The lost Generation of Heavyweights and Mike Tyson.

they were basically all drugged up and fat.

 

atsch GTFO the 90s were the second best decade for heavyweights imo you had Tyson,Lewis,Holyfield, and Bowe

 

No. They were not all THAT bad. And I think that the stereotypical notion of them being " drugged up and fat ", is true to some extent, but also overstated. Tim Withersoon and Tony Tubbs both tested positive for traces of Marijuana after one or two of their fights. But recreational pot use, is not exactly what I would deem as being " a drug addict." Michael Dokes and Pinklon Thomas had drug problems that were probably a bit more severe however, as one of them had cocaine troubles while the other was apparently a heroine user. But this does not tell the whole story of every top heavyweight from 1979 to 1987. This was a generation of fairly large men, with good amateur pedigrees, reasonable ability and in many cases, good records. A lot of them also worked with notable trainers and managers as well. And some of them even had moderate success into old age.

 

And what else they were was on par with their cohorts and could win or lose a fight. What you rarely saw with that group was ko results when they fought elite competition. Tons of decisions. Occasional stoppage and usually lots of B performances. They all appeared to look and perform better as prospects when you could see potential improvements than they ever did as established top 10 guys. Whole different game fighting A grade fighters than the C graders.

Holmes and Tyson were far better than that group and there is a big big gap between #2 and #3.

 

All good points.

I myself rate the top 5 heavys of the 80's as follows, but not written in stone.

1. Mike Tyson
2. Larry Holmes
3. Tim Witherspoon
4. Michael Spinks
5. Mike Weaver


*Note* I rank Holmes higher on an all time list, but when looking at what their acheivments were in the 80's, and not before or after, I have Tyson a notch above... Spinks I could only place at #4 due to his relatively low number of fights in the division.

 

Dokes,Page,Thomas,Tubbs,Witherspoon et al had talent,but no consistency or hunger.

 

Collin Hart doesnt like Tyson anyway, didnt he disagree with tyson being inducted into the HOF?

 

Colin Hart's a very sharp guy. I'm thinking back to 1974. He was about the only scribe to have predicted that Ali was going to beat Foreman. He was right about Leonard over Hagler too.

 

Tyson was 13-3 in the 90s

 

what about : Smith vs Witherspoon #2 , Page vs Witherspoon #2 , Smith vs Weaver , Dokes vs Weaver #1 , Thomas vs Tillis , Weaver vs Williams , Weaver vs Coetzee , Coetzee vs Tate and there were more . I prefer stoppage endings 2 , but there were more than a few stoppages between them .

Also Holmes was barely slightly better than d rest of d bunch , he just had that foul spirit in him , size and Don King .

 

Page/Spoon 2 was when they were 90 years old. Dokes/Weaver 1 was controversial. Smith never fought Dokes. Coetzee Tate was not a ko. There just weren't that many more.

do the math--top 10 heavies and 2 or 3 beltholders depending on the year. That's 12 or 13 guys per year. multiplied by 10 years. How many fights to make, only 4 per year between the ranked fighters? that's a total of 520.

What did we get instead? hardly a lot of ko's. The ko's were against the guys way down the ladder, not top 10. But against contemporaries, lots of decisions. Lots of fights not made. Subtract Mike Tyson and what's left for that 10 year boxing span?

 

I can break it down to 4 reasons why the 80s gets the short end when assessing the quality of the decade.

1. It was sandwiched between the 70s and the 90s which were two remarkable era's for Heavyweight Boxing.

The 70s had a great top 4 (Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton) and a solid supporting cast.

The 90s had a great top 4 (Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis) and a solid supporting cast.


2. The styles. You see the 80s was a brainchild of Muhammad Ali; it was an era which produced boxers. The 90s was a brainchild of Mike Tyson; it was an era which produced punchers which the public is absolutely fascinated with.

3. The 80s was the first era which had to deal with the emergence of Alpha titles. Anybody who watched Heavyweight Boxing in the 90s knew that if a fighter held a WBO belt, it didn't really matter. In fact, I almost resented that belt because I felt that it was cheapening what was the prestigious distinction of being Heavyweight Champion of the World. The 80s had to deal with that.

4. Drugs and Laziness. This was a talented group of fighters who fought in a decade known for excess. Cocaine ruined a lot of fighters.

Tim Witherspoon
Pinklon Thomas
Mike Weaver
Trevor Berbick
Michael Dokes
Greg Page
Tony Tubbs
Tony Tucker
James Smith
Tyrell Biggs
Micheal Spinks
Carl Williams
Gerry Cooney
Frank Bruno
Gerrie Coetzie
John Tate

Not a bad group. I'd say they are lot better than today's guys.

 

Great responses from Magoo, Azzer, Zadfrak, Stevie and the rest.

The current state of the heavies as well as the last decade makes the 80's guys look much better than previously thought of. We were spoiled with the 70's, which made the 80's look dreary in comparison, which made it a very underrated decade. Any other decade would look less than stellar, except maybe the early 90's. So looking back you see a division chock full of talent with only 2 dominant champions in Holmes and Tyson.

Don King screwed with a lot of potential great fights and great fighters. Still, we had some big events like Holmes-Cooney, Holmes-Spinks I and II, Spinks-Cooney, Tyson-Holmes, Tyson-Spinks, and unexpected gems like Witherspoon-Bruno, Holmes-Witherspoon, Tyson-Berbick to name a few.

A very, very underrated decade.

 

Holyfield was 13-4-1 in the 90s.