Is This The Worst Era Of All Time?

First topic message reminder :

Picking up on the thread that questioned whether the heavyweight division was the worst in history, where do we stand on the current era as a whole?

The best fighters (Mayweather, Hopkins, Ward and Rigondeaux) offer little in the way of excitement. The exciting elite fighters meanwhile are saddled with PED accusations and innuendo; we have the HBO/Showtime divide in the US, a dearth of great fights, the heavyweights are beyond dire and the proliferation of world titles continues unabated (they'll be giving titles away in cornflake packets next).

The 70's and 80's rocked, the 90's (despite an overriding obsession with maintaining an unbeaten record) was fun while the 00s contained the epic Morales-Barrera, Ward-Gatti and Vazquez-Marquez rivalries.

Is this the worst era in history?

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:chinny Lewis and a blown up cruiser Holyfield.

Absolute rubbish.

Lewis - chinny? What Lewis were you watching? Just because he got caught by Rahman with a million dollar punch and by McCall with a daft shot doesn't make him "chinny"

Its one of those overused words on here, like robbed and schooled.

Blown up cruiser?

Now you're reaching. Holyfield was regarded as highly as he should have been as a bonafide heavyweight who beat some of the best boxers of the 80's and 90's.

Give it a rest mate.

Fairly sure, unless I have grossly misread his post, that he was saying that such views were prevalent at the time and are not actually a reflection of MC's views on the fighters involved.

There was nobody I knew at the time who considered Lewis as chinny or Holyfield as a blown up cruiser. Granted I was relatively young, but I still remember my dads mates talking about boxing before fights and that certainly wasn't a topic of conversation.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:chinny Lewis and a blown up cruiser Holyfield.

Absolute rubbish.

Lewis - chinny? What Lewis were you watching? Just because he got caught by Rahman with a million dollar punch and by McCall with a daft shot doesn't make him "chinny"

Its one of those overused words on here, like robbed and schooled.

Blown up cruiser?

Now you're reaching. Holyfield was regarded as highly as he should have been as a bonafide heavyweight who beat some of the best boxers of the 80's and 90's.

Give it a rest mate.

Read my post again.

I said at the time no one gave them any credit. It is not my opinion. Lewis was never considered a good HW when he was champ by the boxing aficionados, let alone a top 15 ATG!!!. He was thought of as chinny, that is a fact. It's just a disease boxing has. People bleat on about how poor it is in the present and how much better things were in the past in an attempt to appear more knowledgeable than new-comers. It's like a boxing version of wine snobbery that in all fairness just gets a bit boring.

The same wine that the old boxers used to get p1ssed on before their fights?

You've got a good memory. Unlike the pi$$ed fighters from yesteryear.

My memory isnt actually all that great sad to say, but sometimes you read things that are hard to forget.

Don't think so. Aside from heavyweight, a lot of divisions are on the upgrade; five years ago or so, the scene was a total wasteland from 154 upwards, so things have improved since then.

In any case, we're forgetting the early-mid 1930s, which was a simply appalling era. Apart from a really good group of fighters around 135-140 and Panama Al Brown at bantam, top-level quality was amazingly thin on the ground. Just have a look at the champions for 1932 if you doubt me - men like Gorilla Jones, George Nichols and the rest are easily as undistinguished as their modern counterparts. This was also the era of Carnera, Schmeling, Sharkey and Baer - the limited, the lazy and the less than marvellous all in the same thoroughly ordinary heavyweight generation.

This is by no means a champagne vintage, but the the 70s/early 80s made a lot of us spoiled by a surfeit of riches. It's almost ludicrous to hope that we're going to get a list of champions to set beside 1974 or 1982. As it is, the old game isn't in such dire straits.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Don't think so. Aside from heavyweight, a lot of divisions are on the upgrade; five years ago or so, the scene was a total wasteland from 154 upwards, so things have improved since then.

In any case, we're forgetting the early-mid 1930s, which was a simply appalling era. Apart from a really good group of fighters around 135-140 and Panama Al Brown at bantam, top-level quality was amazingly thin on the ground. Just have a look at the champions for 1932 if you doubt me - men like Gorilla Jones, George Nichols and the rest are easily as undistinguished as their modern counterparts. This was also the era of Carnera, Schmeling, Sharkey and Baer - the limited, the lazy and the less than marvellous all in the same thoroughly ordinary heavyweight generation.

This is by no means a champagne vintage, but the the 70s/early 80s made a lot of us spoiled by a surfeit of riches. It's almost ludicrous to hope that we're going to get a list of champions to set beside 1974 or 1982. As it is, the old game isn't in such dire straits.

