70's Heavy Really the best

Era's seem to generally look bad compared to the eras that follow them. Rating eras generally seems very subjective. How does one say whether an era is weak or not?

 

Yes, the 70's were the golden age of the heavyweights. This decade saw three all-time greats at their peak: Frazier, Foreman and Holmes. This can be said of no other decade. If this wasn't enough, the great Ali regained his crown in this decade as well.

One of these guys came back two decades later to regain his crown while another came pretty close to doing the same.

Even people who cared nothing for boxing knew about epic battles such as "the Fight of the Century", "the Rumble in the Jungle" and "the Thrilla in Manila". There was only one champion and world heavyweight title bouts were held, to great interest, literally all over the world.

Greatness spawns greatness: Holmes became great in no small measure because of his association with Ali; Frazier and Ali pushed each other to sublime greatness; Foreman's huge menace inspired Ali to perhaps his greatest victory of all. Pretty good decade.

 

Ali was not in his peak in the 70's. And Frazier had only one good year in the 70's - basically he was ruined after the FOTC.

 

1970s heavys are a little better than the 1990s heavys - lets not forget that freak of nature big george foreman was champ n the 1970s and 1990s what a monster!

 

Foreman was not a freak of nature by todays standards, in fact he is on the small side.

When you look at the 2 generations head to head the 90's is stronger than the 70's.

 

One of the factors that added (for me at least !) some additional excitment to the 70's (Early) heavy scene, was that did not a month would go by when it seemed that a new potential star was treatening to burst through, And those that didnt make it looked like they could have a punchers chance with most, Take a Bow Ted Gullick, Jeff Merritt, Boone Kirkman, Jose Luis Garcia, Perdo Lovell, Ron Stander, Morris Jackson, Jose Urtain, Memphis Al Jones, Al Blue Lewis
Al Jones (Chicago) Ect they never made it, but the did gererate their own little bit of Ink in the magazines of the day, which of course added - at root level - to the colourful landscape of the time.

 

I think my credentialys for being critical towards the 70s crew are well established.

If you cast aside the romanticism of the 1970s fog then the heavyweights of this period are still the best but only just.

No George Foreman would not have dominated any other era.

No Jerry Quarry would not have been champion if he had been fighting in another era.

Yes Earnie Shavers and George Chuvalo would have been second raters in any other era.

But when all is said and done it is still the best era.

 

My question is, if we rate Bonavena based on his first fight with Frazier, then why can't we rate Bowe based on his first fight with Holyfield?

And if we rate Bowe based on his first fight with Holyfield, then why not rate Buster Douglas for his fight with Tyson? It's ridiculous that the same people that put Riddick Bowe in their Top 10 HW head-to-head list for his first win over Holyfield will discredit 1990 Tokyo Douglas as a "bum, journeyman, and fringe contender".

Just as ridiculous is anyone who claims guys like Earnie Shavers are better than 1990s contenders. Razor Ruddock was ten times the fighter Shavers was, and infinitely more durable. He never held a title, either.

Just comparing titleists from the two eras is a joke, as well. The point is that there were FOUR heavyweight belts during the 1990s, and some of the titleholders were indeed garbage. It's easy to claim that because china-chinned Michael Moorer held a belt the 90s was garbage, but on the other side of that coin is that fact that there were four heavyweight belts. Four times as many belts means (usually) four times as many champions, so of course there will be a few that aren't very good.

Just because the title went Ali-Frazier-Foreman-Ali doesn't mean the 1970s was a better era.

 

If I had to say one thing that put the 70s above the 90s HW division (my own personal favourite), it's that the top level boxers did tend to fight each other more often. Boxing politics and the splintering of the HW crown did affect the 90s HW scene negatively.

Champ-for-champ, contender-for-contender though, I think they're pretty damn close.

 

The 70s heavyweights don't actually stand out much from the other eras. There seems to be a lack of depth.

 

The 1990s era as 'best ever' was knocked into a cocked hat when fat old man Holmes beat Mercer. :yep

 

70's was big on attention fighters got, not on best boxers. Holmes was an 80's fighter mostly. Chuvalo was 60's (and no big deal anyway) i an dFrazier were big attraction, and heavies were on free tv alot, which helped them gain fans and atention. I think pre 60's, back to 1920''s, ahd best. The past few years we are seeing an era that may be up there with best, or one of best. To make that level, one thing is missing: titles. Not belts, titles. If these guys unify, and someone defends a UNIFIED, UNDESTRUTED TITLE a few times, then we will most likle have a champ and an era we can agree s truly great, maybe greatest.

 

holmes belongs in 80's.

 

But some of his most dramatic fight don't.

 

How do you think the prime versions of Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis would have done had they been competing with the 70’s legends? and would any of them have become champions in that era? or do you feel that they would have just been contenders?

Ron Lipton :
Ali would have eaten up Tyson like Pac-man, Frazier on paper would be very formidable but that 205lb best fighting weight of his against a version of himself in Mike Tyson at 218 muscular pounds of lightning fast reflexes might prove too much for Joe, but Mike would have to kill him to beat him and Joe could just possibly gut it out and Mike could get discouraged in there with a determined Frazier. Foreman in his heyday would take out Lewis,, even with George at 219lbs and overpower Holyfield. Foreman was extremely heavy handed and powerful with a determined lust to destroy. Just look at what the old George did with Holyfield who I refereed twice. Holyfield might not have beaten a younger Mike Tyson at Mike’s best, and might have had trouble with a younger, stronger, mobile Larry Holmes. Holmes was an extremely tough man mentally and was quite fearless. The Norton that gave Ali fits, and destroyed Quarry would have been tough although he folded against the big punchers. I should note that I feel on his best night that Riddick Bowe was formidible and could have beaten many of the champs of the past but ONLY and only if he conquered his weight problem. He was mean, hit hard with both hands and could fight on the inside as well as from long range. Lennox Lewis would have been a problem for all of them except Ali, who would have solved that puzzle like he did all others. The hand speed, mind set and lateral movement would nullify Lewis, and the jab would off set his balance. If Oliver McCall and Rahman KO’d Lennox, then Ali would have destroyed him, despite the rematches. I am talking about Ali at his best of course.