Greats who fought in weak eras vs Good fighters who fought in great eras.

Inspired by BF.
We've heard it repeated- so and so was called great because they fought in a week era (Wlad, BHop)for example.

But there are fighters who lost...... thus the title(GREAT) eluded them.

My take: Buddy Mcgirt was reduced to being called just a good fighter because he fought in an era of packed talent.
Julio Cesar Chavez
Pernell Whitaker
Edwin Rosario
Meldrick Taylor
Livingston Bramble
Simon Brown
Some Buddy fought some here he didn't. These were a few names that Buddy had to contend with at welter. How would the so-called Great JMM or Pac had done in Buddy's era?


How would JMM or Pac had faired in Roberto Duran's era?
I think Pac destroys the fighters that Duran faced at ,(LW).

Duran was great indeed at LW but for those here who love mythical matchups: you really think Floyd would have lost to DeJesus or Buchanan?

I don't think Pac or JMM are nearly as dominant in the 80s or 90s at welter. Look at Oba Carr, he never even won a title, let alone headlined a PPV. Carr fought Tito,Ike Quartey n Oscar tough. You had guys like guys Luis Lopez and James Page who were big Walters that could punch, and they couldn't hold on to the title long at all. Pac n JMM r ATGs, but their success at 140-147 is more reflective of the deterioration of the sport than how amazing they are.

To further illustrate your point, look at Oscar. Was he great, or only good? Say what you will but the guy was a BEAST through most of his career and look who he fought: prime undefeated Genaro Hernandez, prime Raf Ruelas, prime undefeated Miguel Angel Gonzalez, prime undefeated Tito, prime undefeated Quartey, prime undefeated Mosely, prime undefeated Floyd and prime Pac. He also fought slightly past their primes Hop, Fernando Vargas and Sweet Pea and past his prime Chavez. He destroyed guys like David kamau, a James Leija, Arturo Gatti and John Molina. Great resume their. Even guys like Evander, Hop and Pac don't have that depth. So... Was he great, or just good (I say great)????

Another fly ass post.
DLH took allot of flack for not beating the best off his era, but as you stated, it was a helluva era.

Maybe DLH in today's era would be called an ATG.

What about if GGG fought in Haglar's era stopping short of 1987 -
1973-1986 -13 years
GGG vs. Bennie Briscoe, Bobby Watts, Vito Antuofermo, Willie Monroe, Mustafa Hamsho, Tony Sibson, Duran moving up to MW, GGG ending his career with Tommy Hearns and John Mugabi.
I know Golovkinc hasn't had a defining fight yet but based on what we've seen so far...
who beats GGG?

All time great fighters like Leonard, Robinson, Jones, Chavez, Whitaker and Duran would be great in any era at their respective best weights. Good fighters like Hearns, Oscar and Hopkins could do great things in their time period dependant on competition.

The only distinction is they were beaten by great fighters when it mattered.

I think the "weak eras" and "great eras" stuff is mostly bullshit. I do use it a lot myself but in reality nobody really has the knowledge to know how truly great an era was, who got ducked/didn't get a shot, how good the bit players were, ect. There's really no way to quantify the quality of an era with any reasonable degree of accuracy.

I think it's just fair to say if you were great in your era, you get your ATG status. If you want to start ranking the ATGs, it's best to use the eye test IMO. And if you fought before the advent of cameras, go fuck yourself.

Jerry Quarry fought in the era of Ali,Frazier,Foreman,Norton,Lyle and others. He belongs in the HOF.

So does Butterbean, he fought in the era of Tyson, Holyfield, Ruddock, Morrison, Mercer etc.

Weak Era Poster Child: Wladimir Klitschko

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

All time great fighters like Leonard, Robinson, Jones, Chavez, Whitaker and Duran would be great in any era at their respective best weights. Good fighters like Hearns, Oscar and Hopkins could do great things in their time period dependant on competition.

The only distinction is they were beaten by great fighters when it mattered.

---

You don't consider Hearns and Hop ATGs? In his prime Tommy only lost to Leonard (in a fight he was winning handily) and Hagler (up at 160), both ATGs themselves. He destroyed Cuevas and Duran, although Roberto was above his ideal fighting weight.

Hop has some significant records and historical wins over tough competition. He lost to Roy and drew with Mercado while he was still green, and was ripped off vs. Taylor and barely lost to Joe C. while just past his prime. Definitely respect your opinion but have to disagree with you on those two being "only" good fighters. Actually, after the murderers row that Oscar fought, disagree with him being "good" only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

All time great fighters like Leonard, Robinson, Jones, Chavez, Whitaker and Duran would be great in any era at their respective best weights. Good fighters like Hearns, Oscar and Hopkins could do great things in their time period dependant on competition.

