80's heavyweights was NOT a weak era

Two groups (with considerable overlap) have a penchant for shitting on the 80's heavyweight scene:

• Rabid, irrational Tyson detractors (for the latter part of the decade; substitute with Holmes detractors for the early part) - on the grounds that admitting it was a strong era means they have to give credit where they don't want to.
  
• Rabid, irrational K2 apologists - on the grounds that heavyweight for the bulk of twenty years now has been a barren desert where guys like Dominick Guinn and Lucas Browne are top contenders, and these folks are sensitive to accusations of it being the weakest era of all time because, they feel, this limits how much credit is available for their heroes...and they dare not attack the 60's/70's, nor the Louis or Marciano eras, and if you go much further back than antebellum, then side-by-side era comparisons start to get silly and pointless anyway. The eighties are the easiest target besides the fish-in-a-barrel 90's (which is more front-loaded with genuine or near ATG's but nowhere close to as deep as its predecessor)

 

I agree with you, the only reason anyone tried to say it was a weak era is only because they don' want to give Holmes and Tyson their due, especially Holmes

 

A couple of the most polarizing heavyweight champs of all time, and they reigned back to back.

 

I wouldn't call it weak. It was a bit of a letdown for the first half of the 80's because of the absence of Muhammad Ali. When Tyson came on the scene the division definitely got a big boost. Larry Holmes as great as he was could never fill Ali's shoes, then again who could?

 

I mean, hard act to follow. If not for Louis passing his torch almost directly into Marciano's hands (sad as that spectacle was) how discontent would fans have been in the post-Joe era, do you suppose? Let's say Rocky hadn't come along? There were good fighters afoot but that whole period between Louis and Liston would be castigated severely.

But that's just perceptions (of the fickle public), not reality.

 

In truth the 80s heavyweights were a collusion of complacency.

There was some potentially good talent there. Who knows what Tim Witherspoon may have accomplished had he been more driven and focused. The same with Greg Page.

Gerry Coetzee was limited, but a very good heavyweight. Michael Dokes, I believe was too short armed and lacked the "it" gene. Tony Tucker, on paper should have been better than he has, he just wasn't very good. Renaldo "Mr." Snipes was so awkward he was good. John Tate could have been more successful had not Ace Miller ruined him by throwing him in 3 months after the Weaver fight with Trevor Berbick. Beribick was kinda like Snipes, but was basically a moron. Buster Douglas (yes he was around in the 80s) showed what could have been verse Tyson, but just didn't care. Tony Tubbs hasn't much of anything, a jab and straight right hand, and that is it. Carl Williams had no chin (and just had to drop his right hand whenever he jabbed). Pinklon Thomas was tough as nails, good chin, excellent jab and a complete lack of character.

So basically we had two guys that had their head on straight and did the best they could, Homes and Tyson. Well Tyson had his head on straight most of the 80s.

Other than those two, you have a bunch of would of, should of, could of fighters.

 

The 80's had terrific size and talent .. the issue was dedication and conditioning .. a lot of under achievers and blame throwers .. two of the best, Page and Witherspoon, often were out of shape .. three terrific talents, Dokes, Tucker and Thomas had drug issues .. Coetzee, Weaver, Berbick were all tough guys capable of causing hurt on any given evening but with limitations .. there was a lot of talent between Holmes and Tyson but a lot were missing the burning desire and commitment ..

 

The 80's were a very strong era but until Tyson came along there was no charismatic exciting central character as dominant as Holmes was I think the post Ali era gave us all withdrawals....I wished the Dokes vs Holmes fight had happened there were certainly other matchups that should have happened but there were alot of big bad boys fighting.....Bruno, Weaver, Berbick, Thomas, Smith, Witherspoon, Tucker, Page, Coetzee, Cobb, Frank, Snipes, Bey, Tillis, Green just alot of big guys with talent

 

The 80's produced the first super giants all the way across the board with guys who could box like Ali but were as big as Foreman. The late 70's and early 80's produced probably the best era of talent. It was America's deepest set of talent laden boxers from the ams to the pros. I believe it was because of Muhammad Ali...

 

Very good breakdown, though Tubbs deserves a mention too.

 

Contemporary writers hated on the 80s scene too. Seems like their complaints mostly related to the inconsistency of some of the top contenders and their lack of intensity/aggressiveness in the ring.

 

And if you were a writer in the 80s it meant you had rose colored glasses for the 70's (you were, at youngest, a starry-eyed kid idolizing guys like Ali, Frazier, Norton, and Foreman)

 

wtherspoon, tucker and pinklon were all elites.

not sure about Trev and Smiffy though lol.

 

Disagree with the statement they fought each other. They didn't. Very very few cross promotion fights. Fight a good opponent and then look for some table scraps. More like the 90's when you had tons of big names out there & we the boxing fans really were fortunate to get 2 solid matchups a year. Lots of prohibitive favorites going in type matches. Tossups? where were they?

 

Thank you and you're right .. he was also very talented and while I doubt he ever would have been a body beautiful he could have been in better condition as well for sure ..