Is this current era underrated?

We're always so doom and gloom on here about the current talent pool being nowhere near the 70's, 80's, and 90's, that I think we're not appreciating what we have at THIS VERY MOMENT.

Golov, Ward, Loma, Gonzalez, Kov, Rigo, and Crawford all in their primes at this very moment. That's 7 guys right there who very likely will make the HOF one day. We also have Canelo, who's not a great fighter, but is a good fighter and a superstar. We have Spence who has the potential to be a P4Pder pretty soon, and we have Verdejo who might one day be a crossover star.

But boxing is dead, right?

I'm not sure about the 70s-90s, but this current era is MUCH better than 2000-2010, overall.

 

Off topic, but interesting not one of those guys is pbc.

 

I think the skill level in the sport is very high right now.

As you mentioned, the likes of Rigo, Roman, Lomachenko, Kovalev, Crawford, GGG, and Ward have a high level of craft, and I would say that they are future hall of famers.

Then we have the guys that are sort of unproven but you see potential there. The likes of Thurman, Brook, Spence, Garcia, Walters, Verdejo, J-Rock, Andrade, Imam, Postol, are all fighters who haven't really yet proven that they're THE MAN in their respective divisions but are all capable of putting on a performance that potentially could put them on top of the heap.

I think today we don't have as many potential CROSSOVER guys as we did in the 90s where we still had Tyson, De La Hoya, Trinidad, Chavez, Holyfield, Jones, Morales, Barrera, Hamed, etc. We had more in terms of that EXCITEMENT and PAGEANTRY that those guys brought every time there was a fight, whether it was pay per view or not.

I think both Spence and Verdejo are going to be pound 4 pounders one day. And yes, Verdejo can be a cross over star, provided that he stays humble and dedicated. Spence too IMO. He's a good looking kid, he takes risks, and even though he doesn't punch with that much power compared to a guy like Thurman, he comes forward and has a style people would like, unlike Floyd who became very negative in his approach. Keith Thurman is a guy who could also potentially be a star due to his punch and vulnerability. And of course we have Triple G and Kovalev who are both highly skilled guys and have charisma an cross over appeal. And I cannot forget Canelo. He is a legit cross over star.

IMO, boxing is anything but dead.

 

Spence is.

 

While there are plenty of good or even potentially great fighters the problem is a of lack depth in just about every division. Another issue is the most of the dominant fighters are up their in age.

Rigo 35
Kovalev 32
Ward - 31
GGG - 33
Klitschko - 39

 

Don't forget about Joshua who, if his chin holds up, maybe has the potential to re-ignite the heavyweight division.

But yes, I think this current era is underrated.

 

Things are definitely looking much better than a few years ago. It's a shame the guys who've come through are mainly pretty old but I get the feeling they might be the first of a wave from the commie block

 

Right. Most exciting heavyweight talent for 20 years at least

 

What does pbc mean?

 

Premier Boxing Championship(s) - Al Haymon Theatre...



and I agree with this thread. plus the heavyweight division is also not as bad as people say. It is bad, but it is not unwatchable bad. At least not with Joshua, Parker climbing up now and maybe Povetkin fulfilling his potential a bit more.

 

People ALWAYS underrate the current or recent era. Always.

The 2000-2010 era is being underrated by you as we speak. It had Mosley, Trinidad, Hopkins, Pacquiao, Morales, Barrera, De La Hoya, Forrest, Wright, Mayweather...blah blah blah. How is now "MUCH" better than then?

 

This. Plus in the 1990s the heavyweight division was considered dead. I remember a headline such as "Holyfield and seven dwarfs" describing the lack of talent in the division early on the decade. people were ridiculing how the champ went full rounds with 40+ oldies, how guys such as Botha and Seldon were titlists etc. Looking back now, the heavyweights of the 90s were probably better than ever apart of 70s. This era nnow is clearly weaker, though as Royness said, not as bad as often stated

 

word.

 

2000-2010 was a great era of boxing. I will be appreciated in years to come (as is always the case).