The only distinction is they were beaten by great fighters when it mattered.

---

You don't consider Hearns and Hop ATGs? In his prime Tommy only lost to Leonard (in a fight he was winning handily) and Hagler (up at 160), both ATGs themselves. He destroyed Cuevas and Duran, although Roberto was above his ideal fighting weight.

Hop has some significant records and historical wins over tough competition. He lost to Roy and drew with Mercado while he was still green, and was ripped off vs. Taylor and barely lost to Joe C. while just past his prime. Definitely respect your opinion but have to disagree with you on those two being "only" good fighters. Actually, after the murderers row that Oscar fought, disagree with him being "good" only.

---

OK I will concede Hearns is an ATG but not Hopkins and Oscar.

The golden boy was a very good fighter who faced the best fighters but lost the big fights. Hopkins was a very good fighter too but not ATG and I would include James Toney in that as well.

Hopkins not an ATG? Wow! What's the basis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Hopkins not an ATG? Wow! What's the basis?

---

He got beat by an real ATG

Not only is B-Hop and ATG, he's among the elite of the ATGs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Hopkins not an ATG? Wow! What's the basis?

---

He got beat by an real ATG

---

If u think about it, so did Leonard, Robinson, Ali, Armstrong...etc. Some of them were beaten by non ATGs. Can't see leaving Hop out of the top 20 at this point, but I'm biased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Hopkins not an ATG? Wow! What's the basis?

---

He got beat by an real ATG

---

If u think about it, so did Leonard, Robinson, Ali, Armstrong...etc. Some of them were beaten by non ATGs. Can't see leaving Hop out of the top 20 at this point, but I'm biased.

---

You are bias. :)

Who did Robinson lose at his peak? Leonard avenged his defeat.

Robinson lost to Lamotta, which is nothing to be ashamed of, especially considering it was up a full weight class. Just wanted to illustrate that many all time greats lose at one time or another. Duran lost to Dejesus, who isn't even a hall of fame fighter.

Hop was green when Roy beat him (which wasn't even that bad of a beating) and didn't hit his peak until 5-6 years later. Hop never came close to losing during his prime and put on an ATG performance vs Tito who was undefeated, in his prime and ranked #2 p4p. When discussing historical accomplishments and quality of opposition I just can't see calling Roy an ATG and not Hop. Guess we will agree to disagree on that one.

Also, even though I am biased, that doesn't mean I'm wrong....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Robinson lost to Lamotta, which is nothing to be ashamed of, especially considering it was up a full weight class. Just wanted to illustrate that many all time greats lose at one time or another. Duran lost to Dejesus, who isn't even a hall of fame fighter.

Hop was green when Roy beat him (which wasn't even that bad of a beating) and didn't hit his peak until 5-6 years later. Hop never came close to losing during his prime and put on an ATG performance vs Tito who was undefeated, in his prime and ranked #2 p4p. When discussing historical accomplishments and quality of opposition I just can't see calling Roy an ATG and not Hop. Guess we will agree to disagree on that one.

Also, even though I am biased, that doesn't mean I'm wrong....

---

What I would say it Roy Jones would have beaten any version of B Hop including the one that beat Tito.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeeod

Robinson lost to Lamotta, which is nothing to be ashamed of, especially considering it was up a full weight class. Just wanted to illustrate that many all time greats lose at one time or another. Duran lost to Dejesus, who isn't even a hall of fame fighter.

Hop was green when Roy beat him (which wasn't even that bad of a beating) and didn't hit his peak until 5-6 years later. Hop never came close to losing during his prime and put on an ATG performance vs Tito who was undefeated, in his prime and ranked #2 p4p. When discussing historical accomplishments and quality of opposition I just can't see calling Roy an ATG and not Hop. Guess we will agree to disagree on that one.

Also, even though I am biased, that doesn't mean I'm wrong....

---

What I would say it Roy Jones would have beaten any version of B Hop including the one that beat Tito.

---

Maybe, maybe not. I think that is debatable as Hop seemed to evolve his style specifically to fight Roy again. Roy was a freak of nature, do not saying Hop is a lock or that it would ever be a dominant win. Just saying that a Roy win prime vs prime isn't a forgone conclusion either. When you look at historical impact, accomplishments and quality of opposition, Hop has Roy beat by far.

