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

[mikeeod]

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)?

[SlimTrae]

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?

[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.

[Beanflicker]

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.

[mrbig1]

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

[X]

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

[TitoFan]

Weak Era Poster Child: Wladimir Klitschko

[mikeeod]

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.

[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.

[Beanflicker]

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

[Master]

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

He got beat by an real ATG