1. Lucian Bute

2. Andre Ward

3. Mikkell Kessler

4. Carl Froch

5. Andre Dirrell

6. Arthur Abraham

7. Sakio Bika

8. Robert Stieglitz

9. Librado Andrade

10. Allan Green

1993 Super Middles



1) James Toney (Us) IBF

2) Micheal Nunn (Us) WBA

3) Chris Eubank (uk) WBO

4) Nigel Benn (uk) WBC

5) Tim Littles (us)

6) Victor Cordoba (pan)

7) Henry Wharton (uk)

8)Antoine Byrd (us)

9) Ray Close (ire)

10) Frankie liles (us)

So I was looking at the two lists and it left me wondering if the top 10 from 93 were a more elite bunch of guys than the current crop?  Personally I believe the 93 crop has the overall better fighters.  I thought about doing the same list for the heavyweights but I haven't got enough amitriptyline to soothe the pain.

The rankings aren't definitive and they're not mine (I just plucked them off the web) but I think they are reasonable. With the super 6 bringing attention to super middle I figured it you guys could help me decide how the different eras stack up?

Interesting topic. Personally I think the class of 93 shit all over this current crop. That's not to say the current top 10 are complete crap just not as good as 93.

I know some US fans will scoff at this but I thought Eubank and Benn were very underrated champs. Would they have beaten Toney or latterly Roy Jones? Hell no, but I think they would do very well in this current super 6 tourney.

I would argue though that there is a little more depth in the current top 10, just the quality at the top of the list (first 5 guys) can't match what was around in 93. Make sense?

I think you need to expand more. You are asking if 'boxing' has declined since 1993, though list the 168 rankings. If it's about the division, I would say 168 then looks better. But I would like some other comparisons if it's about boxing as a whole and not just comparing a certain division.

Agreed. Based on today's current landscape, the 168 division is kind of an odd place to start IMO.

in all fairness having seen both era's i think its pretty safe to say that the top guys today at 168 is more than comparable to the elite in 1993 with maybe james toney being an exception though i think a few of the guys fighting now would have given that version of toney good fights, possibly even beaten him, remember michael nunn was dominating him till the stoppage and he's always struggled with boxers... nigel benn, chris eubanks and michael nunns better days where at middle weight and benn especially was very beatable by elite fighters at both middle and super though i loved him as a fighter... i see the likes of bute, kessler, froch abraham and dirrell being every bit as good as benn, eubanks and nunn with perhaps ward being this eras version of the best fighter at the time which was with out a doubt james toney at the time, till roy jones whiped the floor with him... the top guys at 168 right now are not slouches and form a group of guys that in my opinion make up the best group of fighters the 168 lb division has ever seen at one given time.... now i will say this put roy jones jr into that mix and he whipes the floor with all 20 of the guys listed... all ten from 93 and all 10 from 2010...

Boxing has DEFINITELY declined since 1993.

That's not to say that it's necessarily bad...it's just a lot different.

Personally though, I'd take just about every group of fighters in every division back then over today's crop.

I mean, it's bad enough when guys can come off losses and get right back into a title fight, but it's even worse when a PPV card is HEADLINE by two fighters coming off losses.

Snoop, Fitz, any others, I opted to start with the super middleweight division because I wanted to be kind to us all and also because its a division of interest right now due to the super six. So you want more, you sadists, I shall give you a couple more just to add to the pain.


Heavyweight



1) Riddick Bowe (USA) WBA/IBF Champion

2) Lennox Lewis (Britain) WBC Champion

3) Micheal Moorer (USA)

4) Evander Holyfield (USA)

5) Frank Bruno (Britain)

6) Tommy Morrison (USA) WBO Champion

7) Tony Tucker (USA)

8) Razor Ruddock (Canada)

9) Oliver McCall (USA)

10) Larry Holmes (USA)











Heavyweight today

1) Wladimir Klitschko
2) Vitali Klitschko
3) David Haye
4) Tomasz Adamek
5) Ruslan Chagaev
6) Alexander Povetkin
7) Nicolay Valuev
8) Samuel Peter
9) Tony Thompson
10) Eddie Chambers

