What was the third best era for heavyweights?

[Willie Pep 229]

Only Carpentier and Siki were contemporaries of Dempsey. Besides being LHWs he fought Carpentier and before anything could happen Siki got himself stripped and disappeared from the scene.

[billeau2]

- -Sounds of a puppy squeaky toy masquerading in a traditional manly sport of self defense started by forefathers in England 400 years ago.

I gave a representative list of the top 25 heavies in Sept of 2010, most all of whom would dwarf previous contenders in the history of the sport. Size alone ain't never been the beat all determining factor in boxing, but there's a reason we have weight classes in the interest of fair competition. Facts are your grade school analysis heavily flawed with your subjectivity that no amount of soprano soloing can drown out. American boxing was dying on the vine in the 90s when Vitali came, saw, and conquered by default when he couldn't get any big names to fight him. Welcome to review the Ring top 10 heavies starting with the close of the 90s where the long American centric Ring was slow to the mark, but finally realized the inevitable your candy is still melting over.

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!

[BattlingNelson]

No Bats its none of that... It is a fundamental disagreement about criteria for starters. And then it is analyzing different numbers, something done in past threads...no need to rehash here. things like the amount of boxing gyms per capita, the age when fighters entered, started fighting professionally, the pool of other sports draining boxing talent, etc.

well.... what criteria’s would you suggest as a measure for ‘best era’?

you then mention a bunch of possible statistics. What about them? What about ‘boxing gyms per capita’? What are we to use that for? What is a ‘boxing gym? Is that to be taken literally, or do we count fitness, and combat sports gym also? Bill we aren’t getting anywhere.

I know you feel strongly about this and respect your feelings. I just disagree. hey! meet me halfway in Helsinki you bum! ill murda ya! Seriously though I am always looking at things with fresh perspective... I might change my mind one day as new data comes in.

Feelings? No my friend. I don’t care. If it was about feeling I’d up every era my fav Ali fought in.

Ive never been to Finland. See you in the sauna.

[BattlingNelson]

https://www.boxingscene.com/byrd-vit...top-him--44306

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.

[BattlingNelson]

The Klitschko era was absolutely horrid. I will forever have a soft spot in my heart for Tyson Fury because he ended it.

The 1930's with Max Schmeling, Jack Sharkey, Max Baer, James Braddock, and Joe Louis is in the running for the third best era.

Hmmm.. before I noticed the numbers thing I outlined above and in other threads, I always found the worst era in heavyweight history to be a bout between the pre Tyson era and the pre Louis era. You claim that the pre Louis era is a top era is truly mind boggling.

[billeau2]

well.... what criteria’s would you suggest as a measure for ‘best era’?

you then mention a bunch of possible statistics. What about them? What about ‘boxing gyms per capita’? What are we to use that for? What is a ‘boxing gym? Is that to be taken literally, or do we count fitness, and combat sports gym also? Bill we aren’t getting anywhere.

Feelings? No my friend. I don’t care. If it was about feeling I’d up every era my fav Ali fought in.

Ive never been to Finland. See you in the sauna.

I feel like there are like lots of threads that framed this debate, but ok...

Lets look at quality as a measure and lets assume there is a mathmatical way we can prove whether boxing has evolved, or not. But first off lets look at some observations vis a vis lets look at empirical proof before we look at math: fighters generally fought more, were more active, started younger in times past. But lets look at the issue of quality specifically. You had more boxing gyms, it was considered more prestigious to be a fighter... Also, generally speaking one is better from experience. Now the argument is raised that fighters do fight as much, but do so as amatuers. The problem is the amatuer style of fighting is restrictive. These critiscims have been raised about the ammy circuit at least since the mid 1800's. The style of an amatuer fighter is limited. There is virtually no body punching, movement is upright and the goal is to hit with as many punches in a short time frame. Finally, if you watch tape, you can literally watch and see major differences in the quality of fighters. More skills are exhibited in times past...these can be quantified: fighters threw all punches, had head movement, moved well, threw to the body, etc etc.

Now lets look mathmatically: The claim is, the pool has widened thus more talent at the top. Again, we have to consider not only the pure numbers, but what the numbers represent. There are many more sports that draw athletic talent away from boxing. There are more amatuer programs, but professional proze fighting is not much (if at all) bigger than in the past. There are more different champions around... but that tells me that the quality has simply been diluted, not that we ae getting more talent and therefore more talented fighters.

Finally... what we tend to see are trends where a particular area opens up for professional fighters. Places like Mexico and Cuba have long standing boxing traditions, but a lot of the influx presently comes from Eastern Europe. Many of these fighters wind up training and fighting out of New York City like fighters from all the previous generations did. Its not like we are seeing an influx of new talent consistently internationally... where are the Indian fighters? the Chinese fighters? etc? The actual thing we are seeing is when some parts of the world create an influx of fighters. these fighters, many of them, wind up training like professional fighters did in the past... in gyms located in California and New York... not coincidentally the two most populated stated in the country (followed by Texas).

It looks to me like the same process is repeating BUT with less quality. There are fewer gyms in new york than before, though perhaps more in California... there are less fighters training for boxing, as many are fighting in other combat sports, the attributes we see demonstrate less skills being utilized, and while in the past amatuer fighters have been given limited entree into professional prize fighting, it seems to me more are being accepted into the professional ranks.

[billeau2]

Hmmm.. before I noticed the numbers thing I outlined above and in other threads, I always found the worst era in heavyweight history to be a bout between the pre Tyson era and the pre Louis era. You claim that the pre Louis era is a top era is truly mind boggling.