Wlad era is below like the 70's and the 90's that it really when you look at it really. The 20's 30's 40's 50's 60's 80's are all in same boat as now really. Also no matter how weak hw era is Holding the crown is hard because ever mother fucker so big they can knock you out with a punch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr140

Wlad era is below like the 70's and the 90's that it really when you look at it really. The 20's 30's 40's 50's 60's 80's are all in same boat as now really. Also no matter how weak hw era is Holding the crown is hard because ever mother fucker so big they can knock you out with a punch.

---

imo there never really was a great era of HW's. Just a great fighter who stood out of the pack.

70's era is rated because Ali fought then. He can't be great if the guys he fought were not exalted.

90's HW imo were the most talented and athletic, but the best didn't fight each other until they were allpast their prime aka Tyson vs Holy.
Holy vs Lewis.
and Lewis vs Tyson.

Bump

Where does Crawford fit In as far as today's era? If he continues to dominate in this weight class, but got sparked if he moves up? Do you rate him based on his best weight class, or lessen his status..if he can't dominate at a heavier weight class?

Kovalev years pro::7
Wins WBO title over 26-0 Nathan Cleverly
Sparks top 5 LHW contender Ismayl Silakh
Lopsided victory over former P4P great Bernard Hopkins, stops former WBC champion Jean Pascal.
Rated P4P #2
Record: 29-0-1 (26 KOs)

Title: WBO, IBF, WBA light heavyweight
Possible challenge left is Adonis Stevenson.

How does Kovalev era rate against other LHW eras? What era is considered the best for LHW?

Kov is beating all that are willing to step in with him with the obvious exception of Adonis.

Kov is special, you can see that and if he fights ward or Adonis then we can truly rate him.

honestly can not say how he would do against Jones Jnr, Spinks, Foster, Moore or Ezzard Charles but he can create his own legacy up with those legends.

I've thought about this for a time and have concluded its a bit of a trick question. Based on the criteria applied on most boxing forums one could have asked, What Greats did notfight in a week era? I mean even look at Floyd. The guy has fought about 3 atg's in 20 years, two of which were out of their prime. Sure he beat a bunch of belt holders but they were only belt holders because there are so many belts. Even Robinsons welter record. Who did he beat in his first 50 outside of Jake and carrying a tired Armstrong? Most of the atgs he beat had already lost about 20 or more times. Great fighters make good ones look weak because they are great. I think the question brings out the fact that you can’t just judge greatness on resume numbers. Too many variables. People in some eras lost because they fought 6 times a month. People routinely sum up someone’s career based on w/l and that’s it. Very few actually look into it. A guy like Burley is forced to fight his own stable over and over again as the rest of the Row and he might not make the cut and yet had that group of individuals been given the same opportunities as Robinson they would most likely have beaten anybody Ray fought from 47 to 75.

Calzaghe had a weak order
Hopkins had a weak middleweight era until a famous welter
Same with Hagler
Golovkin is in soft also.
People put Monzon in top 3 middle lists. Based on what exactly? Talk about a weak middleweight era. He beat a worn out Bennie Briscoe. I’ll give him that. Big stats and little substance.

Now the mid division and some of the champs came immediately to mind and 168 was pretty new but
I think its rare for greats to meet other greats in most eras. That is, greats on the same level at the same time.

There might be a couple of handfuls of great fighters that fought in great eras if one were to go back to 1865 and move forward division by division.

Great perspective Iam.

That's why I tried to ask it two fold: Great fighter weak era/ average fighter great era.

The one problem all sports fans run into is trying to compare eras.

The one argument I hear when comparing IMO is subjective. When a fan visualizes an old era fighter in today's era......without flipping the script.

No PPV, not even closed circuit television:lickish:
So a brittle hand Floyd Mayweather Jr. is forced to fight bimonthly, if not weekly.
In the 1950s...would he have had that Hispanic wise old man to start rapping his hands?
And with his safety first style...how would Ring magazine word it...after all, that was how fans across America learned of fight results...hard to get good fights If Ring magazine doesn't tout it.

I could envision Floyd as good yesterday as he is today, but due to the frequency in which he would be forced to fight, I can see his hands giving up on him.
As his only drop was a standing 8...a pain pierced his hand..his glove scraped the canvas ...and there starts his only count.

Floyd Mayweather Jr 1950-1968??? I'd say 95-4-2 losses on points ...out pointed by a windmill swinging Hank Armstrong, Split decision loss to SRR whose one handed power drops Floyd, but doesn't stop him.
A few draws because his defence saves him from his infrequent activity.

