Was the 50s a weak era for HW boxing?

Yes, it was pretty bad, maybe the worst post 1900-1910.

 

Hmmm. Ezzard Charles, Ingemar Johansson, Joe Louis, Sonny Liston, Rocky Marciano, Archie Moore, Floyd Patterson, and Jersey Joe Walcott, were all active, and fighting at a high level at Heavyweight, in the 1950's. There were many good fighters competing at lower weight classes as well.

 

It was a transition time, Louis, Charles, Moore and Walcott were aging out and then came Marciano at the perfect time to take advantage of it, then he got out at the perfect time to avoid Charles Sonny Liston.

 

A lot of people say the 00s to first half of 10s was. Maybe even the majority.

 

Take Marciano out of the picture and then no one's whining.

Marciano, Liston, and maybe Jeffries, seem to suffer from having cleared the deck before getting the title. Maybe he should have waited on Ring's pick for the next great HW to do that before demolishing him.

Point is, it's a super competitive era without Marciano.

 

Excellent fighters but guys that are very undersized when compared to other era's.

 

Essentially this. The skills were there but the fighters were light in the pants. I could see some of today's bruisers like say Chisora making a big splash back then simply due to their size and toughness.

 

It depends what you mean by weak.

I agree with the consensus that the strongest contenders were not a very strong bunch.

However it must be noted that the top contenders were fighting each other regularly, and producing exciting fights.

Off the top of my head I can count nine times when the two top heavyweights in the world faced off in that decade.

 

My grandpa used to have a saying. "Heavyweights are the lightweights of the big people. But often the smallest of the big people are the most 'lightweight.' you can be, at the big weights."

Grandpa was suffering from a lot of cognitive issues by the time he coined that.

 

Era had some great names but so many were past peak by the time the decade got going - Louis and, probably, Charles. Walcott and Moore were mid 30s. Rocky's reign of terror might be a lot more impressive on paper before the tale of the tape comes under scrutiny.

But, hey. The contenders were mostly experienced guys - not counting Rademacher or McNeeley - who were in great fighting shape with well-honed skills. That puts it ahead of the eras we've been in for decades where fatties get into the ring once or twice a year and throw 20 punches a round. It wasn't a vintage decade like the 30s, the 70s, the 90s or, dare I say, the 80s. But it was a lot better than what we've had to pay through the nose to see for the last 20 odd years.

I wouldn't judge it too harshly. While D'Amato froze the title, the best contenders - Liston, Williams, Machen and Folley - fought one another. It didn't rely on the title as a measuring stick for its quality. What we'd give for some of today's contenders to show such willingness to fight each other.

 

It was a pretty shallow decade for talent imo .
Savold was no2 in one year and he was pretty much used up.
Cockell was no2 one year and top ten ranked in another.
Moderate Euro level fighters like Johnny Willliams ranked for 2 years , and Karel Sys,no5 and no 9, indicate it wasn't a vintage era.
Older guys from the previous decade still being ranked show talent was thin on the ground.
Lastarza was ranked for 3 years,and he was only average,imo.

 

That reminds me of something MY grandpa once said.

" "

God, how I miss that man.

 

This deeply reminds me of the film He Was a Quiet Man, starring Christian Slater and Elisha Cuthbert. Mostly, apart from the quietness, it is a film about sensual and thrilling handicaps. But I mostly am saying it reminds me of the quietness part.

 

Worry not, my grandfather was very sensual and handicapped, too. He was likely the basis for that movie's script.