Quote Originally Posted by Max Power View Post
Quote Originally Posted by SlimTrae View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Max Power View Post
Now listen up you 2 above...

You are fond of saying certain previous eras were better than present (The Louis era, the Ali era etc.)
(just the 90's)

But how do you assess that?
basically by opinion..LOL! aka IMO

OF all the opponents that Louis or Ali fought for example, how do you know that these opponents were any good? Did you watch all of their fights leading up to there meeting with Muhammad Ali or Joe Louis?

Ali's era IMO wasn't the best skilled or talented, just the most known because of how popular boxing was at the time. As far as Joe Louis, I go by his own saying: BUM of the month club. I usually get ragged by my older generation as you with me . The 50 & up club thinks Joe Louis era was the best, I dont.

Because if you are claiming that you did, then you are basically claiming that you have watched something like 2000 fights or so!
Agreed, as no one here is making that claim.

That's why you HAVE to go by the records of the opponents opponents as a guide to their overall quality (irrespective of weight to start) and THEN go by the weight of their opponents opponents as the next filter to get an overall picture of the HW worthiness of these opponents (a welterweight opponent, even if high quality, is NOT a good gague for HW).

We will have to agree to disagree, but I respect your point here.

And THEN we can start to assess video performances of these fighters!

I have found the above formula instrumental and highly predictive of the quality of past time boxers (and even current ones) before I've even WATCHED them fight.

That's cool. Everyone needs a formula to base their decisions on, For me I also use to..and I mean (use) to read Ring Magazine in the 80's. That was another way to learn of fights. Funny thing was by the time an issue would come out...it would be a month or so behind, but it was detailed enough to list all the fights, how it went down, where it went down. Just as in the 1940s?? many use to go by the radio as their formula for determinin who fought who and how they ranked against each other


If you seriously claim you guys are making an objective analysis based on watching all 2000 fights involving the champ in question and all there opponents fights as well, then I call BS immediately!
I can't speak for Master or anyone else, but if I could, I think we are all arguing our hearts out with this in mind: IMO.
So you mean to tell me I've been arguing this whole time with somebody who is merely claiming the 90's were a superior division? That's all?

Well then, in that case.. IN MY OPINION I simply believe they (the 90's, 00's and now 10's) are pretty much comparable. I base this on what I observe and on the statistics.

But given your points above, it's clear I was not even addressing this to you at all! The ABOVE post of mine was issued to guys like @Master @fan johnny and the rest of the OTNB (Old Time Nut Bag) community who DO claim that such eras as the Ali or Louis era featured superior quality boxers. In other words they support fighters the background of which they are largely unaware and have not bothered to CHECK the ACTUAL performance of these boxers.

If you think the 90's was a superior division, I can find that a respectable opinion. They were all impressive, strong boxers with excellent records and championed by one of the best fighters of all time!
LOL! It's all good.