Rank heavy weight decade s by strength and depth?

I think the 1990s is the most overrated. Tyson was past his best virtually the whole ten years and in prison. Holyfield was past his best for most of the decade and retired at least twice. Bowe didn't last long near the top. Lewis missed all the top rivals until the end of the decade.
Old fogeys like Holmes and Foreman were able to become top 10 fighters again.
The likes of Bruno, McCall, Seldon, Botha and Schulz contested the titles. Shannon Briggs was even hailed as lineal champ. These are a poorer bunch than the 1980s titlists.
Some of the worst fights too. Lewis-McCall 2, Tyson-Seldon, Tyson-Holyfield 2, Lewis-Akinwande, Golota-Bowe 1 and 2 were all fiascos or disgraces.

The Bowe-Holyfield trilogy was the highlight or a mostly dismal heavyweight scene. And Lewis-Holyfield was a credible unfication despite Holyfield being way past prime.
Tua-Ibeabuchi was a good fight between up and comers.

Doesn't really come close to stacking up to 1970s though (which is a little overrated too perhaps).
I'd rate the 1980s ahead of the 1990s.

 

I know this is the classic section, but I wish there was a way to make the 2000's be matched vs the 1910's, 1920's, and 1940's. They smash them.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Half of those guys were out of their primes for 5+ years or not in from 1910 and 1920.

2000's = Lewis, Wlad, Vitali, Povetkin, Ibragimov and more....the 1910's and 1920's could not stand with them.

 

You bash the guys from the other eras for being out of prime but immediately mention Lewis...

Wlad and Vitali got stopped twice by by mostly sub par heavies. Are you telling me Chris Byrd, Corrie Sanders, Lamon Brewster, and 37 year old Lennox Lewis who was in the worst shape of his career, do better against Wlad and Vitali than Dempsey, Louis, Walcott, Johnson, Sharkey, Tunney, Godfrey, Langford, or Wills? That's trash dude and you know it.

I'm not even going to waste time talking about the others.

 

I was just saying you look listed guys out if their prime and not in it, but failed to do so for the modern groups

That's rather uneven.

Sure Wlad and Vitali lost. You will see more defeats and defeats to lesser men from the 1910-1930 group.

Before I reply back in further detail I must ask have you seen Jeannette, Mcvey and Wills on film?

If so what specifically impressed you?

 

In the 1910s - 1930s guys fought many times per year and fought everyone. This is common knowledge. Wlad and Vitali fight like that and they would have many more L's. Throw em in 8 fights green with Langford and they get ripped to shreds. All of the guys I listed were better than the guys who stopped Vitali and Wlad.

Of course I have watched Jeannette, Mcvey, and Wills on film. I wouldn't have mentioned them if I hadn't. I'm not one of those guys who names a name just to seem knowledgeable. I'm not going to give a break down of why I think they are impressive.

 

A breakdown of why you think they look impressive won't take very long.

Why opt out so quickly?

Wlad had a lot of fights. He looses far less. If he fought Wills, Jeanette or Mcvey he'd win 80 percent of the time.

Mcvey is a crude hooker. That's about the sum of his game on film.

Wills doesn't look great either.

 

No, you will have to take my word for it. Btw I only said Wills could beat the Klitschkos.

 

completely off topic....and only because you mention the number 40 there....al mccoy, the first southpaw champion, between defences of his title and non title bouts he had something like 40 professional fights while world middleweight champion...and losing something like half of them (newspaper decisions)....all the while remaining champion.

sorry. totally useless info in this thread.

 

Ha Ha Ken.
So by that we conclude that you think things are getting steadily worse!!

 

I can agree the 1990s is the most overrated because lots of middle aged boxing fan die for this era(Lewis,Bowe...).

 

I take people's word when I know them, but on the web, explanations as to you think this way is best.

I think Wlad would drill Harry Wills, who would look small and unskilled in the ring with him. Wills has a puncher's chance, and it would need to come in the first half of the fight for him to win.

 

I think Wills would do good against Wlads jab. Wills had a long jab of his own and was pretty good at parrying opponents punches. At the very least, Wills would be more skilled than anyone Wlad has fought.

 

Yeah, it's looks that way, Cecil.Maybe it's just coincidence like I said but I'm sure nostalgia definitely plays its part as the 80s and 90s are the decades that I remember most vividly.