Such a good name I might change my username to it.

Its a terrible era a Heavyweight champion unbeaten in 10years and not a worthwhile challenge,a 49year old ruling a light heavy division that in any other decent era would have taken a career ending beating, proving age does matter.

A lot of the fighters from these shores who have been given title shots would have been no more than European level  in 70's 80,'90's era.

Mayweather cruising towards retirement with no one coming close to giving him a test,regardless of how good Mayweather is, it doesn't say much about the rest of the talent nothing out there to beat.

Nico the gman wrote:Its a terrible era a Heavyweight champion unbeaten in 10years and not a worthwhile challenge,a 49year old ruling a light heavy division that in any other decent era would have taken a career ending beating, proving age does matter.

A lot of the fighters from these shores who have been given title shots would have been no more than European level  in 70's 80,'90's era.

Mayweather cruising towards retirement with no one coming close to giving him a test,regardless of how good Mayweather is, it doesn't say much about the rest of the talent nothing out there to beat.

Archie Moore?

A lot of the guys from these shores who have been given title shots are no more than European level now, and lost.

Maurice Hope was a world champion in the early 80's and was no more than European level himself, most of our guys would have got shots in the 80's and 90's because of the proliferation once the IBF started.

Scottrf wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:Its a terrible era a Heavyweight champion unbeaten in 10years and not a worthwhile challenge,a 49year old ruling a light heavy division that in any other decent era would have taken a career ending beating, proving age does matter.

A lot of the fighters from these shores who have been given title shots would have been no more than European level  in 70's 80,'90's era.

Mayweather cruising towards retirement with no one coming close to giving him a test,regardless of how good Mayweather is, it doesn't say much about the rest of the talent nothing out there to beat.

Archie Moore?

A lot of the guys from these shores who have been given title shots are no more than European level now, and lost.

Archie ranks a bit higher than Hopkins at Lightheavy namely top 2 of all time,Hopkins is beating substandard Lightheavy champions, who would be no more than low ranked contenders in any other era, he doesn't win the titles at 49 in any other decent era that's the point I'm making.

Then again Moore probably doesn't defend his title were he competing in a better era too Nico, his standard of opposition bar Johnson was pretty poor and in no other era is Maxim the champion to start with.

Nico the gman wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:Its a terrible era a Heavyweight champion unbeaten in 10years and not a worthwhile challenge,a 49year old ruling a light heavy division that in any other decent era would have taken a career ending beating, proving age does matter.

A lot of the fighters from these shores who have been given title shots would have been no more than European level  in 70's 80,'90's era.

Mayweather cruising towards retirement with no one coming close to giving him a test,regardless of how good Mayweather is, it doesn't say much about the rest of the talent nothing out there to beat.

Archie Moore?

A lot of the guys from these shores who have been given title shots are no more than European level now, and lost.

Archie ranks a bit higher than Hopkins at Lightheavy namely top 2 of all time,Hopkins is beating substandard Lightheavy champions, who would be no more than low ranked contenders in any other era, he doesn't win the titles at 49 in any other decent era that's the point I'm making.

"“Boxing right now is dying with its superstar Muhammad Ali fighting competitors not worthy to try for his crown.”
Black Belt Magazine, 1976

“Legitimate professional wrestling has died. Boxing is dying. Swimming, tennis, golf, modern dance, and gymnastics are growing.”
James A Baley, 1974

Question: “Is boxing dying?”
Archie Moore (multiple title champion and ATG):
“Yes, it must be. They told me it was dying when I got into it as a professional in 1936. I think it started dying at about the dawn of history. So I guess it is still dying.“
Archie Moore, 1972

“And when the black man starts to excel in a particular sport the question starts floating around: “Is boxing dying?”
Eldridge Cleaver, 1969

“With the gradual dying of boxing as a national sport, judo seems the perfect replacement“
Black Belt Magazine, 1964

“The experts have been saying for years that boxing is dying because kids no longer are hungry, because boxing no longer is the way for a poor kid to get rich quick.”
LA Times, 1963

“Boxing is not dying”, said Jack Dempsey sadly, “it’s dead“. Even as the old champ spoke last week the corpse of a one lively sport was just barely twitching… Jack Dempsey was not the only old champ to grieve. Mickey Walker and Gene Tunney were equally mournful… “It’s gone, boxing. Today you show any style and they put you on TV. They’ll take anyone.” Neither Tunney nor Walker knew quite what to do with the corpse.”
Life Magazine, 1961

