Era Misconceptions

[LondonRingRules]

Jeannette's last year was 1922. In 1918 he beat a very good fighter in Kid Norfolk. The fight would have meant less than Dempsey's draw with Lester Johnson 2 years previously? I think not.

** Agreed, you think not, nor shall you ever think more than NOT.

Jeannette retired in 1919 regardless of who he beat in his twilight years. Had Dempsey fought him and knocked him out in this period, you'd be cracking on Jack for beating a past it Jeannette, ducking him in his prime of 1914.

The 1922 return against Henry Gibson was probably as a favor for some community event. Gibson doesn't even have a record save against Joe and that was the sole card on the venue.

That's you're style kid, not even a decent smoke and mirrors setup, just one stupendous goof after every monumental blunder after a dozen stumbles..........

[Obama]

** Agreed, you think not, nor shall you ever think more than NOT.

Jeannette retired in 1919 regardless of who he beat in his twilight years. Had Dempsey fought him and knocked him out in this period, you'd be cracking on Jack for beating a past it Jeannette, ducking him in his prime of 1914.

The 1922 return against Henry Gibson was probably as a favor for some community event. Gibson doesn't even have a record save against Joe and that was the sole card on the venue.

That's you're style kid, not even a decent smoke and mirrors setup, just one stupendous goof after every monumental blunder after a dozen stumbles..........

1) Why did you jump from 1918 to 1919? In 1918 Jeannette proved he was still quite good. Sure he was past his prime, but so what? Dempsey should have fought him. It would have been an upgrade from Lester Johnson regardless.

2) I would never say Dempsey ducked a prime 1914 Jeannette, that's just ******.

3) Must you insert insults in every post? Does it make you feel like more of a man? You even feel the need to pretend I'm claiming things that I'm not in order to justify your banter. If you feel you must insult me, do what you feel. But keep it real. If I confuse you, ask a question. That's the rational thing to do.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

The term "golden age of bla bla bla" is thrown around too loosely.

One era misconception I'm aware of, assuming it's a misconception, is that the 70's was the "golden age" of heavyweights. I don't buy it, plain and simple. I don't care how many names you rattle off, videos of the 70s do not impress me and I watch a lot of videos and am very open minded about the past.

The other one I'm aware of is the notion that Ray Robinson's era was the "golden age" of middleweights. Again, I don't care how many names, those videos do not impress me. They're not bad - Ray was in some good fights. But I don't think it was the toughest era.

I can end this silly argument....

When a 44 year old Foreman can comeback and win the HW title, it shows you how good they were in the 70's.

I don't see how any self respecting boxing fan can say looking at Ali, Foreman, Frasier etc fight and not be impressed....lol

You must look at the space shuttle and think it's nothing more than a paper airplane as well.

[Kid McCoy]

When a 44 year old Foreman can comeback and win the HW title, it shows you how good they were in the 70's.

I don't see how that argument works. Ali, Frazier, Quarry, Young, Norton, Lyle, Shavers and co were nowhere near a world title at age 45. The same goes for Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Charles, Tyson and virtually any other heavyweight champion. Holmes is really the only other who came close. That was more a testament to Foreman's abilities than how good his first era was.

[Obama]

Holmes beat Mercer, Foreman beat Moorer. If you pretend Moorer didn't have a title, who's win was better? And who was the better fighter between Mercer and Moorer?

[Kid McCoy]

Foreman beat Frazier, who was better than anyone Holmes ever beat. Lyle was also arguably better than anyone Holmes beat, and the Norton that Foreman KO'd was closer to his prime than the Norton Holmes got a split decision over. What does that prove?

As for Mercer and Moorer, Moorer beat Holyfield, which surpasses any of Mercer's wins. Moorer also put a decent run together and won two heavyweight titles, whereas Mercer was hot and cold throughout his career. Not much in it really, but Moorer was the more successful of the two.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

I don't see how that argument works. Ali, Frazier, Quarry, Young, Norton, Lyle, Shavers and co were nowhere near a world title at age 45. The same goes for Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Charles, Tyson and virtually any other heavyweight champion. Holmes is really the only other who came close. That was more a testament to Foreman's abilities than how good his first era was.

No it's a testament to how poor the HW division was at that time foreman won when 44 yrs of age. There's no way Foreman was anything close to the monster he was when he was in his 20's, yet came back and beat Moore at age 44....

What is there to not understand? The 70's were the best era of HW not because of just big names but because they had the deepest talent.

This is the same reason I think tyson is overrated, he beat up on nobody's and when facing decent competition, he lost.

[Obama]

Foreman beat Frazier, who was better than anyone Holmes ever beat. Lyle was also arguably better than anyone Holmes beat, and the Norton that Foreman KO'd was closer to his prime than the Norton Holmes got a split decision over. What does that prove?

As for Mercer and Moorer, Moorer beat Holyfield, which surpasses any of Mercer's wins. Moorer also put a decent run together and won two heavyweight titles, whereas Mercer was hot and cold throughout his career. Not much in it really, but Moorer was the more successful of the two.

I said who's win was better against Mercer and Moorer respectively, not who had better wins during their overall career. Also Lyle was definitely not better than Witherspoon. I can't see that being debated really...

As for Moorer beating Holyfield, yea he did, but it wasn't exactly a Holyfield that should have been fighting now was it? Yet he barely beat Holyfield... I'd say Ray Mercer's demolition of Tommy Morrison was more impressive. Even his losses to Lewis and Holyfield were more impressive than any Heavyweight win Moorer had aside from Holyfield. ...Man that was a lot of Holyfields, nearly confused myself.

[Obama]

No it's a testament to how poor the HW division was at that time foreman won when 44 yrs of age. There's no way Foreman was anything close to the monster he was when he was in his 20's, yet came back and beat Moore at age 44....

What is there to not understand? The 70's were the best era of HW not because of just big names but because they had the deepest talent.

This is the same reason I think tyson is overrated, he beat up on nobody's and when facing decent competition, he lost.

Not sure how you can't call Holmes, Spinks, Tucker, Bruno, and Ruddock decent competition...

Let's be clear with the Moorer fight. Moorer was not an ATG Heavyweight. He was perhaps only the 4th best Heavyweight at the time. He also fought like and idiot. And in fighting like an idiot, he managed to win every minute of every round prior to the KO.

[Kid McCoy]

I said who's win was better against Mercer and Moorer respectively, not who had better wins during their overall career. Also Lyle was definitely not better than Witherspoon. I can't see that being debated really...

As for Moorer beating Holyfield, yea he did, but it wasn't exactly a Holyfield that should have been fighting now was it? Yet he barely beat Holyfield... I'd say Ray Mercer's demolition of Tommy Morrison was more impressive. Even his losses to Lewis and Holyfield were more impressive than any Heavyweight win Moorer had aside from Holyfield. ...Man that was a lot of Holyfields, nearly confused myself.

I did say arguably, and many would argue whether Holmes really beat Witherspoon at all.

Surely the quality of the opponent's resume has some bearing on how valuable a win is? Like I said, there's not much between Mercer and Moorer, although I give Moorer the edge (I also thought his win over Holyfield was more convincing than the cards suggested). I don't see a win over one as substantially better than a win over the other, ergo not much between Holmes' and Foreman's wins over them. The only difference is Foreman beat the guy who won the title, whereas Holmes didn't.