Why or why not? If they are, name a better decade and why that decade is better for heavyweights. :good
I would place Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier and George Foreman all in my top 10 all-time heavyweights, but not just for what they did in the 1970s. Ali was at his best in the 60s, and some of Frazier's best stuff is from the last few years of the 60s. What Foreman did in his '87-'97 stint counts a lot towards his high all-time ranking. There were a few great heavyweight fights in the 70s, but plenty of duds too.
I think any era can be overrated or underrated truthfully. I do however buy into the notion the 70's were a real golden era for heavyweights. You had at least 3 top 10 all time greats fighting during the same time, and a 4th who came towards the end of the decade. You had at least two or 3 concensus all time great punchers, and maybe 2 all time great boxers. There were a number of great matches and the best men faced each other often. These are some of the principles that define a great era. No, I don't think it was a magical time, but like all other things in life, there are times when something can be better than at others. Good and bad come and go in spurts. The 1970's happened to be a special time for heavyweight boxers in my opinion.
I'd say the 90's was equally as good, and possibly even better. The 70's, without Ali, would have lost much of it's magic. imo. In the 90's, even with the main attraction being in jail, the division was very exciting.
It was a popular era, the heavyweight boxers were well-marketed, displayed for the first time on colour television, and Muhammad Ali was a phenomenal showman and a GLOBAL star. Ali's status and commercialism accounts for some of it. The actual ability of the fighters is not necessarily a reason, because at the time many of the old-timers who report sports weren't overly impressed. And I'm not sure they should have been really, they'd seen great fighters before. The reason I think the 70s deserves to be remembered as a "great heavyweight era" is because the biggest fights (Ali-Frazier 1, Ali-Foreman, Ali-Frazier 3) DID actually live up to - or exceed - the hype. They are classics. On the other hand, some of the worst heavyweight championship fights I've seen - and some of the lousiest challengers - have been Muhammad Ali fights and his challengers, from the 1970s.
I think when we look at the 1970's as a golden era, what we are basically talking about is the time span from 1970 to maybe 1976. By the late 70's, men like Foreman, Frazier, and Quarry were retired. Ali and Norton were past their prime. Holmes was not yet a hot commodity. Some of those lousy fights that you speak of such as Ali vs Coopman, Evangelista, L. Spinks, Young, took place in that latter part of the decade when things were winding down. I generally think that most of the big matchups of the early to mid 70's were very good. My favorite fight of the 70's as well as all time, was Foreman vs Lyle.
I would say no, although there was certainly a "dilution" of the talent towards the end of the decade. If I had to pinpoint a genuinely strong decade I'd have to say '65-'75. I rank Liston, Ali, Foreman and Frazier(Comes in and out) in my top10, that's a sizeable amount in a top10 from an era. Someone like Ken Norton would/could be top30, and a number of the other contenders would give stiff challenges to a number of ATG's. I don't think the 90's was as strong, but very strong nonetheless. Tyson (moreso for what he did in the 80's) and Lewis, are top10 in most lists, Holyfield just misses out on mine but is probably top15. Bowe would be top30, although in reality his resume is paperthin and you wouldn't be faulted for making him top50. You had some pretty solid contenders, the likes of Mercer, Rahman, but I don't think they were as good as the 70's, Young, Shavers etc.
The big thing with the 70's was, by and large, everyone fought everyone. There were some cases of matchups not being made but nowhere to the degree it has become in recent times. Just look at all those 70's guys who were road warriors and would take on the other fighter and the other promoter. And aside from Lennox Lewis, what guy since the 70's has been willing to do that? The 70's just had far more competitive matchups and risky fights, but the door to the title went thru Frazier/Foreman/Ali/Holmes & you have to take big chances if you wanted to be champ. That's one of the big problems multiple championship belts caused.
The 70's heavyweights overrated? No, not at all. However, I do agree with most of what Sizzle had to say. Good, thoughtful post.
I think once you get pass Ali, Foreman and Fraizer, the others tend to get over rated. Shavers hardest hitter of all time. Norton all time great. Jerry could be champ if Ali or Fraizer was not there ete. Even L Spinks gets over rated a bit imo.
I have Ali as my #1 all time heavyweight. Frazir and Foremen are in my top 25. The 1970's provided the heavyweight divison with some of the best compotion it has ever seen.
Of course just as Tyson had his best years in the 80's Ali had his best years in the 60's. But I still think most would have Ali of the early 70's somewhere in their top ten, where they probably would have Frazier, Foreman and Holmes as well. A very valid point also is that the best fighters more or less all fought each other and they often made for very good fights. The pace of those fights is a lot better than the big fights in the 90's for example, while we're still dealing with fighters with a lot of power. Hoylfield-Bowe I is a great fight, but compared to FOTC... For me I think fighters like especially Frazier and Ali displayed an excellent combination fo pace and power, the same goes to Norton. And Foreman was very exciting in the early rounds. But when you look at the fights from later eras the pace is often low and there's a lot of clinching. The pace is really what's gone missing in the age of the weight-lifting giants. Well, that's enough rambling for now.
There is another way to judge a decade--which decades champions would defeat the champions of other decades year by year. Comparing the 1970's to the 1980's 70-72 to 80-82--Frazier to Holmes--It is certainly possible Holmes carries these three years. 73 to 83--Foreman to Holmes--Iffy for the seventies considering what happened when Foreman met Ali 74 to 84--Foreman or Ali to Holmes--Holmes' age gives edge to 1970's 75 to 85--Ali to Holmes or M Spinks--I guess Ali gets a slight edge but Spinks seems to me to be even money. 76-77 to 86-87--Ali to Tyson--young Tyson gives 80's edge. 78 to 88--Ali or Leon Spinks to Tyson--70's have no prayer. 79 to 89--Holmes to Tyson--even money The 1980's could win all ten and must be favored in 7 or 8 years. Interestingly, in the 1980's the reigning champion carried a perfect record throughout the decade.
Maybe the 70's shined better because of the fighters in its relation to Ali, Foreman, and other larger than life figures.
Well, I think the 60's, 70's, and early 80's were all the greatest era. In the 60's you had great fighters like Clay (Ali), Liston, Frazier, and Patterson. In the 70's you had Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, and Norton. In the early 80's it started winding down, but there was still tough competition. There was still Jimmy Young, Leon Spinks, Larry Holmes was still in his prime, Gerry Cooney, Mike Weaver, and a ton of prospects. The co-stars and gate keepers of the golden age were still very tough. Earnie Shavers, George Chuvalo, Jimmy Young, Jerry Quarry, Jimmy Ellis, Ron Lyle and Oscar Bonavena were all still very hard competition. The 90's was the next best era IMO, but it was short lived. You had Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis, Tyson, and Moorer. But a lot of them were inconsistant, much like the people from the 80's. You never knew which Tyson or Holyfield would show up, and Bowe dabbled in and out of shape. Lewis IMO was the most consistant. The gate keepers and co-stars were still pretty good too. There were guys like Rahman, Mercer, old Holmes and Foreman, Cooper, and Briggs.