1993 Middleweights

1) Gerald McClellon (us) WBC

2) Roy Jones (us) IBF

3) Reggie Johnson (us) WBA

4) Julian Jackson (vir)

5) Lamar Parks (us)

6) Bernard Hopkins (us)

7) Chris Pyatt (UK) WBO
8) Sumbu Kalambay (italy)

9) Steve Collins (ireland)

10) Thomas Tate (us)

Today

1) Sergio Martinez
2) Felix Sturm
3) Kelly Pavlik

4) Koren Gevor

5) Sebastian Sylvester

6) Matthew Macklin
7) Roman Karmazin
8) Dmitry Pirog
9) Gennady Golovkin
10) Anthony Mundine

See I really think those two examples above make it even clearer that we are in a decline at the moment.  Everybody knows the heavyweight division is in an awful state right now but that example above just rubs salt into the wounds.  As does the middleweight division in my opinion.

The answer to your question is yes, of course. But the real question is why?

Could it be that the most gifted athletes have more options and prefer not to end up drooling and slurring at a premature age?

I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that the glory days I once knew will never return. Looking at those rankings is just a painful reminder that things ain't so great no more. I still love the sport though, always have, always will but I agree the quality has diminished somewhat.

For me, at super middle, Benn, Eubank, Nunn and Toney would all beat the current super 6. Definitely. At heavyweight and middleweight there just ain't no comparison. In fact, middleweight today is bloody shambolic.

Smarty is right though, these athletes are taking up different sports and it's obviously had a knock on affect on our sport cos there just ain't so many elite fighters no more.

do u have comparison tables for the welterweight divisions and light welterweight divisons, would have to agree with what everybody else has said already in the previous posts but find the two different tables interesting to look at

To be honest, off the top of my head, I would say they were probably better in 1993. But to be honest, you are comparing them to the worst division, which is the heavyweights and then super middle. Which has just gained interest in the last year when the super 6 started and was dominated by Euro's. I would like to see some feather, lightweight and welter weights etc from 1993 compared to now. They already seem like that would be a bit comparable.

i still feel todays version of 168 more than holds their own with the 93 version... the heavyweights theirs no comparison..

The middlewight comparison is absolutely hilarious! As is the heavyweights.

The super middleweights is definitely a lot more compareable, but 1993 still is better. No one today would have beat Toney or Nunn. Throw in Roy Jones and McClellan at middleweight too for that matter.

I'd like to see a list from 1993 of the welterweights, lightweights and featherweights. So far 93 is clearly superior in the 3 weight classes the TS has put up here but does that tell the full story?

I agree though, at heavyweight and middleweight it's almost embarrassing for the current fighters.

Damn... that brings back memories. Post my comparisons later.

clotteys not beating the 93 version of quartey... bazooka was a beast... and for the most part very avoided... and berto over espana?... man i cant agree with that one either... while he never had the name of the better known welters and the brief reign he had he was a very solid champion... im not sure berto has proven enough to say he def pummels espana...

i rememeber reading bout his fight with quartey.. if i rememebr it wasnt shown here in the states... but from what i read his fight with quartey at the time of the stoppage was razor thin and could have been going either way at the time of the 11th round stoppage which tells me he was on equal level playing field with that caliber of fighter.... we know what quartey would go on to do which was get robbed in that mega fight with oscar dela hoya... i dont think clottey comes even close prime for prime to getting with that version of oscar like quartey did.... with that being said i think history will grossly under rate espana as a fighter...

i could be wrong but i think its too early to judge some of these younger fighters like berto etc... its easy to speculate who might beat him etc but he might be the man to clean out everybody... i dont hink so but just saying you never know till the fights actually go down.. when he was signed to fight mosely i was one of the few adament he was gonna beat mosely... we wont know till the fights go down... im getting of subject a lil but point is that its easy to back and judge fighters we've seen to the new guys on the block just making their mark or about to make a mark... they are judged off fighters that we know are proven and i think thats why its easy to pre judge them as not being of that caliber right now... case in point i can tell you back in the late 80's early 90's when the young lion heavyweights where coming out the only 2 i really had respect for was bowe and mercer and maybe morrison yet little did i know those guys would form a division that you can argue was even deeper than that of the 70's... i know that looking back but at the time didnt think anything of them because they where unproven... i could be dead wrong but thats my opinion on that...