“Radio is not “causing the demise of big-time boxing“, John Ford, WTCN-Blue newscaster, told his audience in rebuttal to an attack on radio and boxing, published by Dick Cullum, sports editor of the Minneapolis Daily Times, 10 days ago.
Cullum had charged that because sponsors want their full time on the air in which to get in their commercials, fight broadcasts go without knockouts these days and become uninteresting dancing exhibitions.”
The Billboard, 1944

“The game of boxing is dying today because the boys do not know how to box. There is no one to teach them how and they won’t work anyway”.
LA Times, 1940

“Professional boxing is dying a natural death“
LA Times, 1913

“As it is, the school of boxing is rapidly dying out, and when the professors of the present day have passed away it will be hard to say where the new ones are to come from.”
Professor Ned Donelly, The art of boxing, 1879"

"“They’ve been saying that “today’s heavyweights” suck since the beginning of the 20th century.

In the 1990s they b*tched that you had a 45 year old heavyweight champion and a near champion in Larry Holmes (who nearly beat McCall).

In the 1980s they b*tched that Holmes didn’t have anyone to fight and the post-Holmes pre-Tyson era was one of the worst in history- according to the writers of that era.

People call the 1970s the “Golden Era” today, well -they didn’t call it that then. They b*tched that an old, shot, Ali was champion and the Joe Louis would have wiped the floor up with the bums fighting in that era. People complained about Ali and Frazier making so much money (2.5 million) for their first fight.

The 1960s- hell, a 40 year old sonny Liston was arguably the best fighter in the world after Ali was suspended- no one, including Frazier’s management wanted to fight him. Floyd Patterson was also a top contender late in that decade.

The 1950s? Gene Tunney once stated in a Look Magazine article that Jack Dempsey would KO Marciano, Charles, Walcott, and Rex Lane on the SAME night.

The 1940s? Read the the old Ring Magazine articles about how bad the heavies were back then. Jack Johnson said that not only were the contenders lousy but Joe Louis wasn’t any good neither. He said that not only would he beat Louis but Jeffries, Corbet, Fitzsimmons, Tom Sharkey, Joe Choynski, and a bunch of other contenders of his era would easily beat Louis.

The 1930s ? Do I need to go on? So find me a time in history when the public thought that the heavyweights of that era were any good”
"
Same old. http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=305580

Scottrf wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:Its a terrible era a Heavyweight champion unbeaten in 10years and not a worthwhile challenge,a 49year old ruling a light heavy division that in any other decent era would have taken a career ending beating, proving age does matter.

A lot of the fighters from these shores who have been given title shots would have been no more than European level  in 70's 80,'90's era.

Mayweather cruising towards retirement with no one coming close to giving him a test,regardless of how good Mayweather is, it doesn't say much about the rest of the talent nothing out there to beat.

Archie Moore?

A lot of the guys from these shores who have been given title shots are no more than European level now, and lost.

Archie ranks a bit higher than Hopkins at Lightheavy namely top 2 of all time,Hopkins is beating substandard Lightheavy champions, who would be no more than low ranked contenders in any other era, he doesn't win the titles at 49 in any other decent era that's the point I'm making.

"“Boxing right now is dying with its superstar Muhammad Ali fighting competitors not worthy to try for his crown.”
Black Belt Magazine, 1976

“Legitimate professional wrestling has died. Boxing is dying. Swimming, tennis, golf, modern dance, and gymnastics are growing.”
James A Baley, 1974

Question: “Is boxing dying?”
Archie Moore (multiple title champion and ATG):
“Yes, it must be. They told me it was dying when I got into it as a professional in 1936. I think it started dying at about the dawn of history. So I guess it is still dying.“
Archie Moore, 1972

“And when the black man starts to excel in a particular sport the question starts floating around: “Is boxing dying?”
Eldridge Cleaver, 1969

“With the gradual dying of boxing as a national sport, judo seems the perfect replacement“
Black Belt Magazine, 1964

“The experts have been saying for years that boxing is dying because kids no longer are hungry, because boxing no longer is the way for a poor kid to get rich quick.”
LA Times, 1963

“Boxing is not dying”, said Jack Dempsey sadly, “it’s dead“. Even as the old champ spoke last week the corpse of a one lively sport was just barely twitching… Jack Dempsey was not the only old champ to grieve. Mickey Walker and Gene Tunney were equally mournful… “It’s gone, boxing. Today you show any style and they put you on TV. They’ll take anyone.” Neither Tunney nor Walker knew quite what to do with the corpse.”
Life Magazine, 1961

