Has the heavyweight era really...

been that weak? I mean we could go back and nitpick everywhere era and say ''oh this guy lost to him'' ''this one was barely 200lbs'' ''so & so was an unmotivated fat ass'' Calvin Brock was undefeated, hyped as the next big thing. (America was raving about him non stop) Many was saying Solis would beat Vitali, he was too old for the Cuban amateur stand out. Calvin Brock was hardly a blip on the American radar. I live 30 minutes from Charlotte and he was hardly ever talked about in the papers or on the news. To make it out the way you have is simply untrue.

This is the worst era of heavyweight boxing Ive seen since the eraly 1980's. Thing is, that only really leaves the 1990s, which was one of the deepest eras in history.

Oh I agree, Louis' era was not great, I just hate when people throw around the term 'bum of the month'. There's a context to that term. Louis made the division his as much and perhaps more, and longer than any other fighter has done with their division. He did it by fighting the best available fighters, most of them in impressive fashion, some dumbass journalist has gone and messed up a bit of his legacy with that term. It's not fair. Yes, it is a misnomer and might give certain fans the impression that Louis ducked the 'real' challengers, which is as far from the truth as you can get. Of course, some of his opponents were bums, but that's natural when you fight everyone on a regular basis.

Not to sure about that but if he beats adamek then i think there is an argument for it! I think Chambers's wins over Peter, Dimitrenko, Brock and a still dangerous Dominic Guinn put him at least on an even footing with Povs. Povs biggest names, barring Chambers, were mostly over past prime guys, and his general stagnation since 2008 detracts from his overall quality. I am a peter, i think the accumulation of two devastating KO losses to the klitschkos followed by that loss to helenius pretty much ended him as a force in the division! He was actually a very dangerous fighter, a bull of a man, and he could actually box a bit... His loss to Hellboy was pretty much the nail in the coffin, but I agree that, pre Vitali, he was a very dangerous dude and someone who, retrospectively, doesn't get the respect he deserves. He was certainly no worse than a lot of the big bangers that most eras have at least one example of, and around the second Toney fight really looked like he could have gone places. He's still the last guy to really give Wlad problems, seven years later. I've never thought to compare him to Rahman, who really is the perfect example of a one hit wonder, but it's pretty clear he was the superior fighter overall. Rahman, of course, still has the Lennox KO to coast on, which is more or less the story of his career.

It is weak. I have a lot of respect for the Klitschkos, I think they've done very well for what they have. But the division has become boring, reliant on size, and it has alienated most fans. The Klitschkos have limited skillsets compared to the likes of Ali, Louis etc. Some of the contenders are jokes.

This is the worst era of heavyweight boxing Ive seen since the eraly 1980's.TRANSLATION: 'should've gone to specsavers'

This is the worst era of heavyweight boxing Ive seen since the eraly 1980's.

I respect the hell out of Louis for what he achieved and the emphatic quality of his title run, but a number of his opponents left a lot to be desired in terms of skill or the degree of danger they posed him. This is completely beside the fact that about seventy five percent of his total opponents wouldn't even be considered legit heavies today on weight alone. H2H I don't think his era stacks up well with any of the last thirty years. Not that that's his fault, of course. Oh I agree, Louis' era was not great, I just hate when people throw around the term 'bum of the month'. There's a context to that term. Louis made the division his as much and perhaps more, and longer than any other fighter has done with their division. He did it by fighting the best available fighters, most of them in impressive fashion, some dumbass journalist has gone and messed up a bit of his legacy with that term. It's not fair.

It's called that because Joe Louis made them look like 'bums', not because they were. Much like Wlad actually. Vitali, not so much. He has fought lots of light touches when he shouldn't have. Joe Louis fought everyone who reached #1 contender between 1934 and 1951 bar two, when he was busy fighting in WWII (lets not forget he spent a few years of his prime enlisted in the army). They were no longer relevant when he got back. He fought every heavyweight titlist between Jack Sharkey and Rocky Marciano. More importantly, he did this alone. He didn't delegate Schmeling to his brother, like Wlad did with Sanders, or Vitali did with Byrd. He went and beat him in the rematch himself. I respect the hell out of Louis for what he achieved and the emphatic quality of his title run, but a number of his opponents left a lot to be desired in terms of skill or the degree of danger they posed him. This is completely beside the fact that about seventy five percent of his total opponents wouldn't even be considered legit heavies today on weight alone. H2H I don't think his era stacks up well with any of the last thirty years. Not that that's his fault, of course.

