Strum the other a competitive stoppage loss to and ATG in Hopkins, there is no shame in that. Overall leading up the Floyd fight while not absolute Prime, was still a capable fighter.only time after Mosley II he looked past it was when he went below 154.
Not as good prime Oscar but all things considered a good win most guys in the game right now don't have a win as good as a past prime Oscar.

 

How did i mislead but then you verify that Oscar did fight 3 times in 4 years? Never said there was any shame in losing to Sturm or Hopkins. Leading up to the Floyd fight not only was he not "absolute prime" but he was nowhere near it. Sure he was still a decent fighter but if his prime was A+ the guy that stepped in against Floyd was C-. Not sure how you dont understand that. I dont care about rankings or who was in the division at the time the point is Floyd fought Oscar and he did so because of the name recognition not for titles or ranking. Plain and simple Floyd had a close fight with a past prime drug addicted and mostly inactive Oscar. Those are facts.

 

If anything were either in the middle or at the tail end of Gonzales's era.

 

Was Pacquiao's era the golden age of the bantamweights when he, Marquez, Morales, and Barrera all fought each other multiple times, and we had that awesome Marquez vs Vazquez rivalry?

 

Exactly. Case closed

 

Dude while the drug thing is valid is past prime Coked up Whitaker for example arguably beat a prime/green Hoya a past prime coked up Duran managed to win titles at 54,60, a guy like Tyson admitted he was Coked up going unti every fight.

You mislead by making it seem like after Mosley II he was a seldom seen guy when reality he slowed down after Hopkins the shane fight was 03" he foughy twice the very next year.
Very rarely are two fighters in there absolute prime Mayweather is just the only one who doesn't get credit for it.
You say you dont care about who rankings or whatever but if a past prime Oscar would be favored to beat 80/90% of the JMWs & WWs who were active how can you dismiss that.
Also while a good showing by Oscar that fight wasn't really close.