Why are dominated era's called weak?

If the HW scene of today didn't have Klitschko, Arreola and Adamek would've been ATG and deemed as the modern HW rivals...

 

Lewis era was stronger.

 

How many heavyweight eras really had HOF worthy fighters?
2000s--3 (both brothers and Lewis); Byrd and Ruiz might get nominations. Toney and Jones will make it but hardly for HW accomplishments
90s: 3 in Tyson, Lewis, Holy. Bowe might get nominated. Foreman and Holmes really didn't do much in this period
80s: 3. Tyson, Holmes, Spinks (not really for what he did at heavy)
70s: 3. Ali, Frazier, Foreman. Holmes came in on the tail end. Norton didn't make it, did he?
etc.

Anyway, it's not really that much different from the other eras as far as HOF worthy fighters go, it's just that Lewis/Vit was the only fight between two of them.

 

Exactly! Not to mention in almost every other era outside of the top ten you have great up and coming prospects and veterans that are still hanging around. Today you have two dominate champs, weak top ten and ancient vets like 50 year old holyman and almost zero up and comers to even talk about. This is the first era where I cannot see anyone replacing the dominate champ in the near future?

 

Why not make a case for them if that's how you feel. Explain to people WHY they are wrong to see them as weak. This IS the outlet to do so. But maybe bitching about it works too.

 

But an era is a subjective term and not defined by one decade, at least not in this case.

Ali also fought Liston and Paterson. Quarry if you want to count him.

Both Klits had fought who? Lewis. That is one. And lost.

 

Terrible thread.

 

They aren't. There are plenty of examples of deep, talented eras that have been dominated.

 

Weak eras are considered weak. It has little to do with who dominated them.

In my lifetime, JCC dominated a good era, so did Hagler. Conversely, the Klits and Bernard Hopkins have dominated pretty weak eras. That's not to say that they couldn't have held their own against consistently stronger opposition.

 

As an Arreola fan, I disagree. He is exciting to watch and could build a pretty decent following, but nobody will compare him to Ali or Louis ever.

 

:deal

 

Right, but how does Arreola compare to #10 in Louis or Ali era?

 

Thread is mind numbingly stupid and wrong.

90's and 70's are examples of this. And that's just the heavyweight division.

 

Oh.. that is a good question.

 

Dominated eras are very rarely strong though. The list of fighters who have been able to dominate a strong era, for a sustained period of time, is very small. Ali didn't, Leonard didn't, Duran didn't and so on. It's a very small list, comprised of some of the very best of all time. My top three, Robinson, Armstrong and Greb, all dominated strong eras but they are the best ever for that reason.

But an era shouldn't be judged by how competitive it is. Whether it's dominated or not, is irrelevant. It could be fiercely competitive and be both excellent or poor. In a same way, a fighter who dominates doesn't necessarily have to be excellent, and a C-class fighter would dominate a D-class division.

The only true way to gauge an era is to judge each fighter as individuals. If an era is full of strong, skilled fighters, then it has to be considered a strong era. If, however, it's full of poor fighters, then it should be judged as a poor era. That's the way every sport should be judged.