breaking down this heavyweight era and others: Why today stinks!!

[JAB5239]

A good New Year's resolution would be to get in the ring with Pulev and Stiverne and throw some serious leather. They're expecting jabs, so give them something new. Unload the power shots and sit them down early. As Emanuel Steward said in the Chambers fight, "You don't need another bull**** decision."

Believe it or not I use to be a huge Wlad fan. If he got back ro a more aggressive style I would be again. Its probably not going to happen though.

[JAB5239]

Larry Holmes top 3 opponents

*I changed out Mercer for Witherspoon since Mercer teally wasn't Holmes era or close to it.

Cooney - has fought 1 top 10 fighter not including Holmes. He fought Spinks.

Norton - has fought 10 top 10 fighters not including Holmes. He's fought Cooney, Shavers, LeDoux, Young, Ali, Quarry, Foreman, Ali, Ali and Jose Luis Garcia.

Witherspoon - Has fought 8 top 10 fighters not including Holmes. He's fought Snipes, Page, Thomas, Tubbs, Smith, Bruno, Mercer and Golota.

That's 19 top 10 wins for Holmes 3 best opponents.

Joe Louis top 3 opponents

Walcott - Has fought 14 top 10 fighters not including Louis. He's fought Simon, Baski, Murray, Ray, Maxim, Ray, Maxim, Charles, Layne, Charles, Charles, Charles, Marciano, Marciano.

Billy Conn - Has fought 1 top 10 fighter not including Louis. He fought Lee Savold.

Max Schmeling - Has fought 8 top 10 fighters not including Louis. He's fought Risko, Stribling, Sharkey, Stribling, Sharkey, Walker, Baer and *****.

That's 23 top 10 wins For Louis' 3 best opponents


Anybody else see a pattern here between these other so called weak era's and today's obviously weak era? If not I won't beat around the bush...today's era has lost in every statistical category presented. Some will want to call me biased, but I gave 3 era's considered very weak with dominant champions to compare this to and I let someone else pick all era's top comp except Louis. Face the facts, fighters fight less against top comp now more than ever. If you're not fighting top comp or you're at the bottom of the list you're an obviously very weak era in spite of a very good champion. Its no wonder the cheerleaders for todays heavyweight boxing have been like crickets in here!

[ShamrockXpress]

There's really not much he can do. He's a great fighter in a crap era. The best thing he could do is drop the belts and just go after the best fighters. No one is really going to call anyone else champion until Wlad either loses or retires, whether they have a belt or not. That would make a great statement saying he wants his legacy to be remembered fondly instead of for fights like Leapai, Pianeta, Wach, etc.

I agree with you about the era being weak. People are just content to beat up on cans and wait for a payday. It's hampering the development of these fighters. I renember being quietly optimistic about Denis Boytsov early in his career, I envisioned a chagaev/ibragimov but with more pop. But he spent too much time fighting D level fighters that when he finally stepped up to a D+/C- fighter he lost.

Who do you want to see Wlad fight? The Mormeck/Pianeta/Wach fights were hard to defend as is the Leapai fight, but he doesn't really avoid top contenders (ibragimov, chagaev, Haye, povetkin). If he keeps up his activity fighting 3/4 times a year, the contenders (Pulev, Stiverne, Arreola, Fury, Jennings, Wilder?) should be doing the same and trying to force the fight.

[billeau2]

so? it means nothing at all, what a ****** poster!
how does any of this prove that one era is better then another?
lol
According to your logic Lous' and Tyson's eras are the strongest, when most boxing experts agree that they are the weakest.
Why would an era be strong if mediocre fighters are ranked in top 10 by ring ****zine and lightweight Sphinks is HW champ. Wouldn't it mean that the era is weak? lol
Some of the fighter Holmes fought were ranked in top 10 but were awful, for example Snipes. The guy even lost to Norris, who was later KOed by Vitaly's jab in 1st round lol

The only thing this list shows is that Tyson and Luis fought higher ranked contenders then other champs, but not by much. And you can't prove that the fighters they fought are better then modern fighters.

numbers on the list are probably made up. You didn't post any links to support your argument, which does not prove anything anyway.

