Sorry, this heavyweight era is really poor

[Toffee]

If there's a dominant HW people say the era is poor because there's no depth.

If there are a few then people say it's poor because there's no great champion.

We have three incredible, huge athletes at the top. And plenty of contenders who can pick one of them off.

The only shame is that they don't fight each other enough, but then people forget that they didn't do that in the 90s either.

[Boxxymcboxface]

Yes, I believe era is not very strong, because I have seen prime Povetkin hiding and fighting guys like Huck, Wawrzyk..while waiting Klitschko fight...

But now, past prime old Povetkin comes forward to all top contenders..

Or you actually think 40 old Povetkin is better than 33 old was?

Well he proved that even at 40 or 41, he is still a force to be reckoned with in this division. Maybe the heavyweight division isn’t as strong as say the 90’s or 70’s, but this heavyweight division has shown to be consistent and has a better level of talent than the 00’s. We are probably in the third or fourth best heavyweight era ever.

[whollisboxing]

No it is clearly not. Klitschko was a big champ, beating prime Povetkin easily. Povetkin was done as a true contender after Wladimir beat him.

Now past prime Povetkin still hangs around knocking out top 10 guys.

How are we defining each era? Are we talking 2000-2010 vs. 2010-present? I need to know that before I really dig into this topic.

[PRINCEKOOL]

The era is extremely competitive, but the levels in performance are low.

May I just add? Povetkin is 6"3 220 pounds 'And he has just ****** out a super-heavyweight' too many people these days, so easily get carried away with super-heavyweights 'most of them are out of condition'.

[whollisboxing]

40+ old Povetkin in terrible shape, knocks old cold top 5-6 contender, 32 old?

Klitschko beat the same Povetkin 7 years ago.

Only Fury is probably good there, others are all very average. Joshua is probably like Bruno 2.0.

Could be Michael Grant was better than Wilder.

People seem to say that about every era so my question is which eras have actually been good? The 70's? The 90's? has every era in the history of boxing been bad?

I ask because every dominant champion gets the "weak era" label, and then when there's parity we say it's a weak era because there isn't a dominant champion.

The Michael Grant comparison to Wilder is all nostalgia. A prime Wilder would line Grant up with the right hand and knock him out, plain and simple.

[removed]

The era is extremely competitive, but the levels in performance are low.

May I just add? Povetkin is 6"3 220 pounds 'And he has just ****** out a super-heavyweight' too many people these days, so easily get carried away with super-heavyweights 'most of them are out of condition'.

Whyte is rubbish and always has been and was overrated by casuals. Povetkin is still a good fighter. A good small man will beat an average big man.

[Toffee]

Whyte is rubbish and always has been and was overrated by casuals. Povetkin is still a good fighter. A good small man will beat an average big man.

By casuals? And of course by rating organisations containing people who have spent their professional lives in boxing.

Where did you rank him? 15? 20? 50?

[champion4ever]

40+ old Povetkin in terrible shape, knocks old cold top 5-6 contender, 32 old?

Klitschko beat the same Povetkin 7 years ago.

Only Fury is probably good there, others are all very average. Joshua is probably like Bruno 2.0.

Could be Michael Grant was better than Wilder.

It's highly unlikely. Fury would be the next U.K. Champion to fall. Just wait and see. This Heavyweight era is like a merry-go-round.

[LetOutTheCage]

been saying it for ages, this generation is weak. Prime Kltichko would beat everyone and even he wasn't that great if im honest.

None of these guys would be champion in Ali's era despite their physical size advantage