We had great fights: Trinidad-Vargas, Corrales-Castillo, Mosley-De La Hoya, Barrera-Morales series, De La Hoya vs Vargas, Gatti-Ward series, Pacquiao vs Morales/Marquez

We had great matchups: Hopkins vs Tito, Trinidad vs Vargas, Hamed vs Barrera, Lewis vs Klitschko, De La Hoya vs Hopkins, De La Hoya vs Mayweather, Mayweather vs Corrales

The era had a host of HOFs in their primes.

Boxing fans annoy me. They never appreciate what's going on at the moment/recently and always look back at past eras.

For example: When Hagler was champion, everyone at the time thought he reigned over a WEAK era of Middleweights. Hearns was seen as his best victory...and even then people said Hearns was a blown up Welterweight who had already been beaten by SRL. We look back now and marvel at Sibson, minter, Hamsho and Mugabi...but at the time they weren't respected much.

 

The fighters you mentioned there were 90's fighters who crossed over into the 2000's.

 

Remember this name: Oscar Valdez from Nogales, Sonora, Mexico. He will become a champion next year. I predicted that 2 years ago here in this forum after his pro debut and remains an unbeaten KO artist. Right now he easily beats my two Boricua chumps Roman 'Rocky' Martinez and Jose 'Sinper' Pedraza if they fight tomorrow. Not ready yet for Takashi Uchiyama though, but he will get him eventually. Valdez will replace/join Canelo as the next Mexican supastar.

 

Ali and Frazier were 60s fighters that crossed over into the 70s. Therefore, should Ali and Frazier NOT be included in a 70s era discussion? Should Roberto Duran and Ray Leonard NOT be included in the 80s era, using your logic?

De La Hoya, Tito, Mosley, Hopkins were still prime in the 2000s. Pacquiao, Morales, Barrera, Hamed and others were absolute 2000s era fighters.

 

There's clearly an era in between the day of DLH, Trinidad, MAB and morales and today. We call that era "the 2000's".

Everyone you named was well known and world class by 1998 and considered by most to be past prime 2002.

 

That kid is the goods.

He he could easily be a star.

 

They had a couple of prime years in the 2000s, but the majority of their respective reigns were in the 90s.

From 2001 onward, it was mostly Mayweather and Pacquiao's era.

 

So, what you are saying is that, for example, MAB and Morales were 90s fighters and not 2000s fighters? That's silly. Each had as much or more success in the 2000s than they did in the 90s. They are from both eras.

You can argue that Ali was past prime in 1972...and Frazier in 1973. You could say that Larry Holmes wasn't prime in the 80s. Same for Hagler.

VERY slippery slope for you if you go down that road my friend.

 

No love for Cotto, Vargas, Wright, Marquez, Hatton, Corrales, Castillo, Casamayor, Hopkins, Calzaghe?

 

From 2010 onwards it's a new decade, and we'll judge that differently...but 2000 - 2009, the 00s, was a very good decade for boxing...on any criteria (fights, fighters, matchups).

 

I'd say it was great even...

 

We're not talking about fights from 2000 to 2009, were talking about the talent pool in the era that followed the 90's talent pool. Everyone you're mentioning would have to be considered from the 90's talent pool. Even Hopkins despite being born in the 40's and winning in the 2010's.

 

I'm glad we finally agree HW's suck. The second best era of the last 50 years was an objectively weak era.

 

By comparison nobody hypes Antwon Echols, Robert Allen or Syd Vanderpool; nor will they. I think there's a reason.

 

No.

90s & 00s talent pool isn't mutually exclusive....anymore than 70s & 80s is mutually exclusive (in which case Leonard is either 70s or 80s not both, same for Duran, same for Holmes, same for Hagler).

You can't have it both ways. If this is your logic you have to also apply that to other eras (Chavez, Holyfield and Whitaker wouldn't be 90s talent in this case, for example).

 

Whatever name you want to give the eras they fought in, they were all part of an era. We're talking about the era that followed that one. An "era" is more about the fights and fighters of the general time period, not years that end in 0.

 

Well if you want to take it to this direction, the heavyweights of the poorest era would beat the best of other divisions in every era so heavyweight sucks less than others :stir: