era vs era

[mrshot]

there are only a couple of fighters from the old days from each division that would be able to beat a fighter from the 70s and up,a heavy from the fifties would not even crack the top 100 in todays game

[allworld80]

You really are shot aren't you?

[Controversial]

oh dear. I'd give up if I were you, your only embarrassing yourself.

[BoxBuzz]

oh dear. I'd give up if I were you, your only embarrassing yourself.

I'd say she's embarrassing the current, and many past generations of the Hot family.

[mrshot]

You really are shot aren't you?

yes mrshot,

[The Great John L]

An obvious troll.

However, his post does bring up a possible interesting discussion. Since my ATG lists are built in spreadsheets, I also included a "decade factor" that adjusts the final ratings for what I think was the general talent levels at different times during the past 130 years or so.

Here's how I would rank the decades, from most talented to least talented.

1960's, stronger in the early part of the decade
1930's
1970's, again stronger in the early part of the decade
1920's
1950's
1910's
1980's
1990's
1900's
2000's
1890's
1880's

Obviously this is just opinion, but I was trying to apply the participation factor in the sport, acknowledging that if more people lace up the gloves then there is a larger talent pool. And this isn't any attempt to say that the best from say today couldn't beat top guys from better decades, just an attempt to define which decades I think had the deepest talent.

I liike the 60's because boxing was still huge in the US, and the post WWII growth in Europe and parts of the Far East was still quite strong. As the 60's progressed, I think participation and popularity started dropping pretty quickly in the US while it was probably level or slightly declining in other areas of the world.

Obviously the opening of Eastern Europe has had a very positive impact on the talent pool, but unfortunately I don't think it even gets close to compensating for the drastic drop in the US.

Anyone else care to post their decade ratings?

[Ezzard]

John

You’ve turned Mrs Hot’s comedy thread into something worth considering.

It’s a great attempt at an almost impossible task. I do believe that participation numbers must have the biggest impact. You also have to accept that the fewer the number of weight divisions the more dense with talent each division must have been.

I do partly agree with your view on Eastern Europe versus the drop off from The States but I think I’d probably be more neutral and be guided more by the numbers otherwise it feels like my own prejudices might creep in too much.

I’m not great on decades but it’s hard to argue with your top 5. I’d come at this more from the aspect of the greatest of great fighters because to secure the resumes they did then they had to be walking with giants. For example Langford’s record is packed with some of the most amazing names from the sport. For this reason I’d look at ranking the 1910s a little higher.

The 1990s had great HW talent but the rest of the divisions were wither not great and/or all the best matches were not made. The best fighter, Whittaker, sort of straddled the 80s-90s… I think overall I prefer the 2000s to the 1990s despite the fact that the 90s HWs trump the 2000s.

Any chance you’ll share these spreadsheets on the forum. You’ve had your HW list on before. What do your lightweights look like???

[mrshot]

John

You’ve turned Mrs Hot’s comedy thread into something worth considering.

It’s a great attempt at an almost impossible task. I do believe that participation numbers must have the biggest impact. You also have to accept that the fewer the number of weight divisions the more dense with talent each division must have been.

I do partly agree with your view on Eastern Europe versus the drop off from The States but I think I’d probably be more neutral and be guided more by the numbers otherwise it feels like my own prejudices might creep in too much.

I’m not great on decades but it’s hard to argue with your top 5. I’d come at this more from the aspect of the greatest of great fighters because to secure the resumes they did then they had to be walking with giants. For example Langford’s record is packed with some of the most amazing names from the sport. For this reason I’d look at ranking the 1910s a little higher.

The 1990s had great HW talent but the rest of the divisions were wither not great and/or all the best matches were not made. The best fighter, Whittaker, sort of straddled the 80s-90s… I think overall I prefer the 2000s to the 1990s despite the fact that the 90s HWs trump the 2000s.

Any chance you’ll share these spreadsheets on the forum. You’ve had your HW list on before. What do your lightweights look like???

i think this is one of the best threads around