Is This The Worst Era Of All Time?

Picking up on the thread that questioned whether the heavyweight division was the worst in history, where do we stand on the current era as a whole?

The best fighters (Mayweather, Hopkins, Ward and Rigondeaux) offer little in the way of excitement. The exciting elite fighters meanwhile are saddled with PED accusations and innuendo; we have the HBO/Showtime divide in the US, a dearth of great fights, the heavyweights are beyond dire and the proliferation of world titles continues unabated (they'll be giving titles away in cornflake packets next).

The 70's and 80's rocked, the 90's (despite an overriding obsession with maintaining an unbeaten record) was fun while the 00s contained the epic Morales-Barrera, Ward-Gatti and Vazquez-Marquez rivalries.

Is this the worst era in history?

It pales in comparison to the 1980s, 1990s and even early 2000s. I wasnt around for the other decades.

A sleep inducing heavyweight champion in a division full of crap and the best "pound for pound" fighter cherry picking his way along to the bank. Not a good combo.

Even the potentially exciting fighters coming through like Golovkin and Kovalov are getting frozen out (and then blamed themselves).

Theres always been a a lot wrong with boxing but in my lifetime I cant remember so much being so wrong.

On the plus side, there's been some great refereeing.

Mayweather and Pacquiao not fighting lowered the bar considerably and was a standard bearer for a lot of crap that now exists in boxing.

When Spain when the World Cup playing the Barcelona brand of football it permeated throughout the game. If Holland playing like henchmen kicking everything that moved had won the result would have been that football would have been poorer.

My view on just about everything is if you want to sort something out start at the top.

The crap that's now in boxing was started years ago. From Joe Louis retiring and then being allowed to come back straight into a title fight against Ezzard Charles, catchweight title fights, Ray Leonard starting the 'seniors tour', and just for Milkyboy, to Hagler being allowed to defend his title just once a year for the last three years of his reign.

By allowing these things, precedents were set.

Still Louis, Hagler and eventually Leonard fought the best. Floyd hasn't done that, more than any other top fighter he has put soft easy money over legacy. That's the worst precedent yet for a fighter who is p4p No.1.

Using the old divisions - it really isn't that bad. 135-147LBS is Chocka-blocked with talent. If that was just one division - there'd be an endless supply of superfights. 147-160. The light heavyweight division becomes irresistible if you have 160-175. Imagine Kovalev, Stevenson, Popkins, Ward, Froch, Groves in the same division. Gauntlet right there. Heavyweight, unfortunately, stays crappy

The HW division has been considered Poopie for the last 40 years. Only with hindsight do people consider certain era's good. I remember in the 90's everyone saying how poor it was with a past his prime Tyson, fat Bowe, chinny Lewis and a blown up cruiser Holyfield. Now all of a sudden it was a golden era.

Strongback wrote:Still Louis, Hagler and eventually Leonard fought the best.  Floyd hasn't done that, more than any other top fighter he has put soft easy money over legacy.  That's the worst precedent yet for a fighter who is p4p No.1.

Could have sworn Leonard avoided Michael Nunn after Kalambay got wasted.......Could have swore Hagler avoided Hearns 2 and Spinks......Silly Hearns banging out the number one contender in both the WBA/WBC in Shuler..

But there you go...

Think it probably is the worst era.......Though it does offer guys in Rigo, Manny, Mayweather, Ward and Wlad that would have flourished in other eras even though not at the weights they fight now in some cases.....

So Hagler never fought Hearns. SRL was a welter weight and past his best when Nunn came along.Spinks was big enough to fight at heavyweight, what height was Hagler.? One of the worst fallacies you've propagated on here and there's been more than a few.

You're making excuses..

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:chinny Lewis and a blown up cruiser Holyfield.

Absolute rubbish.

Lewis - chinny? What Lewis were you watching? Just because he got caught by Rahman with a million dollar punch and by McCall with a daft shot doesn't make him "chinny"

Its one of those overused words on here, like robbed and schooled.

Blown up cruiser?

