Tweet
I was browsing through some boxing websites 
and I came across this, I find it pretty interesting and to an extent I sort of agree.
The “Weak Era” Fallacy: There is no questioning that some fighters were forced to deal with tougher opponents than others. Other times, however, a lot of greats get docked points for fighting in supposedly weak eras, despite the fact that it was their their very dominance that prevented anyone else from becoming great.
Historically, fighters benefit when they participate during a time when there was parody. You see a bunch of good and evenly-contested fights and the tendency is to rank the fighter who came out ahead in the whole mess higher than a guy who just knocks everyone cold. For example, you will invariably see Evander Holyfield ranked higher than Wladimir Klitschko on all-time lists. Holyfield fought during a good era, winning most, but losing his share along the way. Klitschko has just dominated everyone, unbeaten for many years.
This might be a bad example because in this case, the popular notion is actually correct. But if Klitschko and his brother never boxed, someone else would have been the champion. There may have been several guys in the mix, competing in even fights and getting credited for being good fighters. Who knows? But utter dominance of contemporaries doesn’t necessarily equate to a weak era.
What do you think?
and I came across this, I find it pretty interesting and to an extent I sort of agree.The “Weak Era” Fallacy: There is no questioning that some fighters were forced to deal with tougher opponents than others. Other times, however, a lot of greats get docked points for fighting in supposedly weak eras, despite the fact that it was their their very dominance that prevented anyone else from becoming great.
Historically, fighters benefit when they participate during a time when there was parody. You see a bunch of good and evenly-contested fights and the tendency is to rank the fighter who came out ahead in the whole mess higher than a guy who just knocks everyone cold. For example, you will invariably see Evander Holyfield ranked higher than Wladimir Klitschko on all-time lists. Holyfield fought during a good era, winning most, but losing his share along the way. Klitschko has just dominated everyone, unbeaten for many years.
This might be a bad example because in this case, the popular notion is actually correct. But if Klitschko and his brother never boxed, someone else would have been the champion. There may have been several guys in the mix, competing in even fights and getting credited for being good fighters. Who knows? But utter dominance of contemporaries doesn’t necessarily equate to a weak era.
What do you think?
Comment