“Radio is not “causing the demise of big-time boxing“, John Ford, WTCN-Blue newscaster, told his audience in rebuttal to an attack on radio and boxing, published by Dick Cullum, sports editor of the Minneapolis Daily Times, 10 days ago.
Cullum had charged that because sponsors want their full time on the air in which to get in their commercials, fight broadcasts go without knockouts these days and become uninteresting dancing exhibitions.”
The Billboard, 1944

“The game of boxing is dying today because the boys do not know how to box. There is no one to teach them how and they won’t work anyway”.
LA Times, 1940

“Professional boxing is dying a natural death“
LA Times, 1913

“As it is, the school of boxing is rapidly dying out, and when the professors of the present day have passed away it will be hard to say where the new ones are to come from.”
Professor Ned Donelly, The art of boxing, 1879"

"“They’ve been saying that “today’s heavyweights” suck since the beginning of the 20th century.

In the 1990s they b*tched that you had a 45 year old heavyweight champion and a near champion in Larry Holmes (who nearly beat McCall).

In the 1980s they b*tched that Holmes didn’t have anyone to fight and the post-Holmes pre-Tyson era was one of the worst in history- according to the writers of that era.

People call the 1970s the “Golden Era” today, well -they didn’t call it that then. They b*tched that an old, shot, Ali was champion and the Joe Louis would have wiped the floor up with the bums fighting in that era. People complained about Ali and Frazier making so much money (2.5 million) for their first fight.

The 1960s- hell, a 40 year old sonny Liston was arguably the best fighter in the world after Ali was suspended- no one, including Frazier’s management wanted to fight him. Floyd Patterson was also a top contender late in that decade.

The 1950s? Gene Tunney once stated in a Look Magazine article that Jack Dempsey would KO Marciano, Charles, Walcott, and Rex Lane on the SAME night.

The 1940s? Read the the old Ring Magazine articles about how bad the heavies were back then. Jack Johnson said that not only were the contenders lousy but Joe Louis wasn’t any good neither. He said that not only would he beat Louis but Jeffries, Corbet, Fitzsimmons, Tom Sharkey, Joe Choynski, and a bunch of other contenders of his era would easily beat Louis.

The 1930s ? Do I need to go on? So find me a time in history when the public thought that the heavyweights of that era were any good”
"
Same old. http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=305580

The question was asked is this the worst era in boxing, IMO yes.

Mr Hopkins was a Middleweight most of his career,moves up at 41years old and rules the division at 49 says it all for me.Klitchko's next big threat the winner of Fury, Chisora absolute joke.

Could it not be that Hopkins is a great? Do you use Armstrong's achievements as evidence the divisions were weak? He's adapted well in his older age and made excellent use of his experience. If you look for negatives it's not hard to find them.

Hopkins also isn't ruling the division, he's the number one ranked contender to Stevensons title.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Maurice Hope was a world champion in the early 80's and was no more than European level himself, most of our guys would have got shots in the 80's and 90's because of the proliferation once the IBF started.

Bit harsh on mo, hammy. No sugar ray, Infact a  bit of a plodder but effective. Probably Remembered best for forming part of benitez' highlight reel, but although well behind he'd given a decent account of himself. It was as close to a prime benitez as you get. Won some tough fights on the road.  Can see why you picked him, but he was a decent fighter

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hopkins also isn't ruling the division, he's the number one ranked contender to Stevensons title.

Sorry I apologise, he doesn't hold the WBO belt either,thought I'd just mention it before you posted it,but at 49year old I wouldn't put it past him unifying.

milkyboy wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Maurice Hope was a world champion in the early 80's and was no more than European level himself, most of our guys would have got shots in the 80's and 90's because of the proliferation once the IBF started.

Bit harsh on mo, hammy. No sugar ray, Infact a  bit of a plodder but effective. Probably Remembered best for forming part of benitez' highlight reel, but although well behind he'd given a decent account of himself. It was as close to a prime benitez as you get. Won some tough fights on the road.  Can see why you picked him, but he was a decent fighter

I like Hope made the most of what he had but alongside Antuofermo was european level at best but because of a paucity of talent before the fab four came around found themselves as world champions. Cuevas and Palomino weren't exactly great welterweight champions and guess what they never had any intention of fighting eachother while they could defend their titles with relative ease.

Nico the gman wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hopkins also isn't ruling the division, he's the number one ranked contender to Stevensons title.

Sorry I apologise, he doesn't hold the WBO belt either,thought I'd just mention it before you posted it,but at 49year old I wouldn't put it past him unifying.

He'd be doing it because he's that good and yes the division isn't at it's strongest but it takes a pretty special fighter to carry on winning at the top level at 49. Going back to the Moore thing, he was getting bounced around by Durelle a journeyman before he got the job done.