Now you're reaching. Holyfield was regarded as highly as he should have been as a bonafide heavyweight who beat some of the best boxers of the 80's and 90's.

Give it a rest mate.

Wouldn't have bothered responding Jabby..........Callous disrespect of two top 10/15 Heavyweights.....

Complete ignorance of epic proportions....

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:chinny Lewis and a blown up cruiser Holyfield.

Absolute rubbish.

Lewis - chinny? What Lewis were you watching? Just because he got caught by Rahman with a million dollar punch and by McCall with a daft shot doesn't make him "chinny"

Its one of those overused words on here, like robbed and schooled.

Blown up cruiser?

Now you're reaching. Holyfield was regarded as highly as he should have been as a bonafide heavyweight who beat some of the best boxers of the 80's and 90's.

Give it a rest mate.

How are you jabby?

I think there is some truth to both statements. It was testament to Lewis's overall skill and ability that his chin was not tested much but when it was he was both times flat on his back. A little like Wlad who has hidden his fragile chin since Brewster so well that we forget how chinny he actually is. As for Holy he was always a blown up cruiser but the best blown up cruiser of the lot.

Not bad mate, yourself?

I can't agree with the Holyfield analysis. I think he made the transition to Heavyweight really well, I don't think his was a case of a "blown up cruiser" I think it was a genuine move to a good weight for him as he campaigned there for years. We don't call Floyd a "blown up SFW" or Pacquiao a "blown up Lightweight" etc. I see it as someone being negative when they claim the weight as an issue with the fighter.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You're making excuses..

I'm being practical. None of those fighters ducked the best opponent in their weight class. With Mayweather you can't say that.

Practical is spin for making excuses..

hazharrison wrote:Picking up on the thread that questioned whether the heavyweight division was the worst in history, where do we stand on the current era as a whole?

The best fighters (Mayweather, Hopkins, Ward and Rigondeaux) offer little in the way of excitement. The exciting elite fighters meanwhile are saddled with PED accusations and innuendo; we have the HBO/Showtime divide in the US, a dearth of great fights, the heavyweights are beyond dire and the proliferation of world titles continues unabated (they'll be giving titles away in cornflake packets next).

The 70's and 80's rocked, the 90's (despite an overriding obsession with maintaining an unbeaten record) was fun while the 00s contained the epic Morales-Barrera, Ward-Gatti and Vazquez-Marquez rivalries.

Is this the worst era in history?

an emphatic yes

kingraf wrote:Using the old divisions - it really isn't that bad. 135-147LBS is Chocka-blocked with talent. If that was just one division - there'd be an endless supply of superfights. 147-160. The light heavyweight division becomes irresistible if you have 160-175. Imagine Kovalev, Stevenson, Popkins,  Ward, Froch, Groves  in the same division. Gauntlet right there. Heavyweight, unfortunately, stays crappy

Its not really that talent rich. The welters/light welters is the hottest division but I wouldnt kid myself on how good most of them are. Having so many divisions and titles gives the illusion there are more top fighters around than there are and gives boxers a chance to forge better records. Danny Garcia is a prime example. Considered by many to be one of the top fighters in the world or "pound for pound" if you go for that kind of thing but hes actually just a good solid boxer thats nothing special. The same could be said for a whole host of welterweights. Plenty of good matches in the division but it is not filled with great talent.

Problem is does anybody see it improving anytime soon ????????

I cant see it Truss, the value of a World Champ in a major governing body has almost become worthless. Hall v Butler for an IBF strap for instance, Mcdonnell fighting for another world title its a joke.

You dont agree, but until we get back to recognising one legitimate world champ and chop these divisions in half I cant see it improving. Add to the fact fans now act like promoters and dont want to see the best fight the best all of a sudden.

Cheers Rodders

Strongback wrote:Still Louis, Hagler and eventually Leonard fought the best.  Floyd hasn't done that, more than any other top fighter he has put soft easy money over legacy.  That's the worst precedent yet for a fighter who is p4p No.1.

Worse than fixed fights?

All these old fighters were concerned about legacy than making money and eating weren't they !!

