Is there a fighter from the golden era of heavyweight, that you think gets way too much love on here??
I think not. in no HW era there were so many outstanding boxers - Foreman, Ali, Frazier, Holmes plus Young, Norton, Quarry, Shavers, Lyle and there were not so many great fights: Ali-Frazier I and III, Ali-Foreman, Lyle - Foreman, Norton -Holmes. It was simply the best period of boxing.
Norton maybe. The only heavyweight title holder in the history of the sport that never won a title fight. On the other hand, I think Jimmy Young is criminally underrated.
I’m just curious… what do you mean when you say Norton never won a title fight? He won the the NABF title, which was considered an important belt at the time, over Ali in 1973. He obviously lost it but then won it again a few years later against Jerry Quarry; the title was vacant at the time but was put on the line for this fight against Quarry. I am assuming you are maybe not counting this title, as it was a North American title, rather than a World title… is that what it is? He did also win the WBC title after beating Jimmy Young. However, while I don’t remember the exact details, I do recall the circumstances of this title win were a little weird. I think at first it was not an actual title fight, and then I guess at some point later the WBC retroactively decided that it in fact was a title fight and then gave the belt to Norton. If anyone knows more about it, feel free to correct me if I have any of that wrong. Assuming I have that correct, it sounds like the WBC hasn’t changed much since the 1970s.
I am biased as i love the 70`s so my answer is no. Happy though for people to disagree,afterall it is all about opinions
I am probably also biased so my answer is no. All the top 70s guys deserved all the plaudits they got.
This is a post by greynotsoold that explains the 70s heavyweights. It says it all. https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...ey-never-beat-ali.698342/page-2#post-22156144 The only thing special about Frazier was his willingness. There was nothing special about Norton. The defining thing about them was their part in the circular logic that is the Ali mystique: They are great fighters because they gave Ali hard fights and Ali is great because he beat them. On their own merits, there is absolutely zero to distinguish either Norton or Frazier as great fighters. Everything about them has to be qualified through Ali, just as his merits are qualified through them. You can throw Foreman into the mix as well because he is a huge part of the propaganda. There was nothing but hype about his first career and, for perspective, he was dropped by Jimmy Young. And Young is great because of...Ali. None of those guys were any better than good. Excellent post!
Oh wow, that post is similar to my thoughts. Most heavyweight era's suck donkey dick compared to other weight classes in terms of talent. The 70's is one of the few eras that isn't utter garbage and so is bigged up like it's some sort of premier era of unprecedented ability compared to other divisions when it's really not. I mean damn, Earnie Shavers being talked about like he's some ATG kinda says it all. Joe Frazier doesn't even have a jab ffs and yet he's talked about like some H2H god. If he was boxing today people on this very board would call him a bum and lament about how heavyweights aren't like they were in the 70's lol.
Earnie Shavers is a borderline top 10 HW in the 70s. Find a borderline top 10 HW in another era thats as good as Earnie Shavers.
Something can be the best and still be overrated. Like Michael Jordan. Might be the best basketball player of all time, but isn't talked about the best basketball player of all time. He's talked about like a god. The best, also extremely overrated. 70's heavyweights are good compared to other heavyweights yes, but that's not saying much. There's a reason why almost all the records for most consecutive title defences are held by heavyweights; most heavyweight era's are several years of 1 ATG fighter surrounded by mediocrity. Not particularly competitive with very shallow talent pools.
That in the fight Ali Vs. Norton 3 awarded victory to Norton, as it should have been, the whole story would have changed. And in that case Norton would have a score of 2:1 in H2H fights with Ali. And Norton would take the title from Ali. Norton is not overrated; he broke Ali's jaw. And in that case Norton would definitely be ATG.
Logically this is correct. But when somethings the best and overrated I don't get how the overratedness is relevant. People are always going to put the thing thats number 1 at something on a pedestal and give whatever that thing is over the top praise. In these situations I think the preceding fight before should be considered a title fight. Same with Lennox with Ruddock. Also Jimmy Young had beaten Foreman for the USBA title.
Yeah I think the era overall is quite overrated any decent modern heavyweight would do well in this era. But I'll say one controversial one, Ali. Every Ali fight I watched in the 70s he honestly looked pretty mediocre and only won based on outlasting his opponents rather then through skill and when he faced actual skilled boxers he looked bad and had to win gift decisions i.e Young and Norton. He looked better in the 60s but by the 70s he pretty much had to rely on his toughness to win fights rather then his honestly overrated boxing skill.