Floyd wouldn't shine as bright in yesteryear, not because of the talent, but he'd c get wore down trying to make ends meat.
Of course...it's just my opinion.:rolleyes:

Brilliant posting from both of you. Really put it into perspective Floyd at 95-4-2 would be very respectful. I would even like the guy. Maybe.

I think people who beat the better names are on my list for atg higher then those who don't. I mean Spinks and Holyfeild could of stayed undefeated if they never moved up and had longer reigns but no way in hell thats be better then them jumping up and being hw champs. I love Hagler, Monzon, and few other guys who were long reigning champs but in the end they never moved up and really challenged themselves. Guys like Calzaghe and Hopkins fought in shit division for so long were the real challenge was above them in the end they made up for it but kinda played it safe for most of there careers. I mean guys like Leonard, Mayweather, Hearns, and so many more kept moving up to test them selves and Holyfeild and Spinks didn't need pound for pound they moved up and beat the hws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr140

I think people who beat the better names are on my list for atg higher then those who don't. I mean Spinks and Holyfeild could of stayed undefeated if they never moved up and had longer reigns but no way in hell thats be better then them jumping up and being hw champs. I love Hagler, Monzon, and few other guys who were long reigning champs but in the end they never moved up and really challenged themselves. Guys like Calzaghe and Hopkins fought in shit division for so long were the real challenge was above them in the end they made up for it but kinda played it safe for most of there careers. I mean guys like Leonard, Mayweather, Hearns, and so many more kept moving up to test them selves and Holyfeild and Spinks didn't need pound for pound they moved up and beat the hws.

---

If there was more money for hagler to fight spinks than if he fought Duran or Hearns I am sure Marvalous would have gone up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr140

I think people who beat the better names are on my list for atg higher then those who don't. I mean Spinks and Holyfeild could of stayed undefeated if they never moved up and had longer reigns but no way in hell thats be better then them jumping up and being hw champs. I love Hagler, Monzon, and few other guys who were long reigning champs but in the end they never moved up and really challenged themselves. Guys like Calzaghe and Hopkins fought in shit division for so long were the real challenge was above them in the end they made up for it but kinda played it safe for most of there careers. I mean guys like Leonard, Mayweather, Hearns, and so many more kept moving up to test them selves and Holyfeild and Spinks didn't need pound for pound they moved up and beat the hws.

---

I think that’s true in many cases but its a flawed litmus test in others. Many either never got the chance like say a Burley or Marshall along with the rest of the Row and before them was the Langfords and Jeanette’s along with a host of others that died in obscurity. Others cashed in on name rec when those names had little left or not enough to compete. I responded to that thread about nics and commented on Wilde. Did Poncho Villa beat Jimmy Wilde really? No he didn’t. He beat the name. Wilde was most likely done 5 years earlier and when he lost to Herman it was evident. Wilde already had 150 fights and at least 300 more not registered and was inactive for 2 years prior to Villa. Poncho becomes the first Filipino world champion and today gets in most top 5 or even 3 lists of Atg Asian fighters mostly based on that win. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

In addition when you consider those "names" present today its almost laughable. Trinket collectors. Everybody knows who Thurman is. How come? What’s he done? These names are more manufactured today then at any other time in history. They have become product ads with broadcasters deciding who fights who and what hairstyles they wear. People posing off the backs of no hopers and becoming household names. Joe Gans crossing the usa by train the evening after a fight to scrap Langford the next day stands out to me more than anything most of these names today have done in their career.

You closed by suggesting these guys that moved up separates them from the pack and although I agree in part, the devil is also in the details here as well. Leonard and Floyd are 2 bad examples to use in an argument for separation or difference. They moved up because they were as great a duo of opportunists as they were fighters. Leonard did nothing at 154 and then waited out Hagler for 3 years and then in the minds of many, robbed him. When he challenged Lalonde Donny was the 175 champ and yet the invented a new weight division for Ray and got Lalonde to melt down to 168 to defend his 175 title.

Floyd jumped up sure but who did he fight, when did he fight them and under what circumstances? He never jumped up to fight anyone of note in their prime. In addition what’s more dominant, a person that stays put and dominates a division by unifying it while also taking all all comers or a person that jumped up in weight and collected a piece in several divisions at times using the path of least resistance?

If we scrutinized everyone the way [we] cherry pick those we securitize there would be very few all-time greats. In my opinion atg’s would be atgs in any era even those whom we have little or no footage for because if it holds true over the course of my life then there is no reason to believe that it would not have been true in the past. They could all adapt and would because they were and are all-time greats.

Very few great fighters had the greats to meet them.

