What was the third best era for heavyweights?

[BattlingNelson]

I said nothing about "pre-Louis."

The era I defined INCLUDED Joe Louis.

The era pre Louis was terrible. If you move it a few years to include Louis a little bit, it’s obviously better than terrible, but no way top 3. Louis major claim as a top 1 or 2 atg hw lays in his longevity more so than his opposition, even though he obviously also has some great wins.

[ShoulderRoll]

The era pre Louis was terrible. If you move it a few years to include Louis a little bit, it’s obviously better than terrible, but no way top 3. Louis major claim as a top 1 or 2 atg hw lays in his longevity more so than his opposition, even though he obviously also has some great wins.

I disagree.

My era was defined as the 1930's. But if I go back just two years it can span from Gene Tunney up to and including Joe Louis. That's not a bad group at all, certainly far superior to anything in the Klitschko reign.

[BattlingNelson]

I disagree.

My era was defined as the 1930's. But if I go back just two years it can span from Gene Tunney up to and including Joe Louis. That's not a bad group at all, certainly far superior to anything in the Klitschko reign.

Certainly better than the klit reign you say. Interesting. You may be correct, but what do you base that bold claim on? More competitive fights (allegedly), eye test or....?

[ShoulderRoll]

Certainly better than the klit reign you say. Interesting. You may be correct, but what do you base that bold claim on? More competitive fights (allegedly), eye test or....?

I base it on better fighting ability of the heavyweights during this stretch of time.

They had an arsenal that consisted of more than just "jab jab grab" with an occasional left hook thrown in.

[Willie Pep 229]

To Bill and BN

Are youg guys familiar with Jon Bios "Chart Party" (SBNATION)?

He uses statistics to create some off beat analysis of different sport circumstances.

Some include:

What would be Barry Bonds' on base average if he never swings his bat ?

What was the saddest punt ever called

Why the Cleveland Brownd live in hell (an analysis of Cleveland QBs over the past 30 years)

Each of these (an others) necessitates not only very thorough stats research but creative criteria as well.

I think it would be a hoot if we could get him to take on a boxing issue such as the one you guys are debating.

I wonder if we were to collectively approach him could we get him to take on boxing?

Check out any one of his "Chart Party" presentations his statistical research is extraordinary.

[BattlingNelson]

I base it on better fighting ability of the heavyweights during this stretch of time.

They had an arsenal that consisted of more than just "jab jab grab" with an occasional left hook thrown in.

If that jab jab grab style is enough to consistently win isn’t that enough? What if you had a fighter who never threw a body shot? Surely your fighters from that stretch of time had better fighting ability.....

Instead I suggest you look at wins over top 10 opponents. I mean if you have a style that no one can beat, why change it? If you consistently beat the top opponents in the world then surely you are better than those who win some and lose some? Even more so if the top 10 is the top ten of a thousand fighters and not just the top 10 of a hundred.

[Willie Pep 229]

I mean if you have a style that no one can beat, why change it?

Because you can end up like Charley Burley. Win, win, win, and end up fighting in shlt venues in front very small crowds for very poor money.

I realize that on this forum there are endless evaluations of skill (often by self appointed experts) but does fan appeal and the promotion and preservation of the fight game count?

Is Mike Tyson's era great because of his skills, his resume, or is it becuse he made the entire nation look up and take notice.

The "Russians" never did that. Is an era great if it goes unnoticed except by a bunch of boxing geeks like us? Who are we to make that call when a billion people turned away in disinterest, "experts!" ?

Wald was a very successful fighter but 'greatness' historically speaking, demands much more than mere success. The era was a dog; can't have a great era if no one is watching.

All his victories did very little to promote the game, at some level he hurt it. The game was in the doldrums especially the HWs - not a great era of the game (except to a few geeks).

[BattlingNelson]

Because you can end up like Charley Burley. Win, win, win, and end up fighting in shlt venues in front very small crowds for very poor money.

Klits fought in stadiums for huge money, so we can dismiss your comparison straight away. Invalid.

I realize that on this forum there are endless evaluations of skill (often by self appointed experts) but does fan appeal and the promotion and preservation of the fight game count?

Is Mike Tyson's era great because of his skills, his resume, or is it becuse he made the entire nation look up and take notice.

The "Russians" never did that. Is an era great if it goes unnoticed except by a bunch of boxing geeks like us? Who are we to make that call when a billion people turned away in disinterest, "experts!" ?

Wald was a very successful fighter but 'greatness' historically speaking, demands much more than mere success. The era was a dog; can't have a great era if no one is watching.

All his victories did very little to promote the game, at some level he hurt it. The game was in the doldrums especially the HWs - not a great era of the game (except to a few geeks).

Using excitement as a criteria is definetely valid. Tyson was major exitment through and through. Wlad... not so much. Wlad did achieve major success. Huge crowds. Huge purses (remember the insane winning bid for the Povetkin fight). Oh and plenty was watching. Maybe not in the states, but speaking globally I would think that more people watched Wlad than Tyson primarily due to Tyson being ppv. So saying that no one is (was) watching is faulty.

[JAB5239]

This posted by a guy who thinks Valuev was a great heavyweight contender and who thinks Wilt the stilt would best Ali... Don't ask him what makes these heavyweights so good, and how they would dwarf other eras when they do 1/4th of what fighters did in the ring in previous eras, while moving at half the speed...

Lets bring Queenie out into the light disinfection time Queen Bee!

...........

[JAB5239]

I’ve rarely read about a fighter talking down his biggest win. Imagine if Byrd said that yeah I admit I got lucky even though that would have been closer to the truth.

I think Vits knew he was going to get stopped is closer to the truth than Byrd getting lucky. Chris made him miss with more punches than any other fight and was most likely the reason Vits suffered the injury. That he never sought the rematch even though both were so closely ranked for so long pretty much backs that up in my opinion. Vitaly was a good fighter and a tough guy, but the era as a whole was very weak. That the brothers had to tag team it by swapping fighters better suited for their particular styles after losses instead of rematches is just another reason many people view it as such.