I mean If there was greater career control and four alphabet titles back in the day......Moore and the rest wouldn't think of the financial angle would they..

What a man sausage..

Scottrf wrote:

Strongback wrote:Still Louis, Hagler and eventually Leonard fought the best.  Floyd hasn't done that, more than any other top fighter he has put soft easy money over legacy.  That's the worst precedent yet for a fighter who is p4p No.1.

Worse than fixed fights?

Wrote that in the context of which greats had ducked fights.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:All these old fighters were concerned about legacy than making money and eating weren't they !!

I mean If there was greater career control and four alphabet titles back in the day......Moore and the rest wouldn't think of the financial angle would they..

What a man sausage..

Floyd turned down a cool $100,000,000 to fight Manny in a fight he was heavily favoured to win. Would Archie have turned that down,

What a dick.

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:All these old fighters were concerned about legacy than making money and eating weren't they !!

I mean If there was greater career control and four alphabet titles back in the day......Moore and the rest wouldn't think of the financial angle would they..

What a man sausage..

Floyd turned down a cool $100,000,000 to fight Manny in a fight he was heavily favoured to win.  Would Archie have turned that down,

What a dick.  

Bingo

Floyd moved from 130 to 152........22 pounds

Spinks weighed 171 for many defences.........Why didn't Hagler take him on at 168/170 Spinks ws interested..........Massive payday.........Fought Hamsho twice instead..

160-168.........8 pounds..

Why did Robbo turn his back on an agreement for Turpin 3.......

Selective memories......and oh so predictable..

Hagler chased the smaller man with a huge purse (Leonard) for most part of his career. Floyd distanced himself from that challenge.

Mayweather is a fantastic fighter, brilliant at what he does but the continious praise as a top 10 ATG is lunacy. Cheers Rodders

Anyone want to guess how many greats TRUSSMAN will drag through the mud to justify Mayweathers cherrypicking?

Has Joe Louis been mentioned yet? If not then TRUSSMAN is only getting warmed up!

I've never justified Mayweather's cherry picking........Big mistake Floyd avoiding Manny and vice versa a fight they both need to be ashamed of......

Just pointing out It's gone on since the dawn of time...

It's a point worth making..

Maidana is a world champ and If anybody else fought him it would be a much awaited fight!!........

Hagler fought 10 stiffs out of 12 defences when Spinks was around..and he is above reproach apparently..

catchweight wrote:Anyone want to guess how many greats TRUSSMAN will drag through the mud to justify Mayweathers cherrypicking?

Has Joe Louis been mentioned yet? If not then TRUSSMAN is only getting warmed up!

He's just saying it's not the only big fight to not happen. Which you wouldn't believe reading some posts.

Strongback wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Strongback wrote:Still Louis, Hagler and eventually Leonard fought the best.  Floyd hasn't done that, more than any other top fighter he has put soft easy money over legacy.  That's the worst precedent yet for a fighter who is p4p No.1.

Worse than fixed fights?

Wrote that in the context of which greats had ducked fights.

Johnson didn't fight his best opponents, Dempsey didn't, Jeffries didn't, Sullivan didn't. Accept there are various reasons of varying validity for this, but lets not get all dewy eyed about the past as if the best not fighting the best is a new phenomena.

Maidana is not a world champ he merely holds a pointless strap which has become insiginificant. Imagine a Welter like the 90s Tito facing Maidana at the weekend, he'd decapitate him. Personally a poor era on all fronts.

Cheers Rodders

He's a world champion.......end of....

Rodney wrote:Maidana is not a world champ he merely holds a pointless strap which has become insiginificant. Imagine a Welter like the 90s Tito facing Maidana at the weekend, he'd decapitate him.  Personally a poor era on all fronts.

Cheers Rodders

Isn't defending against someone ranked in the top 10 valid anyway? Mayweather has a better average quality of defence than Robinson for example.

Scottrf wrote:

catchweight wrote:Anyone want to guess how many greats TRUSSMAN will drag through the mud to justify Mayweathers cherrypicking?

Has Joe Louis been mentioned yet? If not then TRUSSMAN is only getting warmed up!

