"Back in my day, boxers were better."

Not sure better, but they had to fight each other more and they mix the top talent more, so the fighters were hight levels just on their competition.. But sometimes you do feel the contenders were just tougher than. Even looking at someone like Buster Drayton who was a very tough fighter.

 

Does this mean, that some sort of objective consensus among boxing experts/aficionados has named the 1940s a superior decade? I have never heard about this, but I'd like to know more - so can you elaborate on this?

 

Tyson was 10-0 in title fights in the 80s and the first heavyweight to unify the "Big 3." He also beat top contender Ruddock twice in wars, regained two titles, and beat Golota. Total tally in title fights is 12-4.

Foreman was 3-1 in title fights the 70s. He also beat Lyle and a past it Frazier before losing to Young. He regained the title against Moorer, in a fight he was losing, but gave the belts away instead of defending, unless a robbery against Schultz counts. He beat one guy in the top ten during his comeback. Total tally in title fights is 5-2 counting Schultz or 5-3 counting Morrison and Schultz.

 

when I first started my research, both in Printed Reports and Online it was the (Decade(s) at the CBZ and other sites, circa 2001, these were the Decades, 1930s - 50s) most cited and reflected to with respect to Overall Greatest Champion's, Contenders and fighters, numbers of Active Classed World Fighters, numbers of Fights for said fighters, longevity careers wise in Top Competition, the decades which throughout the most Hall of Famers, ATG's and so on...

it was cited regularly & drawn upon as such by the many, of Boxing personnel and posters in exactly the same way the 1970s is still generally cited as the greatest era for Heavyweights and as the 1920s gets cited for the Lightweights. Even here at ESB these Periods/Eras often get stated as such.

I also believe there have been many Threads on said topic over at the CBZ, BoxRec, here and of course some of the other sites that were big for a time.

I'm sure a few poster here would say the same, especially among the users that have been on these sites for 20 years or more.

 

When was your day? I have been watching pro boxing since 1965.

 

Right, so there isn't really some general consensus, about the 1940s being a superior decade! And why would there be?... the first half of the decade was ravaged by WW2, with worldwide activity plummeting from the very busy 20s and 30s. Several world titles (HW, LHW, MW, WW, FLY) were "frozen", with not a single title fight taking place in those divisions over a period of 3-5 years.

So why anyone would single out the 1940s in particular, as a superior decade, is a bit of a mystery. Oh wait, didn't you have a grandad, who just happened to be active in... the 1940s? Mystery solved!

 

In a head to head fight, I also believe that Foreman would beat Tyson.

 

You are right buddy, Prime 1973 George Foreman hit like a mules kick.

 

I didn't say there wasn't any 'general consensus' on the Decade(s), I simply stated what was cited, discussed and attributed to that period... there are certainly reference to that in Piece's & Reports about it, on the Demise of Boxing - the TV Era, written about Killing the Small Halls, the numbers of 'active' fighters dropping, the lack of interest or need of the Sport as a livelihood because of Post War prosperity, chroniclers of Boxing writing of such Era's, Documented HOF'd fighters, Books like Mike Silvers' and so on...

is that not Documentation and Consensus?

ask a few others about the Topic, it has been discussed many times before as I said, see who else is aware of such Consensus...

you can't curb you're disdain towards me can you, IF it is ACTUAL REPORTS (either side of 20 years, before I was even Born), you want, then READ Them there are at least 600 available online with respect to 'my' grandad... but of course you'd have to admit they exist before you would dare have to acknowledge them.

as to the 1940 (30s - 50s), IF you don't want to look into the response material I know of, Ask Others, see what they have to offer.

 

Heck, you sound like you were born in 1710 when America was owned by England. Did you ever see the King or Queen?

 

So Mike Silver is one of many instrumental in establishing this "documentation and Consensus". You mean the guy who has made a career of bashing and ridiculing modern boxing? How anyone can cite him as a voice of reason, is mind-buggling!

And what is this about "of course you'd have to admit they exist before you would dare have to acknowledge them." Why would I doubt, that there are hundreds and hundreds of online reports about your grandad? So what is it, you want me to admit?

 

Well firstly, there was no "big 3" when Foreman was around in the 70's so that is a moot point.

Tyson, with respect did not reign in an era of Ali, Norton, Frasier and so on. Ruddock and Golota would have been no more than stepping stone fights for any of the top guys in the 70's. Ruddock was KO'd by a guy called David Jaco who ended his career with more losses than wins so let's not make Razor out to be any better than he was. Tyson should win those fights but they are not legacy fights. The only two great names on Tyson's CV (except an old Holmes) are Lewis and Holyfield and he was destroyed twice by Holyfield and obliterated by Lewis.

Tyson was good, but he's not the superman than many people believe. Foreman's first career alone was better than Tyson's. Foreman's comeback only served to show how inferior the 90's were by comparison. At 42 years old he gave Holyfield a better fight than either of the fights Tyson put up against Evander.

I note also that you conveniently overlook Foreman's first fight against a not "over the hill" Frasier and his destruction of Ken Norton. Chuvalo too. All three of those guys would school Razor Ruddock.

 

Tyson had as title winning fights as Foreman had wins in title fights including a robbery.

Ruddock would've smashed Norton to pieces. Go sit down.