Leonard eye was knocked out of his head and they said he pretty much should not fight anymore. I would say Leonard eye being fucked and not fighting in the ring puts him at bigger disadvantage then Hagler do not get Leonard benefit also the massive injury he got and all rust in the world. Also there has been so many polls on here and other sights more times then not i see a Leonard win Hagler was not shot did not help he fought dumbest fight he could against Leonard. I got more respect people moving up and beating bigger guys Holyfeild, Hearns, Lenoard, Duran, Spinks and Jones did it. My whole point is guys moving up and proving they can beat better fighters they make the pound for pound list not matter Holyfeild and Spinks moved up won hw title they did not need if they were at the same weight they moved up and did it.

Also after Hagler beat Duran and Hearns he could of made the move i am just saying no way in hell he was going fight Spinks. Spinks was making great money and i am sure fighting him would made hagler more money then guys he fought after Duran and Hearns.

Ricardo Lopez. Arguably one of the top technicians and skilled boxers to answer the bell but continually in the background. Definitely handcuffed more by a division not even recognized then but he did have a couple of options one division up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

Bump

Where does Crawford fit In as far as today's era? If he continues to dominate in this weight class, but got sparked if he moves up? Do you rate him based on his best weight class, or lessen his status..if he can't dominate at a heavier weight class?

Kovalev years pro::7
Wins WBO title over 26-0 Nathan Cleverly
Sparks top 5 LHW contender Ismayl Silakh
Lopsided victory over former P4P great Bernard Hopkins, stops former WBC champion Jean Pascal.
Rated P4P #2
Record: 29-0-1 (26 KOs)

Title: WBO, IBF, WBA light heavyweight
Possible challenge left is Adonis Stevenson.

How does Kovalev era rate against other LHW eras? What era is considered the best for LHW?

---

I'd rate Crawford as with any fighter on his entire body of work. Really wish he would cut to the chase and move up to full welter and think he'll do well there. Has to be one of the deepest divisions today!

As much as I like Kovalev and the push he is giving the division it cannot hold a candle to the late 70's and the depth that was Galindez, Saad, Johnson, Lopez, Rossman, Braxton and company. Many went not once but twice or thrice with one another and while today we have a dominate champion who is being refused a showdown with the previous top dog. Ward has finally sacked up and there is promise for a mega-fight but as we all know by now..its not real until the bell rings. We also had great potential at 175 very early 90's. Sure Hearns schooled Hill and Harding v Andries put on one of the top trilogies the sport has seen but would have loved to see Moorer get it on with Prince Charles or any of the above!

How about great fighters who fought in great eras? To me, the late 70's and 80's with the likes of Duran, Leonard, Hearns, Hagler fighting not only great competition but also each other... trumps just about any other era and its fighters. Those 4 would've fared well in any other era, and it was against each other that they stamped their tickets to the list of ATG's. The fact that the fights were competitive and exciting just adds to the argument.

But I have a pet peeve here. Why is it that a fighter must go up in weight to be considered great?? What about the fighter who feels comfortable at a certain weight his entire career... and also dominates the competition at that weight? What if the fighter feels he'd be uncomfortable gaining weight and moving up the divisions? Who made the rule that a fighter HAS to move up in weight to be considered great? Sure... it's an added plus to a fighter's resume... and an admirable task if he can do it without PEDS. But there's something to be said for the fighter, especially those with a lot of longevity, who dominates at one division and repels all challengers.

Reason moving up props boxers up is because it is hard to do size makes a difference. Holyfeild being undefeated at cw would mean nothing compared to moving up being a hw champ again and again. Micheal Spinks winning HW title put him higher then winning another lhw even though it was deep. Leonard, Duran and Hearns winning titles way above there starting weights helped define greatness. People always talk about pound for pound who would win if they were same size the people who move up and beat them put it to rest shows they can makes them greater to a lot of people.

Mr140/Tito. .good points pros and cons for moving up or holding it down LOL

If a person maintains the same weight. .like Haglar....stay I say.
If a person drains themselves to make weight I say move on up.

Gone are the days of the suicidal Hank
Say WHAT?!! 151 wins via 101KOs... defending his title 19 times in less than two years
Holding a triple crown aka 3divisions all in one year..
With what? Just 8 divisions??? So the jump in weight class was off the hook.

I guess rating eras can be opinionated. So too can rating fights, their reign and resume .

But I'd like to think no one in their right mind can deny Hank's accomplishments.
Great record, feat ..maybe his era was great. .maybe weak.....but then again...can we say all 3 divisions he fought in were weak?!!!