Despite losing to him, I'd actually put Chambers above PovetkinNot to sure about that but if he beats adamek then i think there is an argument for it! I think Ibragimov and Chagaev Agreed. Where would you put Peter out of interest? I am a peter, i think the accumulation of two devastating KO losses to the klitschkos followed by that loss to helenius pretty much ended him as a force in the division! He was actually a very dangerous fighter, a bull of a man, and he could actually box a bit... Ask ppl if they think i.e big punching (former lineal champ) hasim rahman was more of a threat in the 00's than sam peter? And they will tell you more than likely yes! However it is clearly not the case: Peter beat toney twice, rahman failed twice. Peter beat maskaev, rahman failed twice. peter kayoed tauyrus sykes in 2, rahman won a UD over him. Peter (although outboxed) acquitted himself well in fight #1 (minus the rabbit punches lol) rahman (although 36) was embarrassed by wlad. peter in the 00's beat james toney (twice), jeremy williams, oleg maskaev, Yanqui Díaz and jameel mcline (who holds dominating wins over shannon briggs and michael grant) however peter was getting battered early on in that fight! He also lost to eddie chambers. Rahman in the 00's lost to ruiz, ageing holy, beat sanders (after being floored and out on his feet twice) won a UD over monte barrett and drew with tua!! Peter was recently brutalised by helenius after two devastating ko's at the Hands of the klitschkos, rahman is scheduled to fight povetkin after winning 5 straight fights. Who was more of a threat in your opinion? Thus 'the klitschkos have it easy' arguments or 'there competition is ****' is utter nonsense! Can ppl honestly imagine what 250lb peter would do to i.e jimmy braddock or henry cooper lol thing that gets me is probably the only half decent europeans ali/frazier fought were cooper/bugner etc and those 2 were more than competitive with both the american greats! lol but the klitschkos wouldn't be?? Sorry im going off on a tagent... ermhhhh peter is the oscar bonavena type fighter of this era for me (although he would batter oscar H2H imo) i think the mid 00's peter would give prime tua a hell of a fight also!

Are you referring to solis, don't tar them all with the same brush! undefeated cuban southpaw mike perez (top prospect): Eliseo Castillo (who outboxed michael moorer): juan carlos gomez (who beat an ageing but stil dangerous mcall): I was referring mainly to Solis, yeah, though JC Gomez certainly had his share of discipline issues too. Perez seems to at least take his job seriously, though I think could stand to lose a bit of muscle mass. He's way too bulky and top heavy, it seems.

I think tua would have beaten tyson in the 90's! How that guy never picked up a belt is beyond me...lewis ran from him for 12 rounds! Great fighter... The likes of tua and byrd would do well in any era. The best 5 fighters for me of this era are wladimir, vitali, byrd, povetkin and chagaev...now can anyone honestly tell me all 5 of those are not very talented fighters who would do well whatever there D-O-B? Despite losing to him, I'd actually put Chambers above Povetkin due to his better resume and improvements since 2008. I think Ibragimov and Chagaev are on par with each other skill wise, and it's a shame that fight never took place. Where would you put Peter out of interest?

Are you referring to solis, don't tar them all with the same brush! undefeated mike perez: http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/001/010/687/MikePerez_display_image.jpg?1307927736 Eliseo Castillo (who outboxed michael moorer): http://www.boxnews.com.ua/photos/522/WladimirKlitschkoEliseoCastillo6.jpg juan carlos gomez (who beat an ageing but stil dangerous mcall): http://cdn1.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/36271/gomeznercuellar.jpg I have high hopes for Perez, I keep forgetting he is still only like 25-26 That guy has some talent. Lovely skills & what I feel a lot of heavies are lacking today, killer instinct. He is a very good finisher & really is one too watch out for IMO Is he still based in Ireland? I think I read something about him going to America pre/post the Friday Ahunanya fight.