Where's Lennox on that list? the numbers didn't fit your agenda?
Where's Marciano? Ali? Foreman? Johnson? Patterson
you are not a very logical person, just a hater or a troll

Also, before major fights, fighters appear on top of the Ring's ratings all of a sudden, it just shows how corrupt the ring is in the first place.
There's no way you can legitimately prove that one era is better then another.
You can only have a subjective opinion.

You are ignorant regarding Jab's point. The data supports a particular hypothesis rather than a sweeping generalization. Hope this helps:

Strong and weak are relative subjective descriptors. Taking people's perception of strong and weak and the opinion of the leading journal describing and surveying that opinion gives one a basis for making a distinction. This data proves that relative to the fighters people percieve as "Strong" champion, etc.....each champion fought a particular amount of this competition.

nobody made any point about modern versus old, the point has to do with having a basis for the best competition and each champion fighting that part of the set of heavyweight fighters.....

You are really sounding ****** when you don't seem to get the jist of what the thread is about in your lust for the modern heavyweight you seem to infatuated with.

[billeau2]

There's really not much he can do. He's a great fighter in a crap era. The best thing he could do is drop the belts and just go after the best fighters. No one is really going to call anyone else champion until Wlad either loses or retires, whether they have a belt or not. That would make a great statement saying he wants his legacy to be remembered fondly instead of for fights like Leapai, Pianeta, Wach, etc.

Exactly!!! That would be doing what the fans want and doing what is best for the division.

[New England]

There's really not much he can do. He's a great fighter in a crap era. The best thing he could do is drop the belts and just go after the best fighters. No one is really going to call anyone else champion until Wlad either loses or retires, whether they have a belt or not. That would make a great statement saying he wants his legacy to be remembered fondly instead of for fights like Leapai, Pianeta, Wach, etc.

wladimir has fought almost all of his top contenders. if he didn't, his brother did. we can't give wladimir credit for vitali's wins, but we have to recognize the impact of vitali's wins on wladimir's matchmaking.


i'd have loved to see arreola vs wladimir. unfortunately, arreola was stopped by vitali, and had to rebuild in order to get a shot at a title again. along the way he lost to stivern and adamek, and wladimir never fought adamek because vitali crushed him.

[JAB5239]

You are ignorant regarding Jab's point. The data supports a particular hypothesis rather than a sweeping generalization. Hope this helps:

Strong and weak are relative subjective descriptors. Taking people's perception of strong and weak and the opinion of the leading journal describing and surveying that opinion gives one a basis for making a distinction. This data proves that relative to the fighters people percieve as "Strong" champion, etc.....each champion fought a particular amount of this competition.

nobody made any point about modern versus old, the point has to do with having a basis for the best competition and each champion fighting that part of the set of heavyweight fighters.....

You are really sounding ****** when you don't seem to get the jist of what the thread is about in your lust for the modern heavyweight you seem to infatuated with.

Very nice description...I owe you some green k!

[Holywarrior]

rotten tomatos at the KBros and their fans

[daggum]

wladimir has fought almost all of his top contenders. if he didn't, his brother did. we can't give wladimir credit for vitali's wins, but we have to recognize the impact of vitali's wins on wladimir's matchmaking.


i'd have loved to see arreola vs wladimir. unfortunately, arreola was stopped by vitali, and had to rebuild in order to get a shot at a title again. along the way he lost to stivern and adamek, and wladimir never fought adamek because vitali crushed him.

yes we do. wlad fought all the boxer types like haye, chambers, and thompson while vitali fought all the aggressive types like arreola, chisora, and peter rematch.even floyd is like damn that's some good cherry picking boys!

[JAB5239]

wladimir has fought almost all of his top contenders. if he didn't, his brother did. we can't give wladimir credit for vitali's wins, but we have to recognize the impact of vitali's wins on wladimir's matchmaking.


i'd have loved to see arreola vs wladimir. unfortunately, arreola was stopped by vitali, and had to rebuild in order to get a shot at a title again. along the way he lost to stivern and adamek, and wladimir never fought adamek because vitali crushed him.

With all do respect my friend, I simply don't buy this train of thought. If we go by this Ali should have never fought Ron Lyle or Joe Frazier in 1975 because they had lost to other top contenders. This whole boxing tag team thing is a bit ridiculous. If we go by this reasoning it's ok Wlad never rematched Sanders or Vits never rematched Byrd because the other brother beat them.