This is interesting...hmm, we have Weaver, who did pretty darn good in the early 80s and intermittently the rest of the time. Larry...nuff said there. Mike. But that's where I start running out. I knew Spinks was just at the right place at the right time, so I really don't rate him (though I rate light-heavy Michael WAYY up there). 90s we had Holy, Bowe (temporarily), Lewis, Mercer, a not-quite-as-good Iron Mike, a shockingly revitalized Larry Holmes, and a joy-bringing George Foreman. The 80s seemed to have a lot of guys who would look good in one or two important fights, then lose fights they shouldn't have. Witherspoon never looked better than he did against Holmes, imo...but the losses he suffered (not just the virulently disappointing ko by Smith) really dragged his legacy down imo. Thomas lost to...argh, Berbick. Page just couldn't seem to stay consistent, either. Dokes was exposed early. Though I LOVE when Larry was champion, and was pretty damn impressed by Iron Mike, to me the 90s were eclipsed only by the 70s. But I happen to adore all three decades, couldn't live without any of them, my friend.
Well, I'm just talking H2H here. I'd pick both Holmes and Tyson over both Lewis and Holyfield, prime for prime. I'd also pick them both to beat Bowe. The fact that an older Tyson is a top four HW in the 90s only works in favour of the 80s. The next four guys on the list should be an amalgamation of Mercer, old Foreman, Moorer and Morrison. Witherspoon, Pinky, Berbick and Weaver are clearly better IMO. And I'd definitely pick the 80s guys to come out better in a prime for prime round robin. And then the 80s has even more guys like Tate, Coetzee, Page, Snipes, Bonecrusher, Tucker, Tubbs &c; very deep division considering it's reputation. They also have Buster Douglas. I know he peaked about a month into the 90s, buy c'mon no-one's calling him a 90s HW. I think Buster is a genuine great talent and we only saw him at his peak on that night in Tokyo. I think if he had the dedication of his dad he'd have been known as a lesser ATG.
The 1930s was, on the whole, probably just as strong a decade as the 1940s. If not, it wasn’t far off. It was a weaker decade for the big guys (Lt. Heavies and Heavies) which have always driven the public interest in the sport. Therefore it has historically always been seen as a weaker decade on the whole than many others. From Flyweight to Middleweight it has a legitimate argument as the single strongest decade.
It has to be the 70s for me, at the start I was 16 and mad about boxing, I mean mad, so I had for the next ( if you include 1969 ) 6/7 years reading ( sometimes seeing ) about the exploits of , wait for it > Ali, Foster, Monzon, Napoles, Duran, Olivares, Canto, not to mention contenders like, Briscoe, Muniz, Hafey, Mateo, Kendal, Castillio, and loads I have forgot ! so line em up, tell me a better , prob half decade than mine.
- GGG was not robbed in either fight against Canelo & looked lackluster & tentative in the 1st fight. - Bowe is overrated & hasn't fought anybody other than Holyfield. - Prime Tyson would mostly likely knock out Prime Foreman (60-40). - Duran only beat Leonard because Leonard fought with the wrong fight (slugging instead of boxing). - Prime Leonard beats Prime Hagler - Prime Floyd would school/beat up Prime Pacquiao (at 130) - Prime Ali was not invincible & would lose to a number of heavyweights. - Michael Nunn was not schooling Toney like many claim, & the fight was either a draw or Nunn was 1 or 2 points in front before he got knocked out.
I thought that was the point, Duran dragged Leonard Into a brawl, using his boxing IQ he forced a style of match Leonard didn't want to fight. Agreed about Ali, nobody is or were invincible, people get their knickers in a twist if god forbid you say Ali could of been beatin by someone.
Nunn was only ahead by those wide margins on the cards because the fight was in Iowa. Toney was clearing coming on from the 7th or 8th round and getting to Nunn with increased consistency.