70's vs 90's heavyweights?

I'd say Foreman knocks all of 'em out. Maybe even Lennox.

 

I wouldnt be suprised to see all the 90s fighters beating all the 70s in the following match ups

Tyson-Holmes
Holyfield- 70s Ali
Lewis - Foreman
Bowe - Frazier

 

One thing about the 90's is that it was strong throughout, basically because of the deep amount of talent. In the beginning, you had Tyson, Holyfield and Bowe at or near their primes, and that the end, you had Lewis, Ibeabuchi, Tua, both Klitschko's coming up.

Compared to that, the second half of the 70's was ****:

Foreman - Couldn't get his Ali rematch, embarrassed by Young
Ali - Boring fights, always close or even losing against better opponents, or not even good ones (Neon Leon)
Holmes - He was excellent, but took easy fights and no Norton rematch
Norton - good performances against Holmes & Young, but also blasted out
Frazier - shot
Young - good but boring; washed up after 78
Lyle - pretty much washed up
Shavers - The Shannon Briggs of the 70's
Quarry - washed up

The early 70's, by constrast, were great because the best fought the best when they were still in good condition, mostly.

 

In the late 70's when Frazier, Foreman, Ali, Quarry were all out or almost out of the scene and Norton, Lyle, Young, were badly faded I'd go with the 90's bunch but it is still close... Up to and before 1975 the 70's group was vastly superior IMO.

 

There is an absurd amount of power on that list.

As far as power punching heavyweights of the 70's, you have a guy who had no stamina (Foreman) and a guy who lost just about every big fight he had (Shavers). After those two, we start talking about the Ron Lyle's and Mac Foster's of the world, which does not speak well for that decade.

 

Mostly agree, however if you add Holmes in the 70's, as he was champ then in his prime, it becomes a near even decade to decade comparison. Ron Lyle, and Jimmy Young at their best were tough outs too.

I do think the 90's was loaded with depth and power hitters though.

IMO the 1970's, and the 1990's were two great decades of heavyweight boxing.

It might interest some that I felt the 90's were a top decade during the internet's infancy...most disagreed. That tune has changed.

 

70's were better. Maybe, just maybe, the 90's had just a little bit more depth.

But think of it this way. 2 70's fighters nearly were title holders in the 90's. We can talk all we want about Ray Mercer and the list long of bottom fighters toward the bottom end of the decision. However, Holmes beat him easily while being an old man. And Foreman still reigned as a champion at 45 years old. He also beat Shannon Briggs at 48 years old. The boxing ability was better in the 70's. Whether you think plenty of A beats B is your own candor. I think Quarry would out-box Ray Mercer much like he did Ron Lyle. I think Ron Lyle is much better than Mercer, too. But I don't want to digress.

 

Seventies!

 

I think most people here have pretty much hit it on the head, by awarding the top talent to the first tier of the seventies, while giving the 90's the nod in terms of depth... The 1970's were probably at their peak around 1973, when Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Norton and Quarry were either at or close to their best and facing each other regularly... The problem that I have with the second and third tier fighters of that decade was that there were a lot of guys like Chuck Wepner, Mac Foster, Ron Stander, Terry Daniels, Jose Roman, Manuel Ramos, Jean Coopman, Alfredo Evangelista, etc........ Frankly, I'll take guys like Francesco Damiani, Gary Mason, Bert Cooper, Pierre Coetzer, Orlin Norris and Bruce Seldon over those guys any day, which is what I'm talking about in terms of DEPTH....

 

90s had a stronger supporting cast and a little more depth.

70s had better matchups.

 

70's Not close Ali,Foreman,Frazier,Norton,Lyle,Bonavena,Chvalo,Shavers,Quarry,Bugner, these guys by far and away.

 

I might be able to see an argument for the top tier, but Bonavena, Chuvalo, Shavers and Bugner?

 

Head to head against the best of the 90's and all those lose. Some might even lose their lives.

 

Hyperbole doesn't help get your point across.