What was the third best era for heavyweights?

[Willie Pep 229]

Klits fought in stadiums for huge money, so we can dismiss your comparison straight away. Invalid.

Using excitement as a criteria is definetely valid. Tyson was major exitment through and through. Wlad... not so much. Wlad did achieve major success. Huge crowds. Huge purses (remember the insane winning bid for the Povetkin fight). Oh and plenty was watching. Maybe not in the states, but speaking globally I would think that more people watched Wlad than Tyson primarily due to Tyson being ppv. So saying that no one is (was) watching is faulty.

Re the Burley remark I was speaking in the generic regarding your statement. Why a fighter might want to change his style. Not that it applies to the 'Russian.'

Yes Wald packed stadiums in Germany and I suspect the money was big. But going by the style of most European boxers over the decades it seems that European fans are easier to please.

Is it too weird for me to compare Tyson to American football as Wald is to soccer? Europeans seem to be a less demanding audience, or possibilty a more sophisticated one. But Americans bore easy.

What kind of money could he have pulled in if he had been exciting - a $100,000,000 a fight?

[Ben Bolt]

Americans bore easy.

As an European, I’ve oddly enough got hooked on baseball.
Not much action there, so I would say that Americans are not bored easily.

I loved this episode of The Simpsons, when Homer was out of beer before a baseball game on telly.
When he watched the match sober, he said something like "is this the sh *t I use to watch?"

What intrigues me about baseball is, that the pitcher is as alone as the fighter in the ring.

[QueensburyRules]

This posted by a guy who thinks Valuev was a great heavyweight contender and who thinks Wilt the stilt would best Ali... Don't ask him what makes these heavyweights so good, and how they would dwarf other eras when they do 1/4th of what fighters did in the ring in previous eras, while moving at half the speed...

Lets bring Queenie out into the light disinfection time Queen Bee!

- -Nothing wrong with Valuev, a top 5 heavy for ages who challenged the Rocky record. Only two fights he lost were majority decisions where his challengers had to be hospitalized with rope burns on their backs trying to escape him.

It's on tape that Ali publicly ducked Wilt on Cosell's ABC platform arranged for the signing of their superfight before Ali was suspended. U ain't smart enough to know what I think, but Ali bricked his first superfight with Wilt and Little Joe busted him up big time in their Fight of the Century. Just the facts, ma'am...

[QueensburyRules]

As an European, I’ve oddly enough got hooked on baseball.
Not much action there, so I would say that Americans are not bored easily.

I loved this episode of The Simpsons, when Homer was out of beer before a baseball game on telly.
When he watched the match sober, he said something like "is this the sh *t I use to watch?"

What intrigues me about baseball is, that the pitcher is as alone as the fighter in the ring.

- -Nobody a bigger fan of baseball than I, but stopped watching when the games went full orchestration to drag out the no action sequences. Games used to take 2-3 hours now take 4 hours with endless pitcher substitutions with pitchers so frail, they can scarcely if ever last an inning. Baseball is where the best athletes used to be, but now not so much. Stopped watching American football for similar reasons, and in fact, boxing the only sport I watch anymore.

[JAB5239]

- -Nothing wrong with Valuev, a top 5 heavy for ages who challenged the Rocky record. Only two fights he lost were majority decisions where his challengers had to be hospitalized with rope burns on their backs trying to escape him.

It's on tape that Ali publicly ducked Wilt on Cosell's ABC platform arranged for the signing of their superfight before Ali was suspended. U ain't smart enough to know what I think, but Ali bricked his first superfight with Wilt and Little Joe busted him up big time in their Fight of the Century. Just the facts, ma'am...

You must have missed his corrupt decision win against Holyfield, and his arguable wins vs Ruiz and Donald. Value made Carnera look like Benny Leonard. The only reason he was top 5 is because there era was so weak. Thank for helping make that argument.

[Sexy_Mexi]

I've watched since 1990, the '90s were really poor on the whole. Tyson knocking out bums didn't really do it for me. Bowe had a 1 year spell of looking awesome, then binned his belt to avoid Lewis and turned to ****, then got battered around the ring by Golota in both fights they had. Lewis was great, but he got better as he got older. Holyfield was great as well, obviously, but the rest were garbage. 1. Lewis, 2. Holyfield, 3. Bowe, 4. Douglas, 5. Tyson, and then nothing at all after that. People were hyped then to watch Tyson fight the likes of Peter Mcneeley ffs.

The last time 5-10 years has been great. Much better than the overhyped '90s.

Well don't forget about the Foreman comeback and how he won the title again in 1994. whether you like him or not you can't lie it was entertaining watching him make that comeback.

[billeau2]

1. So you claim that the further back in time you go, the more often boxers fought and they started younger? I somehow doubt that. Can you back up that claim?


2, More boxing gyms? No way. Think globally. Maybe in the us, even though I also doubt that. More prestigious? I don’t know. Are we talking us only? Ukraine maybe? Puerto Rico? Kazakhstan? Do you have a valid source?

3. Yeah. After the scoring system changed after the Seoul fiasco, am-boxing has indeed distanced itself from pro. A thing you IMO fail to take into account is that until about 1990 pro boxing didn’t have boxing from the top am countries in the eastern bloc. As soon as they entered the pro ranks, the championships vanished big time from the traditional top pro countries. That should give you food for thought. I mean what if the Russians, the poles the Cubans had turned pro in the 60s, 70s and 80s? How many of the fighters we from that era call atg’ s would in fact be atg’s if they had better competition? Am I blasphemous now?
Not a claim. It’s a fact. Not only because of the eastern bloc, but think about the fact that there’s billions more people on earth today than 50 years ago.

