80's heavy's vs. 70's heavy's

My take on it is that the 70's had a better top level in Frazier, Foreman and Ali than the 80's had. Of course, you have Tyson, but then it gets a litttle bit less clear since Holmes was active for at least as many years in the 70's as in the 80's. And his peak was probably in the late 70's and early 80's, so where to put him?

If we take him out of the equation all together we have Ali, Frazier, Foreman compared to Tyson, P. Thomas?, Tubbs/Spinks?. It's really no contest.

As for the rest it' hard to say. Probably pretty even. The 70's contenders seemed to be mentally stronger and more focussed, though. Guys like Quarry, Ellis and Lyle were stable and didn't have any really erratic perfomances. Norton was shite against punchers, but otherwise he was sound as a clock.

Guys like Tucker, Douglas, Dokes and Biggs perhaps had more talent, or maybe it just seems that way because they were so uneven.

 

I think most would put Foreman ahead of Thomas. Would he beat him? Who knows. But jab Foreman's head off? Maybe Liston in his prime or W. Klitschko but no one else. He took dozens of razor sharp jab from Ali and still kept his head on his shoulder.

And I didn't forget Tucker. I put him with the best of the rest. If you want to put him in the top 3 of the 80's, I have no problem with that.

Spinks was good, but very few would have him higher than Frazier or Foreman at HW. Personally, I think Frazier would beat him without too much problem. If you couldn't beat Frazier senseless you'd have to be Ali to beat him. Spinks doesn't fit in either category.

 

The 70s HWs were better than the 80s HWs


The elite HW boxers of 100 years ago would of beat the granny out of the cream of the 70s and 80s HWs

Tyson,Foreman,Ali would of been smashed up by boxers of 100 years ago,the human race is getting weaker

 

I think Ali's jab was authorative enough in Zaire.

But, I'm not ruling out that Thomas could beat Foreman, since Foreman often did look bad against skilled fighters and Thomas also had a good chin. But all in all Foreman was the better fighter, I would say.

As for H2H I can easily see Frazier tearing through most of the 80's contenders. To beat him you either needed a monster punch, or chin, guts and skill in abundance. Outside of Holmes and Tyson I don't see too many during the decade who fits the description. Thomas was getting badly tired after 6 with Tyson, about the time where Joe would really hit his stride.

And I don't think that Tyson necessarily is a bad match-up for Frazier. Joe wouldn't give him the space he was accustomed to. Not that Tysson was bad on the inside, but he preferred midrange. Frazier would come in close and Tyson wouldn't be able to push him off like Foreman did.

Would Spink's awkwardness trouble Ali? Maybe. But again, hardly anyone would dispute that even 70's Ali was the superior HW.

 

I always thought that Foreman, Lyle,Shavers, Norton, Frazier and Ali, was the best era of heavies ever... Ali beats all of the 80`s heavy`s. I see Foreman doing it to, Lyle on a given night was very dangerous. And how would the 80`s heavy`s handle the best puncher in the history of the heavyweights, Shavers? I like Smokin Joe over Tyson cause yes. Frazier would crowd Mike and not give him room to operate. That 70`s era of heavyweights was just plain nasty... The one crossover no one mentioned was Larry Holmes. Who would have walked through all of the 80s heavyweights( spinks fight doesn`t count Holmes was old). And would have been hell on the 70`s heavy`s as well. I see only Ali and maybe Frazier beating the Easton Assasin...

 

I basically concur with this entire post.

Although the 80's had a few real gems, the 70's had far greater depth, particularly near the very top. As you already mentioned, Holmes was really in his prime during the late 70's up until maybe 1980-81. Furthermore, his record during the 80's was something like 16-3, with a lot of names like Scott Ledoux, Lucien Rodriguez, Tex Cobb, Lorenzo Zanon, Scott Frank, David Bey, Marvis Frazier, and a half dead Muhammad Ali. The heavyweight picture of the 80's consisted of Tyson, Holmes ( partly ), Witherspoon, Spinks, Berbick, Tucker, Weaver, etc. Not a bad list, but certainly not like the 70's which had, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Holmes ( peak ), Shavers, Lyle, Quarry and Young.

 

Maybe not. But using Foreman as an example is not really perfect. Foreman had a big reach and height advantage and could push Frazier off to midrange where he did his serious damage. Tyson, although faster and more skilled than Foreman, was shorter and had a shorter reach than Frazier, so that would be much more of an inside battle.

 

I agree. Imo the 80s were as bad as today´s division. Most of them were on drugs, lacked determination, conditioning and the desire to become a great. That hurts them big time.

 

You are repeating that without giving a prove or an indication at any time.

 

The 80's were as bad as today with a peak Tyson and a peak Holmes? I dunno about that, but turn the tables like you said in another thread, how would the 2000's do if they were on drugs, lacked determination, and the desire to become great?

Or do the 1930's only get that type of pass because they were starving and the conditions were tougher?

 

Most of the guys listed as 80's guys got started in the 70's like weaver & coetzee & it certainly tips the scales. Look at the ton of guys that came out of that 76-78 amatuer program and turned pro; cooney/Tillis/page/dokes/tate/berbick/witherspoon/spinks/thomas.