Somewhat agree,

But I can't say boxing won't return to its glory days, BUT in order for it to return to its glory days, it needs:

1.) Fighters with marquee personalities.
2.) Fighters with KO power.
3.) Reasons for the general public to care about boxing again. Right now, most seems to fall on whether or not Mayweather-Pacquiao will happen.
4.) The return of boxing to free TV or standard cable, reserving PPV only for closed-circuit caliber fights.
5.) Free public exposure to a dominate heavyweight contender who is willing to showcase his talents on free TV where the general public can become involved, get excited about boxing again. (i.e Another Tyson who could smash the Klitschko Sisters on free TV and build a name for himself to American and eventually worldwide audiences.)

Seriously, the more combinations of 1-5 that are applied, the better you can hope for boxing thriving. But it will be very difficult. PPV and Premium cable markets dominate the boxing landscape. Rising cable/dish prices/third party vendors for TV have forced many people to drop or cut one or both of HBO and Showtime for boxing. (I may be forced into dropping a station in August when my discount 2-year rate expires, unless I can get another good long-term deal.)

I think that is the problem for so many people. It's becoming more and more expensive to be a fight fan. It is costly to follow the business of boxing because you have to have HBO, Showtime, AND buy PPV's for boxing. If you have package deals of cable TV, Internet, and Phone Services, you can't get away from the rising costs.

Than you have to ask, what's a justified price to pay monthly for boxing? $5, $10, $25, $50, $100 a month? Is there no limit? Where do you draw the line where a fair and reasonable cost can be assessed that represents reasonable value? In 1993, you didn't have a 200-300 channel universe, but at least you had reasonable third party rates compared to now. PPV could still be represented through quality fights at $30 back than. I remember Holyfield-Foreman from 1991 just to go back two years from the OP's question, $40. Reasonable at the time, AND you didn't have to worry about all the hundreds of dollars added on for all the additional services against a shitty economy. The PPV's stayed reasonable until the world got scammed and slammed with that Tyson-McNeeley bullshit and some places charged $40-$50 for that. What a farce! And that was 1995, and the beginning of the $50 PPV price tag.

Not only do you need the above five combinations of conditions outlined above, you also have to have network executives, fighters, promoters, and managers who are willing to make the changes. That won't be easy, because today, unlike 1993, MMA dominates the standard cable landscape and seems to be more appealing to the average public viewer. The greatest boxing matches of all time will always be 100 times better than ANYTHING that MMA can dream up. We know this, but the general public doesn't see that, because quality matches of any substance are forced to premium cable channels and PPV? How can boxing revert back to "glory days" if todays' fighters don't appeal to the general public? Worse, the general public could not even see most exciting fights if they wanted to, because many don't subscribe to premium cable when compared to the free broadcast TV market.

Jack

I'm feeling what you're saying. Specifically the time Tyson was in jail and we were all complaining that the HW division was dead! I remember thinking back. Looking back I'm embarassed thinking that way because in retrospect that was a DEEP division.

Tua and Ibeabuchi never even became world champs (OK for varying reasons,) but gee there were a lot of HW's during that decade and a half. Even guys like McCall would do real well today. I bet even Frank Bruno would have a successful career!!

that was a very solid time for the heavyweight division... if those guys where fighting today they would make up the top ten tho i have to say the klit brothers would make it very interesting... they are skilled and worthy of where they are at... but no way they make it through those guys with out losses.... the heavies of the 90's was a beast of a division... and once they get back on point we will see boxing really make a comeback.. it might be a while but once there is a dominant american heavyweight champ all eyes will be back on the sport... i hate to say it that way but it is what it is... the sport has a double standard when it comes to who rules the heavyweight division.