Why do some people refuse to admit certain divisions are weaker than previous eras?

I don't see how that could be possible considering I agree with little of your original argument laid out in the first post of this thread. It would seem there's a hole in your logic to hide your wounded pride...

 

I also think some divisions, particularly below 135, have had hot streaks and fighters comparable or better than years past.

With the nature of 17 divisions, and all the weight jumping encouraged because of so, no division is ever able to build or maintain great fighters for very long. Plus with 17 divisions, the talent is heavily, heavily watered down.

Has boxing regressed? I think so. But not by too much, and there are some examples to the contrary. It's matchmaking moreso than talent. And the matchmaking has much to do with the divisions and the nature of "one loss and your career is over" mindset which so many fans, and thus promoters, recognize.

Bantamweight for example from a year and a half ago had, all at once:
Donaire
Moreno
Mares
Darchinyan
Agbeko
Perez
Koki
Arce
...that is a stacked division.

But now, just a quick 18 months later, Perez is retired, Donaire, Arce, and Mares are at 122, Moreno is going to 122, Agbeko has hinted at 122, Darchinyan has gone to 122 as well.

 

who cares, lets focus on the present and the future.

 

Right now.. Yes.
When you're reffering to "this era" what exactly are we talking about? Just right now? Or from when Vitali lost to Lewis to now?
Of course the mid-late 00s only featured two relevant "great fighters"(Vitali's ATG status can be argued), where the 90s had 4 legit ATGs being relevant.

However i feel that Chris Byrd is an underrated fighter, both in ratings and H2H.. Call me crazy, but i think that he would be a live fighter against a post prison Tyson and the version of Holyfield who beat Tyson..
Edit: I consider Byrd the 3rd best HW of "this era"

 

I have thought of the same.. Pretty much all fighters who have been dominating a division has had someone claim: "He fought in a weak division".
Hopkins
Calzaghe
Jones Jr.
Wladimir Klitschko
Marciano
Joe Louis
Holmes

Where competetive eras/divisions rarely gets that claim:
The 60s/70s HW division
The 80s Welterweight division
The 90s SMW division

While i do consider those "competetive" eras very strong, it is a screw without an end.. Was the dominant champ simply on another level? Or was his opponents mediocre?

 

good point, usually competitive eras are called strong, but when you have 1 guy dominating the eras are called weak.

 

Marciano and Holmes were in weak eras.

Not one person and I mean not one person said Jones Jr was in a weak era. He was in an extremely strong era, he just fought the less strong. I honestly have not read one post on any site that said

'Man the 90's SMW'S were ****' Everybody acknowledged the 90's MW-SMW were very good.


If you honestly think Marciano or Holmes had 'strong era's... lol. We are digressing though from the original topic.

The original topic was that because of video footage you can easily tell Mike Spinks is more skilled than Chad Dawson.

 

They are the problem is this era is very weak !

 

I think it is fairly easy to the learned eye to see the decline certain skillsets when comparing era's.

It's all very well and good to say 'people are only saying it because the division is not competative' but that's not entirely true. I can see plainly that certain divisions seem to be filled with fighters who have regressed technically. A lot of the subtler techniques in the game are becoming a real lost art.

If you factor in a division like the current HW, where you have a frankly appaling situation of 1. a lack of talent, and 2. a tag team effect with the Klitschko brothers which effectively means when one fighter beats a guy, they are effectively ruled out of contention and return to the bum of the month club

It genuinely is weak

Obviously however when you have a good number of skilled / dangerous / competative opponents, and you manage to clean them out and be the last man left standing, then you can claim you fought in a strong era

 

the whole point of this discussion is that you cannot mathematically prove which fighter is better then the other just by watching them on film. Try to think outside the box instead of repeating crap you read on ESB.
If you watch 2 separate tapes of 2 guys running, can you tell which one runs faster? if they are are not on the same tape?

 

But you can tell which guy is more skilled because of the techniques used. Vidic is right.

If fighter A in a particular situation made a big mistake in Round 1, made the same mistake in round 2, then got knocked out in Round 3 because he made the SAME mistake again.


Fighter B. Made a big mistake in round one, never made it again and went on to win the fight.. You can obviously see who adjusted.


Jabs,defense,footwork,technique, combinations, body work, inside fighting, these things can easily be judged via video footage.

Now I do agree with you that H2H is impossible to predicate accurately. But in terms of overall skills, it is very obvious you can judge it by video.

 

Here's an even better question: why does a certain poster feel the need to create a new account every month?

Does he keep getting banned?

Is it because people catch on to his ******ed threads?

It really makes one wonder...

 

Easy to compare to the era when the weight class was at its best. Every weight class fluctuates with talent throughout the decades.

Just another thread by a dude who just discovered classic boxing on youtube and now wants to impress us with his snobbery.

 

If you have video footage of Spinks fighting someone from Chad's era, then you can make that statement. Babe Ruth, based on video footage, hit tons of home-runs...ya, against pitchers that were NOWHERE close to the pitchers of today. Everything is relative as far as this theory is concerned.

 

that's ridiculous, from my personal experience I might look like a GOAT fighting against a bum, and then look awful fighting against a very experienced and crafty fighter.