If the brothers did ''The bum of the month tour'' they would likely get crucified for it yet Louis gets praise? It's called that because Joe Louis made them look like 'bums', not because they were. Much like Wlad actually. Vitali, not so much. He has fought lots of light touches when he shouldn't have. Joe Louis fought everyone who reached #1 contender between 1934 and 1951 bar two, when he was busy fighting in WWII (lets not forget he spent a few years of his prime enlisted in the army). They were no longer relevant when he got back. He fought every heavyweight titlist between Jack Sharkey and Rocky Marciano. More importantly, he did this alone. He didn't delegate Schmeling to his brother, like Wlad did with Sanders, or Vitali did with Byrd. He went and beat him in the rematch himself.

Ustinov and Wach are not interesting prospects at all. Both are old, and just plain horrible, skill wise. Pulev I'm having my doubts about as well. He seems to be turning into one of those lacklustre, do enough to win, types that typified the previous decade. Also seems not to have improved very much in his last few fights (still a predominant head hunter one two puncher). I certainly agree about Pulev being a one two head hunter with little variety, I actually felt if Dimitrienko kept it simple he could of taken that fight as Pulev seemed very limited & predictable. For all the wrong reasons I'd love to see Ustinov/Wach vs Fury or Towers.

Ustinov and Wach are not interesting prospects at all. Both are old, and just plain horrible, skill wise. Pulev I'm having my doubts about as well. He seems to be turning into one of those lacklustre, do enough to win, types that typified the previous decade. Also seems not to have improved very much in his last few fights (still a predominant head hunter one two puncher).Boystov, perez and gold medallist chakiev are the ones to watch!

There'll be no food or drink left at the party once the Cubans join it. Those dudes really need to sort out their pro-discipline issues. Are you referring to solis, don't tar them all with the same brush! undefeated cuban southpaw mike perez (top prospect): http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/001/010/687/MikePerez_display_image.jpg?1307927736 Eliseo Castillo (who outboxed michael moorer): http://www.boxnews.com.ua/photos/522/WladimirKlitschkoEliseoCastillo6.jpg juan carlos gomez (who beat an ageing but stil dangerous mcall): http://cdn1.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/36271/gomeznercuellar.jpg

Someone pointed out the other day that Vitali still doesn't have a signature win and when you look through his resume it appears accurate. That is pretty damning. Wladimir at least has Haye. Haye isn't really a signature win unless you're primarily talking about the hype and expectations the fight drew. Byrd, Chambers, Chagaev, Ibragimov and Peter were all similarly respectable wins. I would say Peter, Gomez and Sanders were pretty respectable wins for Vittles as well. With Peter it was the manner and circumstances of the win that were so impressive.

There is some interesting HW prospects coming up though such as Pulev, Ustinov, Wach, Gerber, Ortiz. Ustinov and Wach are not interesting prospects at all. Both are old, and just plain horrible, skill wise. Pulev I'm having my doubts about as well. He seems to be turning into one of those lacklustre, do enough to win, types that typified the previous decade. Also seems not to have improved very much in his last few fights (still a predominant head hunter one two puncher).

Do you mean if the Klits fought Tua and Ike in their primes? Yeah, you might hear a few grumbles, but it was clear that both guys were tremendous specimens and top class pugilists. Tua's power alone would have turned heads whatever era he was in. Analyzing a fighter in isolation is hard but it isn't impossible.I think tua would have beaten tyson in the 90's! How that guy never picked up a belt is beyond me...lewis ran from him for 12 rounds! Great fighter... The likes of tua and byrd would do well in any era. The best 5 fighters for me of this era are wladimir, vitali, byrd, povetkin and chagaev...now can anyone honestly tell me all 5 of those are not very talented fighters who would do well whatever there D-O-B?