4. Please back up that claim. I think you are just speculating. Again. There’s billions more people today so the pool to fish in is so much bigger. That’s a fact.

I think India and China will come. I think your perspective is skewed by your North American presence. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, scores of eastern bloc fighters turned pro and made it big in Germany more so than in the us.

Again you, IMO, look at it in an American and not a global perspective.

Ill number the points so its easy to see what I am responding to.

1. fighters fought more rounds, more fights, and generally started at an earlier age fighting for money (professionally). Just look at the amount of fights& rounds fought. Even crossovering age regarding amatuers, look at the amount of rounds per a fight. I would argue it is in the math. You could argue that amateur fights are such that fighters started at a similar age... perhaps, I can concede that point... But in those days given attitudes about children and such, there was no problem with youngsters fighting, as there would be today, so I tend to doubt fighters in the ammys started at the same ages, but... I can't prove it lol.

2. At that time in history America was boxing central and there were many gyms and trainers. There simply was not as much of an international presence. The sport was relatively new, coming from England where you had fencing schools initially that cohosted boxing, then athletic clubs. The proof is in the amount of fighters that were second generation Americans as compared to Danes, Cubans, ect. Most fighters were from the United States... They were at different times; ***ish, Irish, Italian. but... the ***s were not from Israel lol,more like Canarsie Brooklyn.

3. What if? what if the Chinese had developed Gunpowder for firearms? We might all be speaking Chinese to each other...Or if India had rolled out dough for bread, and it went through a shredder and by accident noodles were produced? india would have noodles in its cuisine! To me eastern European fighters were following the same trajectory as every other ethnic group... at any time in boxing some ethnic group would enter the mix, and produce professional fighters. but these fighters settled in and today they are training in the same gyms as other fighters traditionally did. I do concede that some talent was lost because of the Communist Bloc. That includes Eastern Euro and especially Cuba, but I don't think this hypothetical means that we would have had more talent in any more meaningful way than thinking "If the Irish potatoe famine didn't happen we would have never had incredible irish fighters... Boxing changes for sure, but what ethnic group moves to the top is imo purely random sociological hardships and their affect on people.

In other words, to say that the sudden influx of talented fighters from the globe produced better fighters does not make sense to me. The reason being boxing has always had influxes.

4. U can't prove a negative...In other words, I cannot prove to you that having more people around does not improve talent. I can site to you what the mechanism for creating talented fighters does and does not do... Why is it that China and India do not dominate every sporting event? They have more people by far than any other place. Technically speaking because of genetic diversity India and China have the strongest, fastest, smartest people around... its because of the numbers... But there is a fallicy here; lets also tale Africa which has the most genetic diversity of any continent... Africa has some of the tallest, shortest, fastest, slowest people in the world. What the above tells me is that just having more potential does not equal automatic mathmatical odds demonstrated through superior athletes.

I fact the talent pool for men who can punch in the face well enough to be a great fighter is such, that there is a lot more to it than simple numbers. Having great fighters depends on how fighters are trained, what expectations are held for performance and a system that is able to secure the most talented individuals. Its much more than just more inclusion.

As far as being skewed... The skew for me is in watching performance and seeing what skills are displayed. I tend to think that the amatuer style is a hindrence to fighters developing as professionals. But I say this with some real caveats: Amatuer skill is great, if a fighter is able to transition to developing a more well rounded approach as a professional. But fighting for most of one's career as an amatuer, even a great one, and not changing, making a transition to professional methods is a hinderance. YOu see it because you see a lack of many fundamental skills fighters had in the past, and that so called throw back fighters maintain.

[billeau2]

If that jab jab grab style is enough to consistently win isn’t that enough? What if you had a fighter who never threw a body shot? Surely your fighters from that stretch of time had better fighting ability.....

Instead I suggest you look at wins over top 10 opponents. I mean if you have a style that no one can beat, why change it? If you consistently beat the top opponents in the world then surely you are better than those who win some and lose some? Even more so if the top 10 is the top ten of a thousand fighters and not just the top 10 of a hundred.

you have to consider the quality of the opposition.

[billeau2]

Because you can end up like Charley Burley. Win, win, win, and end up fighting in shlt venues in front very small crowds for very poor money.

I realize that on this forum there are endless evaluations of skill (often by self appointed experts) but does fan appeal and the promotion and preservation of the fight game count?

Is Mike Tyson's era great because of his skills, his resume, or is it becuse he made the entire nation look up and take notice.

The "Russians" never did that. Is an era great if it goes unnoticed except by a bunch of boxing geeks like us? Who are we to make that call when a billion people turned away in disinterest, "experts!" ?

Wald was a very successful fighter but 'greatness' historically speaking, demands much more than mere success. The era was a dog; can't have a great era if no one is watching.

All his victories did very little to promote the game, at some level he hurt it. The game was in the doldrums especially the HWs - not a great era of the game (except to a few geeks).

The qualities you mention are not mutually exclusive, You can look at film of early Tyson and see him using Dempsey's pivots. Tyson had power both hands, could throw every punch, had quick feet and could fight at every range. And remember for Burley that he was dealing with racial discrimination...

[BattlingNelson]

I think Vits knew he was going to get stopped is closer to the truth than Byrd getting lucky. Chris made him miss with more punches than any other fight and was most likely the reason Vits suffered the injury. That he never sought the rematch even though both were so closely ranked for so long pretty much backs that up in my opinion. Vitaly was a good fighter and a tough guy, but the era as a whole was very weak. That the brothers had to tag team it by swapping fighters better suited for their particular styles after losses instead of rematches is just another reason many people view it as such.

If you believe what Byrd says, surely you will also believe what Vitali says?