Don't mind Swarmer, guys. He likes to discredit Muhammad Ali's opposition because he routinely rides Joe Louis' cawk. Just sayin'. Ron Lyle and Shavers might have KO'ed the Brown Bomber.
Norton WAS a belt-holder. But to put him - and Young - in a possible category with the likes of Valuev, Peter, Ruiz, Chagaev, Maskaev, Ibragimov etc. isn't really a compelling argument for DEPTH. The 70s fighters you name were good fighters, but you get good fighters in every era. I do feel the last 10 - 15 years has been shockingly bad for heavyweights, and probably fighters in all the divisions middleweight and up. So, of course, the 70s had better quality and depth than the 2000s.
:dealThis. So simple yet true. As a kid i marvelled over the new (to me)american commentators. They made it sound so great and so colourful, forgive the pun, as opposed to the 'stiff upper lip' british ones. Plus,of course, the talent was there. No explanation for it, its just one of those things that comes around as often as Haleys comet. All good champions, none of this WBO bull****. You had to beat the man to be the man. More access too. Ok, today we're saturated what with the internet and all, but back then you coulda got magazines with proper colour pics instead of the black and white ones. More interviews with fighters. More exposure for them too in adverts and tv shows. I remember my old man near collapsing when he saw Palamino on 'Taxi' and Foreman on 'The 6 million dollar man'
Just think. The 70's had three all time greats as heavyweight champion in that decade. That in itself,is indicative of the great time it was.