Tweet
Matt Christie questions whether the heavyweights of today are judged unfairly because we view the greats of yesteryear through rose-tinted specs
[Click Here To Read More]
[Click Here To Read More]
-
-
By far and away the best. The way Jake Paul nullified Mike Tyson's power shows you that modern men have more tools in their box than the talent of days gone by. Tyson demolished the best of his time, outside of Lewis, Holyfield, and Buster, but neither of them outclassed him the way modern man Jake Paul did. Modern HW's like Jake have too much for fighters from the past like Ali, Liston, Joe Louis, even Rocky Balboa, despite his win over Mr.T.
Nostalgia is a strong drug, but modern men like Tyson Fury, Usyk, and Jake Paul, make easy work of fighters from days gone by, and the same thing will happen in 20-30 years time, when, for example, the son of the face of boxing may be the main man then, and better than the current crop as an even more next-gen man. Nash out - His Excellency -
I became a boxing fan in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
For me, that was a golden age primarily because so many great title fights were on broadcast TV for free.
Matthew Saad Muhammad, Larry Holmes, Sugar Ray Leonard, and so many more captured the imagination and viewership of the fans without the BS hype - in most cases - of PPV promotions.
Larry Holmes, as champ, getting decked hard in the 11th round by fearsome puncher Earnie Shavers, then getting back up to retain his title - no PPV necessary for that galvanizing, electrifying moment.
These days wannabe-contenders fighting each other are only available on PPV.
Eff that.
Comment
-
It's not up there with Ali , Frazier , Forman , lyle , shavers,Norton and Holmes but there are two stand out competitors in Usyk and Fury , who are head and shoulders above the rest but with some fierce and rising youngsters snapping at their heels . Having said that it's better than the , Tubbs , Dokes, page and Coetzee era .Comment
-
I think later 70's to the 90's was the golden age. Early 2000's was not terrible but I would say mid 2000 to today has been horrible. Just a huge drop off in talent. The Klitschko era I found was the worst but this 2020's era makes that era look good. You only have two real players in Usyk and Fury. None of the others are even close. AJ is basically done, DDD seems like he is coming on but is very beatable. Zhang is old, Wilder is shot. It is just really badComment
-
I would argue that the era from the early 2000’s to 2014 was worse than 2015 to the present.
The Klitschko era was the Klitschko’s with no competition. Case in point: You could put Fury, Usyk, AJ and maybe even Wilder in the Klitschko’s place and they would dominate that era too
The Klitschko’s era was so bad that Vitali retired for four years due to injuries and came back to destroy the best of the rest (Sam Peter, Chris Arreola)Comment
-
This era has been fine, and will be looked at favorably. It will never- and shouldn't- be considered "elite", but it is good. If the best all would have faced the best, it would have been much better. But Usyk will have missed Wilder. Wilder will have missed 2 of the best names as will Fury and Joshua. Had all four of these men actually squared off with each other it would have been a damn great era. Throw in solid "B" level names like Whyte, Parker, and DuBois and even respectable journeymen like Chisora, Zhang, and Joyce it has had some fun fights.
There have been way worse historically. I piss a ton of people off by typing this, but I stand by my opinion that Larry Holmes is an all time great who had zero real prime competition. Everyone was either older or scrubs no one remembers. We all see the Klitschko era as bad. I also feel prime Tyson, when he was the youngest HW and was dominating, was a flat line of real talent. Now Tyson - mostly after his jail time- was a part of an all time great era with Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe, and other great talents like Tua. I just believe his prime dominance was over suspect competition and this era was better.Comment
Comment