1950s Heavy weights underrated?

It was a good enough decade. There never was a satisfactory explanation when I asked which top fighter from the 1950s would not rank in the 1970s.

 

Of course we take the career as a whole, so we did with Michael Spinks fighting 190-200lb shrinked down to 175lb boxers, and beating some HWs including a 35y old ATG. The question is: Is that enough to make him a secure favourite over some pretty decent HWs? The answer is obv. no, because we lack the information. Lets say Holyfield beat like 8 true HWs of Rockys resume plus the CWs guys in his resume. The median weight would be higher than Rockys resume btw. Does that make him a secure pick? Some small evidents is not the same than a whole resume of beaten 215lb men.

Thats exactly the Rocky wonderland. We have absolute no idea how he´d do against big, young, athletic successful HWs 30lb heavier than him.

Assume you have a future HW devision of all Tyson Fury guys, 6'7" - 6'9" with 260-280lb, some good movers, some good chin, some quicker, some good power etc.
How´d you now Mike Tyson would be favourite here? Its totally distinct, you have no idea!
Marciano simply lacks the information in his resume to make him 30 - 0 in a devision of Norton, Lyle, Bugner, Young, Shavers, Holmes, Cooney, Berbick, Witherspoon, Tubbs, Tucker, Thomas, Page, Biggs, Williams, McCall, Bowe, Hide, Seldon etc etc.
Its a total guess. and even more guess to pair this fellow against ATGs, the most successful boxers of these devisions!

Are you kidding me? How many of them would fight @ 175?

 

So are you going to write off the whole 1950s decade against say the 1970s or any pre-steroid infested decade?

 

I don´t know which top 11 you are talking about, but many of them would prob have to go to 175 instead of talking a beating against trimmed 210lb men. I´m tired of explaining this.

 

I disagree. I think Size is less of an issue once you get to the better fighters who I think can be successful in other decades. Especially when you think of all the light heavyweights in later decades who picked up belts.

 

As I said, I haven´t seen a list. Leon Spinks is best example what might happen too, as his brother avoided TT. Where they long therm good HWs?
But even without seeing the list, I predict about half of them fighting @ 190 or below in 80s up.

 

his brother avoiding Tony Tucker meant nothing because Tucker had beat zero good fighters. And had no name. He was just an unbeaten guy. Tucker really never beat a good fighter. The IBF installed Tucker and Douglas (who were nothing more than NABF level at that time) to fight for their vacant title for no other reason than that they wanted to deliver a weaker champion for Mike Tyson to beat. It was the sanctioning fee income from Tyson that they wanted more than Michael Spinks virtually defending his belts on the undercard of Mike Tyson vs Alfonso Ratliff. Spinks beat Holmes. I think he was entitled to a money fight after that. Even then I think Cooney probably had more credentials to challenge a champion than Tucker did. Was he a weak champion? He beat a dominant one. And he lost to a dominant one as well.

Take any top ten from the 1950s and pit them against any top ten from the 1970s and you won’t get a 10-0 shut out.

were the Spinks brothers good long term heavyweights? Was Riddick Bowe a good long term heavyweight? Was Rahman or McCall good long term heavyweight? Between Moorer, Bowe, McCall and Rahman are guys that beat Holyfield and Lewis twice over.

you are predicting something that cannot happen. All I know is if you like big, the 1950s had big heavyweights just as big that could beat rated fighters in the 1970s and 1980s. Surely that these big guys were never the best fighters of that decade tells you that the lighter ones that were better than them can be successful as well?