What Era had the Most Talented HeavyWeights?

[Max Power]

I mentioned Billy Conn because you mentioned Joe Louis as one of the few to fight monsters, so I proved that Billy the bum...beat Joe so bad that Joe Louis son described the fight as a beating his pop took.

Joe Louis himself said to Conn..when Conn said you could've let me win and I'd given you a rematch.
To which Joe Louis responded, why? You had the belt for 13 rounds.
So yes it is laughable that you give credit to Joe Louis a few posts before, then when I talk of a fighter who boxed him well until the KO...you down that fighter as a bum and said my post became undreadable, well no problem I like most here feel similar about your posts

Let me elaborate.. OF all the HW champs pre 80's, ONLY Joe Louis beat mention-worthy giants! Like Primo Carnera who had a good record. All the big fighters that say MArciano etc beat were ALL BUMS.

And you respond by mentioning Billy Conn vs Joe Louis, 2 Cruisers in cruiser fights as a proof of giant beating? Not sold! LOL

And I didn't argue with mere weight (although that is a large part of it) but also the overall quality at 3 different levels (boxer in question, their opponents and their opponents opponents).

[Max Power]

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.)

But how do you assess that?

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?

Because if you are claiming that you did, then you are basically claiming that you have watched something like 2000 fights or so!

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).

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.

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!

[Master]

Tyson and Lewis would wipe the 2000 heavyweights.

[SlimTrae]

(overall) 90's HW's would wipe the floor with 2000 HW's

[Max Power]

Tyson and Lewis would wipe the 2000 heavyweights.

I think Lewis would be a dominant champ of the 2000s too, I also think he would be KOed a couple times here and there too as he was in his own era.

I think Tyson could whip most opposition but I do think Tyson would struggle to beat and sometimes be beaten by some of the better 2000's HW's, as occurred during his own era too.

Bascially I see them being about as dominant as they already were because I think the quality of the eras is somewhat comparable. As are the weights of the boxers.

[Master]

Tyson and Lewis would wipe the 2000 heavyweights.

I think Lewis would be a dominant champ of the 2000s too, I also think he would be KOed a couple times here and there too as he was in his own era.

I think Tyson could whip most opposition but I do think Tyson would struggle to beat and sometimes be beaten by some of the better 2000's HW's, as occurred during his own era too.

Bascially I see them being about as dominant as they already were because I think the quality of the eras is somewhat comparable. As are the weights of the boxers.

Name me someone that could beat them at their best?

[Max Power]

Tyson and Lewis would wipe the 2000 heavyweights.

I think Lewis would be a dominant champ of the 2000s too, I also think he would be KOed a couple times here and there too as he was in his own era.

I think Tyson could whip most opposition but I do think Tyson would struggle to beat and sometimes be beaten by some of the better 2000's HW's, as occurred during his own era too.

Bascially I see them being about as dominant as they already were because I think the quality of the eras is somewhat comparable. As are the weights of the boxers.

Name me someone that could beat them at their best?

I don't think any of them could beat Lewis at his BEST.

As for Tyson, MANY of them could potentially beat them at his best. I do not want to say, this one could and this one couldn't because that sparks serious debate about something I don't really know. But it's hard to define what was even the best version of Tyson!

The version you automatically select as the PRIME Tyson (most likely 88 or so) never fought opponents as difficult as he would have to face today, and already he failed to knock several of them out that would be pasted today. That is telling!

[Master]

Sparking debate about something you do not know? what change a habit of a lifetime.

[SlimTrae]

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.

[ruthless rocco]

Ernie Terrell R.I.P.

[Max Power]

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!

[Master]

Have you seen title fights that Wlad has been in? The challengers have been truly awful.

[Max Power]

Have you seen title fights that Wlad has been in? The challengers have been truly awful.

Er.. I have seen all of Wladimirs title fights and the opponents are not awful because I've seen their OTHER fights as well.

When you put it all together you come to realise that it is only because Wladimir is so unbelievably good and formidable that he makes them look easy to beat.

[Master]

Have you seen title fights that Wlad has been in? The challengers have been truly awful.

Er.. I have seen all of Wladimirs title fights and the opponents are not awful because I've seen their OTHER fights as well.

When you put it all together you come to realise that it is only because Wladimir is so unbelievably good and formidable that he makes them look easy to beat.

Wlad is good although anyone remotely dangerous he normally goes into a shell but the challengers are awful, truly pathetic.

[ruthless rocco]

I'm @Max Power .

My mom told me I was very smart as a child and I believed her.

I have a magical brain and a magical keyboard and every thought it think and every word I type is magically true, no matter how little based in reality they are.

Everyone on the forum may think I'm wrong, but I know(and my mom agrees) that I'm right and it's all of you that are wrong.

I'm @Max Power, and I'm right!