A careful inspection would reveal that boxing jags... There is no straight line ascention to some evolved "place." You have eras that were good, bad, excellent and awful. The judgement has to be nuanced. Its so complicated IMO that you can't even look at competition exclusively. For example, we know the 70's was fantastic... You had a whole gaggle of fighters that were fantastic. But if you look at Liston's era, a comparitively weak era, liston faced few great fighters, but the general level of competency was fantastic. Alot of run of the mill fighters showed many fantastic fighting skills.

As far as the pre Louis era: Keep in mind that through most of the era leading up to Louis, you had two fighting paradigms that were operational. Some fighters like Tunney could fight with both skill sets, while Dempsey changed the game for what a puncher could do. Was this evolution? the change from one system to another? Thats a hard question to answer as both systems had their good and bad points.

[billeau2]

well.... what criteria’s would you suggest as a measure for ‘best era’?

you then mention a bunch of possible statistics. What about them? What about ‘boxing gyms per capita’? What are we to use that for? What is a ‘boxing gym? Is that to be taken literally, or do we count fitness, and combat sports gym also? Bill we aren’t getting anywhere.

Feelings? No my friend. I don’t care. If it was about feeling I’d up every era my fav Ali fought in.

Ive never been to Finland. See you in the sauna.

I so want to visit Northern Europe... My wife talks about Italy... I want to go up North! Love the cuisine, and the ladies are great looking. Also love to look at pictures of the cities.

[ShoulderRoll]

Hmmm.. before I noticed the numbers thing I outlined above and in other threads, I always found the worst era in heavyweight history to be a bout between the pre Tyson era and the pre Louis era. You claim that the pre Louis era is a top era is truly mind boggling.

I said nothing about "pre-Louis."

The era I defined INCLUDED Joe Louis.

[BattlingNelson]

I feel like there are like lots of threads that framed this debate, but ok...

Lets look at quality as a measure and lets assume there is a mathmatical way we can prove whether boxing has evolved, or not. But first off lets look at some observations vis a vis lets look at empirical proof before we look at math: fighters generally fought more, were more active, started younger in times past.

So you claim that the further back in time you go, the more often boxers fought and they started younger? I somehow doubt that. Can you back up that claim?

But lets look at the issue of quality specifically. You had more boxing gyms, it was considered more prestigious to be a fighter...

More boxing gyms? No way. Think globally. Maybe in the us, even though I also doubt that. More prestigious? I don’t know. Are we talking us only? Ukraine maybe? Puerto Rico? Kazakhstan? Do you have a valid source?

Also, generally speaking one is better from experience. Now the argument is raised that fighters do fight as much, but do so as amatuers. The problem is the amatuer style of fighting is restrictive. These critiscims have been raised about the ammy circuit at least since the mid 1800's. The style of an amatuer fighter is limited. There is virtually no body punching, movement is upright and the goal is to hit with as many punches in a short time frame. Finally, if you watch tape, you can literally watch and see major differences in the quality of fighters. More skills are exhibited in times past...these can be quantified: fighters threw all punches, had head movement, moved well, threw to the body, etc etc.

Yeah. After the scoring system changed after the Seoul fiasco, am-boxing has indeed distanced itself from pro. A thing you IMO fail to take into account is that until about 1990 pro boxing didn’t have boxing from the top am countries in the eastern bloc. As soon as they entered the pro ranks, the championships vanished big time from the traditional top pro countries. That should give you food for thought. I mean what if the Russians, the poles the Cubans had turned pro in the 60s, 70s and 80s? How many of the fighters we from that era call atg’ s would in fact be atg’s if they had better competition? Am I blasphemous now?

Now lets look mathmatically: The claim is, the pool has widened thus more talent at the top.

Not a claim. It’s a fact. Not only because of the eastern bloc, but think about the fact that there’s billions more people on earth today than 50 years ago.

Again, we have to consider not only the pure numbers, but what the numbers represent. There are many more sports that draw athletic talent away from boxing. There are more amatuer programs, but professional proze fighting is not much (if at all) bigger than in the past. There are more different champions around... but that tells me that the quality has simply been diluted, not that we ae getting more talent and therefore more talented fighters.

Please back up that claim. I think you are just speculating. Again. There’s billions more people today so the pool to fish in is so much bigger. That’s a fact.

Finally... what we tend to see are trends where a particular area opens up for professional fighters. Places like Mexico and Cuba have long standing boxing traditions, but a lot of the influx presently comes from Eastern Europe. Many of these fighters wind up training and fighting out of New York City like fighters from all the previous generations did. Its not like we are seeing an influx of new talent consistently internationally... where are the Indian fighters? the Chinese fighters? etc? The actual thing we are seeing is when some parts of the world create an influx of fighters. these fighters, many of them, wind up training like professional fighters did in the past... in gyms located in California and New York... not coincidentally the two most populated stated in the country (followed by Texas).

I think India and China will come. I think your perspective is skewed by your North American presence. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, scores of eastern bloc fighters turned pro and made it big in Germany more so than in the us.

It looks to me like the same process is repeating BUT with less quality. There are fewer gyms in new york than before, though perhaps more in California... there are less fighters training for boxing, as many are fighting in other combat sports, the attributes we see demonstrate less skills being utilized, and while in the past amatuer fighters have been given limited entree into professional prize fighting, it seems to me more are being accepted into the professional ranks.

Again you, IMO, look at it in an American and not a global perspective.