how many 'great' heavyweight eras were there?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by goat15, Mar 7, 2011.


Page 1 of 2
  1. goat15

    goat15 Active Member Full Member

    926
    0
    Nov 10, 2010
    devil's advocate:

    sure, the seventies were good, and the nineties were good too (although it didn't quite live up to its potential), but which other eras avoid anything but the utmost disdain?

    it is well known that the last decade has been poor. tyson and holmes reigned in the eighties, and both are considered to lack top resumes because of a lack of top competition.

    the sixties only got going when the seventies were just around the corner. before that, liston and patterson each coasted to the title. the fifties are widely considered to have been weak. we're always hearing how marciano didn't have the best of competition - walcott was inconsistent and charles was past his best. indeed, the heavyweight title changed hands with just a single punch... twice!

    what about the thirties and forties? joe louis took out a host of 'interim' champions before embarking on some serious resume padding around the turn of the decade. he does have some good wins over great fighters, but were there enough of them to constitute a great era?

    the twenties maybe? well, dempsey was dominant but how many great wins does he have? he didn't fight a black fighter either, blah blah blah. tunney? he retired before it got interesting.

    going back further... jack johnson beat up smaller guys and jim jeffries, well, maybe his era was decent enough?

    so, which of these dismissals is the least justifiable? even if some of the descriptions above are fabrications... can we reverse them totally, and claim that they were 'great' eras after all?
     
    goat15, Mar 7, 2011
    goat15, Mar 7, 2011
    #1
  2. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    I think most eras are filled with enough contenders that could give 50-50 fights to world class fighters from any other time.

    What makes a "great era" is exciting fights and enough champions with the charisma to make boxing mainstream and popular. Ability and competition is often comparable through out time but often nobody that exciting is amoung them, nobody stands out or the best fights are not made.
     
    choklab, Mar 7, 2011
    choklab, Mar 7, 2011
    #2
  3. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005
    I don't think the 1990s were any better than the 1980s.
    I think the main difference was the PPV TV machine hyping up the fights.
    Maybe the first 2 or 3 years of the 80s were a bit weaker.

    The first half of the 70s was strong because of Ali, Frazier and Foreman primarily, vying for the championship. But after 1975, the division went downhill quickly.
     
    Unforgiven, Mar 7, 2011
    Unforgiven, Mar 7, 2011
    #3
  4. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    128
    Aug 13, 2009
    People are often too vague and broad when defining eras. Decade generalization in particular is often misleading.

    I do agree with choklab, a great era is really about quality match making rather than a perception of talent. Real reason the past few decades have been so painful to sit through overall, despite a few great moments.

    To answer your question, my personal favorite is the mid 50s, with so many contenders mixing it up so frequently.
     
    The Mongoose, Mar 7, 2011
    The Mongoose, Mar 7, 2011
    #4
  5. goat15

    goat15 Active Member Full Member

    926
    0
    Nov 10, 2010
    yeah i agree about the nineties, the hype was crazy.

    it seems that aside from 1970-1975, most of the other eras were much of a muchness?

    if i could have lived through a particular period, it would have been from charles beating louis to ali beating liston.
     
    goat15, Mar 7, 2011
    goat15, Mar 7, 2011
    #5
  6. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    Spot on. :good
     
    bodhi, Mar 7, 2011
    bodhi, Mar 7, 2011
    #6
  7. Stevie G

    Stevie G Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,112
    8,556
    Jul 17, 2009
    For me,the early/middle seventies will always be the best era for me. Partly down to the quality of heavies around. Ali,Frazier,Foreman,Norton,Young,Quarry etc. And a certain Larry Holmes on the horizon. Another reason is that this was the time that I became interested in boxing in a BIG way. Before my time,I reckon the fifties deserve a mention. Must have been very exciting for those who were there. Marciano,Walcott,Charles et al.
     
    Stevie G, Mar 8, 2011
    Stevie G, Mar 8, 2011
    #7
  8. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,128
    13,067
    Jan 4, 2008
    I agree.
     
    Bokaj, Mar 8, 2011
    Bokaj, Mar 8, 2011
    #8
  9. Boucher

    Boucher Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,596
    5
    Dec 18, 2010
    One.
     
    Boucher, Mar 8, 2011
    Boucher, Mar 8, 2011
    #9
  10. Kalasinn

    Kalasinn ♧ OG Kally ♤ Full Member

    18,318
    57
    Dec 26, 2009
    The only "great" Heavyweight eras are the first half of the '70s & the first half of the '90s.
     
    Kalasinn, Mar 8, 2011
    Kalasinn, Mar 8, 2011
    #10
  11. goat15

    goat15 Active Member Full Member

    926
    0
    Nov 10, 2010
    quite sad if you think about it. the first half the nineties could have been so much more too. bowe lewis and tyson foreman would have been great, to name but two...
     
    goat15, Mar 8, 2011
    goat15, Mar 8, 2011
    #11
  12. Kalasinn

    Kalasinn ♧ OG Kally ♤ Full Member

    18,318
    57
    Dec 26, 2009
    Well Old Foreman turned down two contracts to fight Tyson in '90 & 91...

    First he wouldn't accept $5million to fight World Champ Tyson in January '90, because he was "...more scared of Don King & the dotted line than Mike Tyson". Then he turned down $20million to fight Tyson in '91, prefering to persue a rematch with Holy instead.
     
    Kalasinn, Mar 8, 2011
    Kalasinn, Mar 8, 2011
    #12
  13. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    128
    Aug 13, 2009
    Early 90s were pretty disappointing. Of all the great match ups that were possible, only a handful actually got made. Than you had the big upstarts, Mercer and Morrison totally bombing. Both Champions Bowe and Holyfiled had just as many problems finding contenders as the K-Bros have today.

    Holyfield/Bowe and Tyson/Ruddock were pretty strong highlights though.
     
    The Mongoose, Mar 8, 2011
    The Mongoose, Mar 8, 2011
    #13
  14. goat15

    goat15 Active Member Full Member

    926
    0
    Nov 10, 2010
    yeah i know the history... still a shame, though. while we're at it, i would also have liked to have seen:

    holmes moorer
    lewis holyfield (about five years earlier than it happened)
    tyson mercer (during mercer's peak)

    of course plenty of reasons none of those came close to happening. could have been a special five or six years, though. if only everyone had holyfield's attitude - he actually fought everyone... and i've lost count of the number of rematches. old school.
     
    goat15, Mar 8, 2011
    goat15, Mar 8, 2011
    #14
  15. eslubin

    eslubin Active Member Full Member

    558
    0
    Nov 29, 2009
    1. 10s
    2. 70s
    3. 90s
    4. 30s
    5. 60s
    6. 50s
    7. 00s
    8. 80s
    9. 40s
    10. 20s

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7KPCcSy2qo[/ame]

    www.youtube.com/eslubin
     
    eslubin, Mar 8, 2011
    eslubin, Mar 8, 2011
    #15
Page 1 of 2