80s Contenders as good as the 70s Contenders

Sitting here watching Thomas/Witherspoon and I'm thinking, the 1980s contenders were every bit as skilled as the 70s contenders. Meaning, if you took the top 80s contenders and put them against the top mid 60s-mid 70s contenders, you'd have a lot of good and really close fights. The 70s guys were more consistent, yes! But just markedly superior, no.

I say that the 70s was the "golden era" for other reasons than the fighters were the most skilled than any group of heavies before or since.

One reason and it may sound silly is that it was the first era where fights were shown in color. Among other reasons.

But its not like if you put any of the 70s contenders in the 80s, that if not for Holmes and Tyson, said 70s contender would rule the division with an iron fist. I.E. if you put say Oscar Bonavena in the 80s, if Holmes and Tyson weren't around, Bonavena would just be running roughshod over the division. He'd pick up his share of wins and loses and maybe pick up a belt.

Skillwise, I say the 80s contenders were on par with the 70s.

In the minds of many, Ali being "the greatest" must have defeated the greatest heavyweights by default. So to admit that Thomas perhaps could have beaten Bonavena is like saying Tyson could beat Ali. Or saying Witherspoon could beat Ernie Terrell is like saying Holmes could beat Ali.

I've always thought the mid 60s-mid 70s guys get a reputation boost because they were opponents of Ali.

If Thomas and Witherspoon had lost to Ali in that time frame, we may be hearing about how Pinklon Thomas would have been champion in any other era.

 

Bonavena was used as an example. And make no mistake, the 70s had skilled men that would have been at the top of the heap in any era.

It's just that IMO, many of their reps benefit from being opponents of Ali. So they typically get held up as superior to the opponents of other champions, especially that of Holmes & Tyson. For example, one may say Ali is the greatest because he beat "Quarry, Norton and Shavers etc" while Tyson only beat "Berbick, Thomas and Tubbs etc" or Holmes only beat "Witherspoon, Smith and Weaver etc".

But Quarry, Norton, Shavers and company are elevated to this plane of super contenders and one must surely have been "the greatest" in order to beat them. And in a way it implies that Holmes, Tyson or any other champion couldn't possibly have beaten those 70s contenders.

I'm just saying that in general, they were on par with the 80s contenders in skill, they were just more consistent and they had their reputations boosted because of Ali.

I'm 101 percent convinced that if Quarry lost to Holmes on cuts in 1982 or was flattened by Tyson in 1987, he'd be "a bum that was actually a cruiser weight". The same Quarry (or Ellis or Bugner or Shavers etc) with the same skills except they never lost to Ali or his nemesis, Fraizer, but instead lost to Holmes and/or Tyson.

But if Pinklon Thomas loses to Ali in 1967 or Tim Witherspoon loses to Ali in 1971, they'd be champions in any other era or some such nonsense.

I'm saying that I disagree. Fighters like Quarry, Norton etc were on par with the Thomases and Witherspoons of the world and not markedly superior to the Thomases and Witherspoons of the world.

Many on here will debate to no end that say Bonavena could beat a young Tyson, simply because he was a 70s contender. When in reality, it would likely be a 1 sided massacre in which Bonavena would be mercilessly beaten.

Its just that some cannot fathom that a contender who was competitive in the 70s could be easily handled by a champion of another era (especially if its Tyson or to a lesser extent, Holmes). No one seriously argues that Buddy Baer could have beaten or had a close, down to the wire fight with a young Tyson, but I guarantee that someone would if Buddy Baer fought Ali and Fraizer in the late 60s or early to mid 70s.

On the other hand, I've heard that Tony Tucker would be a fringe contender in the mid to late 60s. So you have guys like Henry Cooper and Brian London sitting pretty in the top 10 of the division, but a big, skilled mover like Tucker would be fringe??? Of course its because Tucker fought in the 80s.

 

Well yeah and thats another reason why the 70s era is the "golden era". Everyone fought everyone. For the most part.

 

For the sake of the discussion I put some of the mid to late 60s guys with the 70s crew. The point is, none are just head and shoulders over the 80s crew that many refer to as "one of the weakest heavyweight eras" which I think is just a way to disparage the champions of that era. Any 60s or 70s contender, while being good enough to be at the top of the heap in the 80s, wouldn't likely have went undefeated in the absence of Holmes and Tyson. Any 70s contender you name would have picked up losses to some of the 80s guys and had some wins as well. Which just says to me that on the level of skill and ability, they were all on a similar level. But, the 60s/70s top guys were more consistent in general than the 80s guys.

