80s Contenders as good as the 70s Contenders

Muhammad Ali totally exposed Terrell's level though. Outclassed him completely. It wasn't really a contest.

 

You seem more up to date on Youtube common sections (where they will spew unreasonable **** against Ali as well) than this forum. Do the threads I suggested plus a peak Thomas vs Bugner thread, and see what people say. My guess is that it will be quite level headed over all.

 

Mid 70s contenders were very good
Early-mid 80s were very good

Late 70s-early 80s saw a short window of mediocrity, from which Holmes greatly benefited

He fought nobody of note until '78 when he fought Shavers. Then he beat Norton in a nail biter. After that, he was safety first in his selection of opponents.

Evangelista - mediocre European leve figher.
Zanon - mediocre European level fighter.
Occsio - benefited from Young fading
LeDoux - hadn't beaten anyone
Weaver - hadn't beaten anyone yet
Berbick - hadn't beaten anyone yet
Spinks - exposed first by Coetzee.
Jones - a medicrity who had only beaten and oft beaten Weaver.
Snipes - only meaninful victory was a gift decision over Coetzee.

Cooney - beat big names who were mid 70s holdovers - Young, Norton and Lyle. Beat nobody prime.
Cobb - beat a faded Shavers then lost to Dokes
Rodriquez - mediocre European fighter
Frank - a clubfighter who drew with an inconsistent Snipes who was in the midst of a losing streak

Frazier - green, unproven.

Meanwhile, Tate was quality for a short while but was never the same after the Weaver miracle 15th round ko loss.

The quality picked up again with Thomas, Dokes, Page, Coetzee, Witherspoon, Tubbs, Tucker, Carl Williams.

Holmes only fought Witerspoon, who hadn't done much yet and gave him a helluva scare and Williams who almost beat him.

If Holmes fights the prime mid 70s guys he has a much tougher time than he had waiting for them to peter out and also has a much tougher time if he fights the myriad legitimate contenders he avoided in the '80s.

Meanwhile, Ali fought everybody.

 

I agree, that's absolute nonsense. He was beaten by Chuvalo for chrissakes, in what other era is he a given champion?

Sure, he'd quite likely hold a belt at some point in the early 80's if he hit his peak then, but quickly lose it.

He was just contender level, nothing more. I don't know where people got that "champion in any other" era from. A tempting thought is that it is because he was one of the few white american HW contenders of the last 50 years, but in that case why not Cooney or Morrison as well? Morrison actually was a very nice fighter to watch. Good form and great power, especially in that left hook.

Quarry was a well rounded fighter but didn't excel in anything. He not only was outclassed by Ali and Frazier, but also lost to Ellis and Chuvalo. I just don't understand what all the fuss was about.

 

Quarry is overrated by some and so is Young, but you can hardly say that about Ellis or Terrell. It probably evens itself out in the end.

 

Holmes needed that one true "rival" like Ali had with Frazier. Multiple close fights against each other.

 

I was pointing out the fights that didn't happen, most of which involved top level fighters. Why didn't we get Haye vs Povetkin for instance? Or Ibragimov vs Chagaev? Both of those fights would have been ultra competitive and potential barnburners.