What Era had the Most Talented HeavyWeights?

[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.

[SlimTrae]

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.

As much as I respect Wlad, I am a bit compromised to name the fights worthy of looking back on.

On one hand he cleaned the entire division out weak or not.

But I'm not sure who the best name is on his resume.

I think Peter would've been touted as a Nigerian Nightmare without K2 to fight, but WK did the job.

Calvin Brock had decent power, but I questione his desire, when he lost to Fat Eddie Chamber, I mean Fast Eddie..

I'm hard pressed to say that Tarver @ HW would've defeated every name on his resume. The James Toney that beat Ruiz also would've beatan every name.

David Haye is a question mark. Solid power, I kinda credit WK for punking him, but then again Carl Thompson stopped him, Mormeck dropped him. And everybody whooped Enzo Macrinelli & Monte Barrett so what is Haye's defining fight? Audley Harrison & Chisora?

An old past it Mercer & bufalo-but Botha also to add to WK's resume, but not WK's fault.

I'd say Chris Byrd, Sam Peter & David Haye are WK's signature wins.

[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.

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

As much as I respect Wlad, I am a bit compromised to name the fights worthy of looking back on.

On one hand he cleaned the entire division out weak or not.

But I'm not sure who the best name is on his resume.

I think Peter would've been touted as a Nigerian Nightmare without K2 to fight, but WK did the job.

Calvin Brock had decent power, but I questione his desire, when he lost to Fat Eddie Chamber, I mean Fast Eddie..

I'm hard pressed to say that Tarver @ HW would've defeated every name on his resume. The James Toney that beat Ruiz also would've beatan every name.

David Haye is a question mark. Solid power, I kinda credit WK for punking him, but then again Carl Thompson stopped him, Mormeck dropped him. And everybody whooped Enzo Macrinelli & Monte Barrett so what is Haye's defining fight? Audley Harrison & Chisora?

An old past it Mercer & bufalo-but Botha also to add to WK's resume, but not WK's fault.

I'd say Chris Byrd, Sam Peter & David Haye are WK's signature wins.

LOL Although I have acknowledged your support of another GREAT era, I find your postings at times MORE deleterious than the OTNB at times. This is an example. Bummifying the Klitschko era to pump up the 90's, a modern argument with far greater OPINION based analysis involved than merely nostalgist smashing requires.

Wlad's toplist can be assembled from 1 to 2 in many ways depending on feeling. But atleast these following opponents..

Samuel Peter, Tony Thompson, Kubrat Pulev, Alexander Povetkin, David Haye, Sultan Ibragimov, Ruslan Chagaev, Chris Byrd, Eddie Chambers deserve special attention. These were superb boxers who would have fared just as well in the 90's.

There are other opponents like iron chinned tall+hefty Wach, unbeaten strong man Pianeta, Brock, basically all of the big strong and unbeaten or nearly unbeaten fighters that Wladimir has dispatched are obviously not going to be cannon fodder for 90's HW's, just bloody look at them, even a picture analysis is enough to see that they would be formidable for any 90's HW to defeat. Only LEnnox Lewis at his best beats all comers from the Klitschko era and he was certainly not always, as any boxer is, at his best either so it's just as plausible if Rahman and McCall can KO him, Mavrovic can survive him, even Frank bloody Bruno can have him in trouble, then I am 100% positive that these guys can maintain a competitive fight with him too.

Think of this...

Haye destroys Grant
Thompson beats up Tyson that Lennox and Holyfield fought
Chagaev outboxes Golota
Chambers outboxes Tua every day a week
Ibragimov has already beaten Briggs and Holyfield (not in their athletic primes but in their most experienced and roided.

I could go on!

Losing to Chambers is no shame for Brock. Chambers is a defensive master and one of the fastest heavies of all time. It is no consequence if he is fat or ripped. This is boxing, performance is all that matters.

James Toney was simply a factor at HW but was never a HW elite.

Tarver is not a factor at all and that is a stinking insult to the modern HW division.

David Haye aside from the HW champ, only ever lost at a much earlier in career and inexperienced time (hardly any rounds fought at pro) at Cruiserweight vs a VETERAN good boxer in Thompson, which as I always say is more important than anything else in match ups. And getting caught and knocked down by Mormeck is no shame either, who is a comparable opponent to Moorer! You cannot criticise Haye on fighting great opponents at HW, knocking most of them out, then fighting a selection of giant boxers and knocking most them out as well by drawing conclusions off of 1 KO loss to decent opponent and a KD vs one as well, get real!

I can weigh in with pros and cons of the 90's, 00's and 10's boxers equally, pick one and we'll try it together if you like!

[palmerq]

I'd say Chris Byrd, Sam Peter & David Haye are WK's signature wins.

I would say povetkin should be in the top two, he had a great amateur career at super heavyweight, olympic and world amateur gold medalist.. He also beat byrd(it was last byrds last fight at heavyweight but he stopped him well) and has accumulated some nice wins over some good contenders.. Although the way wladimir won takes away from it a bit I think..

I would say wladimirs 3 best wins would be haye or povetkin at number 1 or 2, like you said it's hard to know how good david haye really is due to his lack of activity and then sam peter just because wladimir was going through a tough time at that stage of his career and peter was on a roll , although peter is sort of made for wladimir to defeat..

Chagaev is also a good boxer he defeated valuev and ruiz like haye did(although haye destroyed ruiz) but chagaev had already suffered a really bad ligament or tendon injury, I forget what it was but he was out for a long time) and his illness before he fought wladimir.

[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!

[Max Power]

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!

I don't care much for majority opinion on the forum. Other places are biased the other way round and does that make them right?

It's simply my opinion which I happen to argue where possible with available evidence.

[Max Power]

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!

I don't care much for majority opinion on the forum. Other places are biased the other way round and does that make them right?

It's simply my opinion which I happen to argue where possible with available evidence.

If you don't agree with it, you are free to argue with your own statistics if you can!

[Master]

Max I just do not know what to say to you.

Haye destroys Grant
Thompson beats up Tyson that Lennox and Holyfield fought
Chagaev outboxes Golota
Chambers outboxes Tua every day a week
Ibragimov has already beaten Holyfield ! Evander was old.

You make bill Paxton look sensible.

Merry Christmas.

[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.

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.