Guess it depends what euro level is hammy. There isn't a word for equivalent US or Latin fighters who aren't top world champions. But if you consider minter, Stracey, palomino, cuevas to be euro level then yes hope is too.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hopkins also isn't ruling the division, he's the number one ranked contender to Stevensons title.

Sorry I apologise, he doesn't hold the WBO belt either,thought I'd just mention it before you posted it,but at 49year old I wouldn't put it past him unifying.

He'd be doing it because he's that good and yes the division isn't at it's strongest but it takes a pretty special fighter to carry on winning at the top level at 49. Going back to the Moore thing, he was getting bounced around by Durelle a journeyman before he got the job done.

Not suggesting he isn't a good fighter far from it, ruled the Middleweights for long enough, but put him in the 70's 80's and know way does he move up to Lightheavy in his 40's and beats prime Galindez,Conteh,Johnson,Saad Muhammad, Qawi,Spinks,not Hopkins fault the division is garbage so fair play for taking advantage.

Nico the gman wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hopkins also isn't ruling the division, he's the number one ranked contender to Stevensons title.

Sorry I apologise, he doesn't hold the WBO belt either,thought I'd just mention it before you posted it,but at 49year old I wouldn't put it past him unifying.

He'd be doing it because he's that good and yes the division isn't at it's strongest but it takes a pretty special fighter to carry on winning at the top level at 49. Going back to the Moore thing, he was getting bounced around by Durelle a journeyman before he got the job done.

Not suggesting he isn't a good fighter far from it, ruled the Middleweights for long enough, but put him in the 70's 80's and know way does he move up to Lightheavy in his 40's and beats prime Galindez,Conteh,Johnson,Saad Muhammad, Qawi,Spinks,not Hopkins fault the division is garbage so fair play for taking advantage.

That's no way not know way,lack of concentration too busy gloating on Chelsea getting stuffed.

I don't know, if Hopkins is allowed explore hidden MMA fighter, as he is now, I think he'd keep it close for a while. With the "help" available in the 70s, maybe Hopkins doesn't even fight at 50.

milkyboy wrote:Guess it depends what euro level is hammy. There isn't a word for equivalent US or Latin fighters who aren't top world champions. But if you consider minter, Stracey, palomino, cuevas to be euro level then yes hope is too.

Well I wouldn't call Minter, Palomino or Cuevas euro level, they were all world class but hardly memorable fighters and not far removed from the so called weak champions around today despite the latter two being IBHOF inductees.

A lot tends to hinge on the Americans and before the fab four minus Duran and Spinks outside of the heavyweight division they had only had Foster who had been a dominant champion in near on 20 years so the 80's I feel do get over rated ever so slightly because of that.

Not sure about klitschkos competition but didn't Mike Tyson feel even he himself at his peak might not have stood a chance against them? so how come it will be a weak era.

He said he'd have knocked them both out quite comfortably in fact.

Tyson being Tyson, no doubt he's contradicted himself on that particular issue as he does on most things - but last time I saw anything about his view on the Klitschkos he was saying (to Boxing News, a few months back), "The Klitschkos are great fighters, you can't take it away from them. They'd give anyone in history problems - including me."

If the question is is this the worst era of all time for the quality of fights then not a chance. There have been lots of great fights in recent years. I'm enjoying boxing now as much as any time in the previous 20 years. Yes there are issues that are not ideal, but this has been the case in every era. You watch Tommy Coyles last fight and tell me that isn't entertaining. Lighten up people and enjoy the fights, it doesn't have to be the top of the bill fight at Vegas to be exciting.

spencerclarke wrote:If the question is is this the worst era of all time for the quality of fights then not a chance.  There have been lots of great fights in recent years.  I'm enjoying boxing now as much as any time in the previous 20 years.  Yes there are issues that are not ideal, but this has been the case in every era.  You watch Tommy Coyles last fight and tell me that isn't entertaining.  Lighten up people and enjoy the fights, it doesn't have to be the top of the bill fight at Vegas to be exciting.

We're into May, though, and that's one of the few standouts alongside Matthysse-Molina, Murray-Crolla and Rees-Buckland.

88Chris05 wrote:Tyson being Tyson, no doubt he's contradicted himself on that particular issue as he does on most things - but last time I saw anything about his view on the Klitschkos he was saying (to Boxing News, a few months back), "The Klitschkos are great fighters, you can't take it away from them. They'd give anyone in history problems - including me."

Exactly thats what I saw too, i guess there is some link for that in youtube.