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

[Spicoli]

Ricardo Lopez. Arguably one of the top technicians and skilled boxers to answer the bell but continually in the background. Definitely handcuffed more by a division not even recognized then but he did have a couple of options one division up.

[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?!!!