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

[SlimTrae]

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.

[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?

[Master]

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.

[IamInuit]

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.

[SlimTrae]

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
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.

[Master]

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.

[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.

[Spicoli]

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!

[TitoFan]

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.

[Mr140]

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.

[SlimTrae]

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?!!!