70's Heavy Really the best

I agree with your statement regarding today... it stinks of beet soup and vodka!

 

Yet another example of how hideously some fans overrate the '70s. Bob 'I never, ever beat a decent heavyweight' Foster!!!

 

David Tua was a decent fighter too. What's your point?

 

The 80's was a very underrated era in the Heavyweight division. There was a great wealth of talent. It's just that unfortunatley most of it was wasted talent and the boxers that were brilliant at times were very inconsistent. Then you had a lot of good prospects that were signed to Don King who took advantage of them, bled them dry. The dispicable way King treated them, he could be held responsible for taking away their passion of boxing, they were trapped and became disillusioned with the sport. Then you had the drug problems.

Theres a book I read called the Life and Crimes of Don King which has a chapter on the wasted talent of the 80's, I think the chapter is called 'the lost forgotten souls' or something like that. Obviously it's not all Don King's fault but the spiky haired ******* has a lot to answer for.

 

Mannasa makesa good point in that a LOT of the 70s HWS are seen as better then are because of nostalgia and losing to 70s Ali.

 

Chuvalo, Peralta, Mildenberger en Martin were not top fighters when Bonavena beat them.

Frazier beat Bonavena by a very close margin. Mind you though, that Frazier was only in his eleventh pro fight and their rematch was not exaclty close. Schulz beat Foreman by a far clearer margin. Bonavena was tough and hard to stop, but the same holds for Schulz.

I will give to you that Bonavena did more but there is not THAT much between the two, i think. Not as much as one would suggest by their reputation, anyway.

 

My point is Ali didn't make Bonavena. He was a decent fighter in his own right. Yes Tua was decent too, but he isn't under appreciated either or thought of as any less than Bonavena.

 

Well, yes he is actually.

 

I would say the opposite, most people recognise Tua was a solid contender. I would say less people consider Bonavena in that way.

 

Bonavena is always mentioned as one of the better contenders of the '70s.

 

The same can be said of Tua in the 90's.

 

... So what's your point?! I was asking 'what's the difference between the two' - there is none.

 

Like you say there is very little difference between the two in terms of quality. However, initially you implied that Bonavena was only considered a decent fighter due to him fighting Ali. I simply disagreed, Ali didn't make Bonavena, most followers of boxing know he was good in his own right. Good evidence of this is his fight with Frazier which some say Bonavena arguably won. That is my point which I made clear to you in a previous post.