He's just saying it's not the only big fight to not happen. Which you wouldn't believe reading some posts.

Its the biggest fight in the history of the sport not to happen. And for no good reason.

Using Hagler not remaching Hearns, who he knocked out in 3 rounds, or not moving up to light heavyweight to fight a beast like Spinks is not adequate perspective.

Back on to this, are we?

Truss, Leonard not fighting Nunn just ain't the same as Mayweather not fighting Pacquiao. Neither is Hagler not fighting Spinks, or Robinson / Hagler not rematching (key word!) Turpin (well, re-rematching in that case) or Hearns respectively.

Floyd and Manny were both prime. The two biggest PPV attractions in the sport. Both fighting, for a sustained period, alongside each other in the same weight class. Each represented the best and biggest purse for the other they'd ever known in their career. The never-ending debate about who was better dominated the boxing headlines.

You think the idea of Leonard-Nunn in 1989, Hagler-Spinks in 1983 or a third / second fight between Robinson / Turpin or Hagler / Hearns had all of that in place, and had just as much riding on it? Personally, I don't.

I think the situation with Floyd and Manny a few years back was more akin to that of Leonard-Hearns (or Duran after he'd moved up) in the early eighties, Whitaker-Chavez in the early nineties, a first fight between Hagler and Tommy in the mid eighties etc. The big difference is that all of those fights got made. Didn't happen with Mayweather and Pacquiao.

88Chris05 wrote:Didn't happen with Mayweather and Pacquiao.

They're not retired   

How about Holmes giving up the WBC strap because he didn't want Page, Thomas, Witherspoon 2, Tubbs or anyone with a pulse ?

How about Dempsey avoiding all the black talent around..........How about Johnson...How about Patterson.....How about Robbo backtracking on Turpin 3 (Solomon showed a copy of the contract in a 1952 Ring magazine I have...Pride and joy !!).......A guy who seemed to cause him massive problems..

I don't hold it against these guys........

ALWAYS GONE ON....................

Mayweather should have fought Manny and vice versa but let's get real !!

Just because you don't like him......let's not rewrite history..

Scottrf wrote:

Rodney wrote:Maidana is not a world champ he merely holds a pointless strap which has become insiginificant. Imagine a Welter like the 90s Tito facing Maidana at the weekend, he'd decapitate him.  Personally a poor era on all fronts.

Cheers Rodders

Isn't defending against someone ranked in the top 10 valid anyway? Mayweather has a better average quality of defence than Robinson for example.

It is valid, I'd like to think he'd be fighting a top 10 opponent considering his poor activity levels.

Cheers Rodders

Dempsey didnt avoid all the black talent around at all, if you throw accusations make sure you know the facts,

Cheers Rodders

Guys I remember when 135 pounder Duran beat Davey Moore to win the 154 pound title the adulation and acclaim he got back in 83.....

I remember 130 pounder Floyd beating the number 1 154 pounder Alvarez (Who's way better than Davey RIP!!) and being called a cherrypicker who beat a stiff !!

You guys can't be objective about Mayweather or Khan.......and It's a shame..

Anyway, the worst era is surely the one where one man could simultaneously hold all the titles from Featherweight to Welterweight, and narrowly miss out on the Middleweight title as well  

Duran fought all the biggest fights. Thats the differance. He didnt fight Davey Moore instead of fighting Leonard. When he beat Moore he challenged Hagler and Hearns.

What are you talking about ??????????

I'm talking about the wins over Moore and Alvarez...F**K me !!    

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:How about Holmes giving up the WBC strap because he didn't want Page, Thomas, Witherspoon 2, Tubbs or anyone with a pulse ?

How about Dempsey avoiding all the black talent around..........How about Johnson...How about Patterson.....How about Robbo backtracking on Turpin 3 (Solomon showed a copy of the contract in a 1952 Ring magazine I have...Pride and joy !!).......A guy who seemed to cause him massive problems..

I don't hold it against these guys........

ALWAYS GONE ON....................

Mayweather should have fought Manny and vice versa but let's get real !!

Just because you don't like him......let's not rewrite history..

Greg Page or Manny Pacquiao. Personally I think I know which one is the more valuable name to have on your CV if you were in or around their weight classes!

I'm not rewriting history, fella. Just putting forward my perspective on it. Of course there have been big fights that have slipped the net - but none on the same scale as Mayweather-Pacquiao, certainly not in the past sixty-odd years in any case. And none of the failures to make certain fights have been as inexcusable or nonsensical as this one, either.

When you mention Holmes-Page, Leonard-Nunn, Patterson-Folley etc you're talking about fights that people would have liked to have seen, but not fights that would have been THE fight of its era and been a massive shot in the arm for the sport like Mayweather-Pacquiao would have been. You're comparing fights which might have happened or would have been nice to see to a fight which just HAD to happen and which every last boxing fan on Earth was craving.

When Mayweather's legacy or career is examined, the questions about Pacquiao are never far away, even now. It's the one single biggest stick his detractors have to beat him with. On the other hand, does anyone really look at Ray Leonard and start saying, "Yeah, but he didn't fight Nunn, a fight which would have defined him" or the like?

Nunn was to Leonard what someone like Margarito or Tszyu was to Mayweather. Could have happened, would have been interesting, but given their career paths etc there were other possible opponents who were better suited to earn absolute greatness against. Certainly not blatant cases of ducking.

Rather, guys like Hearns and Duran were to Leonard what Pacquiao was to Mayweather. Leonard got the fights on. Mayweather didn't. As I alluded to above, I tend to give Mayweather a bit more credit than many others do for the guys he's faced in his career outside of that saga, but when it comes to the Pacquiao issue there's just no justification for me. No way to make it seem alright or rational that it never happened, no way to draw a valid comparison to any other case of avoidance, no way to dumb down what a black mark it is against both of them.

You're talking about fighters having to decide between legacy and security, but come on beefster, it's not exactly like Mayweather had that difficult decision to make. Pacquiao was THE fight regardless of which way you look at it. By far his best, most proven and dangerous opponent, and also by far the biggest money and PPV fight that could be made. No excuses or equivocation on that one, in my eyes. Shocker that it didn't happen and they both deserve the kicking they get for it.

Let's leave it.........Just explaining to the ignorant types who's dislike for a guy is so severe it affects their ability to be objective.......a thing or two about Boxing history...

A thing they already know but because they are in denial...

A point that needs re-iterating for any new members who may be blinded by the 606-bitter types !!

Maidana-Mayweather...........Give me that instead of

Holmes v Zanon, Cobb, Frazier, Ocasio, Bey, Smith, LeDoux, Leroy jones, Snipes, Rodriguez..My my the list is endless..

But for Larry that's OKAY !!   .......

88Chris05 wrote:Shocker that it didn't happen and they both deserve the kicking they get for it.

*Hasn't happened yet. At one point it would be considered a shocker that Lewis and Tyson hadn't met, but Lewis fought a Tyson well past his prime so that's OK!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I've never justified Mayweather's cherry picking........Big mistake Floyd avoiding Manny and vice versa a fight they both need to be ashamed of......

Just pointing out It's gone on since the dawn of time...

It's a point worth making..

Maidana is a world champ and If anybody else fought him it would be a much awaited fight!!........

Hagler fought 10 stiffs out of 12 defences when Spinks was around..and he is above reproach apparently..

In the main, those "stiffs" were better fighters than Maidana.

Scottrf wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Shocker that it didn't happen and they both deserve the kicking they get for it.

*Hasn't happened yet. At one point it would be considered a shocker that Lewis and Tyson hadn't met, but Lewis fought a Tyson well past his prime so that's OK!

It was due to happen, King paid Lewis to step aside so Tyson could face Holyfield.

Its amazing this, sometimes. Truss, are you saying that because X didn't fight Y that is is ok for Mayweather to have not fought Pacquiao? Do you in any way shape or form take a situation at its value instead of continually trying to compare it to something that happened that was vaguely comparable previously? Or do you have to spit your dummy out every time?