will we ever see this in heavyweight boxing again?

Again, we run into the same problem with JAB.

He's obssessed with "Era" vs "Era" arguments but ultimately can't decide upon what constitutes these supposed "Eras"

He just plucks the fights or fighters he feels prove his point at random.

 

-No, you havent.

-What top 20?

-Incorrect. And fights like Lyle/Shavers weren't frequent occurances in the 70s either, reason its a stand out classic despite being between a #5 rated fighter and a than unranked opponent.

-All my posts have been boxing related.

 

My problems with this proposal.

1. Frazier, Quarry, and Norton were only elite fighters together for a period of 2 years at best. 1973-1975.

2. The brief period in which these three men were active together is often called the Golden Age of Heavyweights and nearly every era is going to come up short in depth, doesn't mean they are bad.

3. I don't think excitement is defined by "body punching." That is pretty subjective.

4. Every fighter in today's top 20 compared to the style of three fighters, two trained by the same man? Nah. :nut

But at any rate:

Povetkin, Perez and Adamek are top 10 fighters I would propose who work the body with regularity and have exciting fights. Doesn't really mean anything though.

 

those 70's bums get stopped with ease by most these days. technique is getting lost in all sports, replaced by the superior athleticism of todays athletes.

 

I wouldn't consider Norton to be an exciting fighter, a great effective fighter but not an exciting fighter. He certainly wasn't thought of as one in his time or really in retrospect either. Outside of the Bobick blowout and final rounds of the Holmes fight, he was very methodical.

I believe the 80s is on par with today.

I can't agree that this era is unbearable. Adamek, Cunningham, Perez, and Povetkin have been in consistently entertaining fire fights. I enjoyed the Stiv/Arreola fights. And I'm interested in Wlad/Pulev.

 

Come on man, quit trying to twist ****. You said " Why not". That don't sound or spell nothing like yes. If you meant yes, then you should have said yes. I took it how it was written, Why not? with a question mark.:think Now like I said, they were still considered to be heavy weights and the emphasis was on the action and not on the weights. You started rambling about them being much lighter than today's heavyweights and I will reiterate, THAT **** IS IRRELAVANT.

 

Manfred, relax and take your meds Can't believe this thread has made it to 7p.

The OP used, as I agreed, an entertaining slugfest from the 70s to claim that was some sort of superior era.

Well try to understand this - IT WASN'T. Of course anyone could show many HW fights from that or any era that were stinkers.

The Shavers, Lyles, Quarrys, Fraziers, etc would get blasted by modern HWs, regardless of how exciting you think they are or are not.

Is that

This content is protected

for ya? :roll:

 

That Manfred ***** used to claim Kovalev did not have one punch power.

Both him and the attention whoring, low I.Q. douche bag thread starter hate fighters from over-there and yearn for the days when it was just Muricans fightin' Muricans with your occasion S. American and W. Euro thrown in as cannon fodder.

Why otherwise excellent posters go round and round with these tools is beyond me?

 

Povetkin vs Takam.

:deal