I know Buster Douglas gets a lot of flak here and in the YouTube comment section, but in reality, on one of his better nights, he'd be a match for any golden age contender. I don't see how anyone could logically argue otherwise.

 

All I can say is that I've seen otherwise. I've seen people say that Ali is the greatest and then rattle off Quarry, Ellis, Terrell etc as names that he beat. And then they'll say Holmes or Tyson beat "bums" like Berbick, Smith, Williams, Witherspoon or Weaver etc. And thats what I mean where people elevate the 60s/70s contenders to being some higher quality than the 80s contenders.

And while you say "anyone in their right mind would favor Tyson" yeah that SHOULD be true, but look at some threads on here, other forums or YouTube comments section. I've seriously seen a thread where someone was seriously arguing Cleveland friggin Williams would stop a young Mike Tyson in 5 or 6 rounds!!

Think about why someone would come to that conclusion. Simply because of the time frame he fought in and the name fighters he lost to. Williams was a hard puncher that lost to Liston in his prime, Liston lost to Ali therefore saying Williams would beat Tyson (and by default the 80s contenders Tyson beat) means Tyson would certainly have lost to Ali or Liston. Thats the one and only reason someone would come to that asinine conclusion. And thats extremely closely related to the reason many downplay the contenders that Tyson and Holmes defeated. Liston, Frazier and Foreman aren't just the only names mentioned. Saying Witherspoon or Carl Williams might have beaten Bugner is in many folks mind the equivalent of saying Holmes beats Ali. The result is that Witherspoon or Carl Williams get disrespected by being called "bums" or "nobodies" relative to the contenders of the 60s to mid 70s.

And In reality, Max Baer would have a better chance against a young Tyson than Cleveland Williams, but few and far in between will you find anyone arguing Max Baer would stop Tyson in 5 or 6 rounds. But Baer fought in the 30s.

And while few would pick London and Henry Cooper over Thomas or Tucker, thats assuming they're being rational and unbiased. From some of the threads Ive came across on here, I don't know.

 

I saw an interview with Larry Holmes and he mentioned that going into the fight with Gerry Cooney, Cooney was touted as this very promising, power punching contender and everyone was saying how good he was. After Holmes beat him, then he suddenly became a "bum".

And while Cooney wasn't an ATG, a fighter like Cleveland Williams wasn't either, but in the eyes of more than a few, Cleveland Williams gets elevated status over Cooney because of the time frame he fought in and because he lost in his prime to one of Ali's best wins.

Put it so that Cooney in his prime loses to Liston and Cleveland Williams loses to Holmes and suddenly Cooney would enjoy the same esteem Cleveland Williams does. And Williams would be considered a "bum" like many say Cooney was.

And I've never seen anyone refer to Cleveland Williams as a bum. I know why that is and it has nothing to do with him being actually head and shoulders a better skilled fighter above Cooney or any other 80s contender. Holmes is right about the double standard his opposition gets held to.

 

No sensible, unbiased person. But trust me, I've seen it and its more in the esteem in which they get held by some and how 80s guys like Thomas or Witherspoon etc get trashed as "bums" or "nobodies". Which I genuinely believe is because of when they fought and who they lost to.

For instance, go on YouTube and look at the Ali/Terrell fight and read the comment section. Then go to the Tyson/Tucker fight and read the comment section. You probably won't find not one comment referring to Terrell as a "bum". But the comment section of the Tyson/Tucker fight is littered with comments calling Tucker a "bum".

But realistically, was Terrell in any way a higher class of skilled fighter than Tony Tucker? No way! So exactly how in comparison to Terrell is Tucker a bum? And truth be told, Tucker may have beaten Terrell.

The difference is who Terrell and Tucker lost to. Ali was more of a good guy, beloved figure while Tyson was more of a bad guy figure. And admitting that Tucker was as good as or perhaps better than Terrell is putting Tyson's opposition on par with Ali's which just CAN'T happen.

If Tucker was outdid by a 67 Ali, there wouldn't be one comment of Tucker being a bum. In fact, his stock may have gone up and his skills overexaggerated.