[Dragonstyle915]

This months Ring Mag (Which is actually listed asAugust for some reason...) Claims the worse times in HW Boxing history were from 1928-1937.

I dont know if I agree with this. Primo Carnera was perhaps the Kimbo Slice of his day but wasnt Max Baer and Jimmy Braddock making noise around that era? I would like thoughts from someone and see if the Ring is correct about this.

According to some people ive talked to "dark eras" in HW Boxing are not uncommon and are more recognized than in other divisions. my Grandfather, 86 years old, says HW division goes from times where no one can name a HW fighter to everyone knowing the name of the top HW fighter accross America. Makes sense I guess. Like the Jr. Lighweight division is about to be hurt bad with Pac, Marquez and Guzman moving up to Lightweight. But no one is going to notice much because you're still going to see those fighters.

Eitherway, if thi sisnt the worse the HW division has seen then i guess we'll be okay lol.

[TKDhasBin]

Originally Posted by Dragonstyle915

This months Ring Mag (Which is actually listed asAugust for some reason...) Claims the worse times in HW Boxing history were from 1928-1937.

I dont know if I agree with this. Primo Carnera was perhaps the Kimbo Slice of his day but wasnt Max Baer and Jimmy Braddock making noise around that era? I would like thoughts from someone and see if the Ring is correct about this.

According to some people ive talked to "dark eras" in HW Boxing are not uncommon and are more recognized than in other divisions. my Grandfather, 86 years old, says HW division goes from times where no one can name a HW fighter to everyone knowing the name of the top HW fighter accross America. Makes sense I guess. Like the Jr. Lighweight division is about to be hurt bad with Pac, Marquez and Guzman moving up to Lightweight. But no one is going to notice much because you're still going to see those fighters.

Eitherway, if thi sisnt the worse the HW division has seen then i guess we'll be okay lol.

Funny the Ring would call 1928-1937 the worst period. That's when Joe Louis was emerging as one of the greatest........but had just been dribbled like a basketball in 1936 by Herr Schmeling.

For my money the worst heavyweight period was probably 1900 thru 1908........Jim Jeffries was a big lug who would've made a good wrestler. All strength and little technique.....Fitzsimmons and Corbett were heading for the exits.........Tommy Burns and Marvin Hart ?.........Give me a break. Jack Johnson came along and threw some excitement into the division and put boxing back on the front pages.

[Tam-Tam]

I think im gonna like this guy.

[Sharkey]

With the many defenses against the unworthy, blatant display of corrupt judging against all those who were somewhat worthy, the avoidance of mandatories, all the supposed "retirements" that resulted in giving opponents the run-around, all the clownish antics & clownish exhibitions, and the hypocrisy when the "champion" lost his title, I'm voting the years from about 1976 to 1978 as the worst in heavyweight championship history.

[Dragonstyle915]

I just want to post the reasons behind this logic for those curious and that dont have The Ring.

Only 8 World title fights in 9 years is one of the reasons. Primo Carnera winning the title despite having several fixed fights. A blown up Light Heavyweight with 25 defeats on his record becoming champion(Jimmy Braddock).

They mention Dempsey's "White Hope" tournament to find someone to defeat Joe Louis.

Also how Larry Gains (Who had defeated Schmeling and Carnera) and George Godfrey were frozen out.

The White Hope tournament sounds pretty racists but I dont see how much diff it is to the Latin Fury PPV's Bob Arum hosts. Imagine Caucasian Fury?- The Nation would be all over that. lol. But from what I understand Jack Dempsey was an open racists. But I think it had to do with how he was raised and no diff to most Americans back then.

[Dragonstyle915]

Originally Posted by Sharkey

With the many defenses against the unworthy, blatant display of corrupt judging against all those who were somewhat worthy, the avoidance of mandatories, all the supposed "retirements" that resulted in giving opponents the run-around, all the clownish antics & clownish exhibitions, and the hypocrisy when the "champion" lost his title, I'm voting the years from about 1976 to 1978 as the worst in heavyweight championship history.

I would like to point out that The Ring disagrees with you. The Best era in HW Boxing history was 1970-1980 according to them. Which includes '76-78'. They dont really mention the above.

[GlassJaw]

Originally Posted by Dragonstyle915

I would like to point out that The Ring disagrees with you. The Best era in HW Boxing history was 1970-1980 according to them. Which includes '76-78'. They dont really mention the above.

Well there ya have it.

[Sharkey]

Originally Posted by Dragonstyle915

I would like to point out that The Ring disagrees with you. The Best era in HW Boxing history was 1970-1980 according to them. Which includes '76-78'. They dont really mention the above.

I would like to point out that I don't really care what the Ring says 30 years after the fact, as I'd much rather trust my own eyes, my own judgement, as well my own research of the going ons at the time by consulting what was written at the time in a number of contemporary sources.

Besides, the Ring would probably be best not to mention the years 1976-1978 in particular, and I'm guessing the magazine would like best to forget those years seeing as how they were proven to be quite corrupt at that specific time, and ended up losing a shitload of credibility because of their "mistakes".

[Dragonstyle915]

Originally Posted by Sharkey

I would like to point out that I don't really care what the Ring says 30 years after the fact, as I'd much rather trust my own eyes, my own judgement, as well my own research of the going ons at the time by consulting what was written at the time in a number of contemporary sources.

Besides, the Ring would probably be best not to mention the years 1976-1978 in particular, and I'm guessing the magazine would like best to forget those years seeing as how they were proven to be quite corrupt at that specific time, and ended up losing a shitload of credibility because of their "mistakes".

I wasnt trying to disagree with you or anything. I was just stating that The Ring totally ignored all the things you said. But nice insight.

[BobbyBrez]

I would like to point out I like having the old warhorse posters back. Many of us are too young to trust our own eyes way back in the mid 70s, so I love hearing through some of your lenses.