Anyone think The 1940's Heavies Were On A Par With The 1970's?

You make some very good points,

and some weak ones.

"a magazine that was exposed for ratings corruption"

This is the weak one as it doesn't really prove that Bobich received his high rating because of corruption. Bobich had gone 38-0 and had wins--as another poster listed--over Middleton, LeDoux, Wepner, Ramos, Neuman, and Weaver (I don't think Weaver and Ramos mean anything, though). Winning a lot does tend to get a rating regardless of opposition as the modern ratings prove. This point would be much stronger is you listed the WBA & WBC ratings to show that The Ring was alone in rating Bobich highly.

"LaMar Clark"

I think this is weak also, as Clark beat nothing at all--this was not true of Bobich who had wins over name fighters.

"Just because people at the time weren't sure what he was"

This is a solid point.

"Michael Grant"

Not a very good point, as Grant was the #1 contender.

"He wasn't one of the best"

This is a very good point.

So the bottom line really excellent point is that records can be very misleading.

Duane Bobich-----48-4

Jimmy Young----34-19-2

Mike Weaver----41-18-1

Leon Spinks----26-17-3

And it is also true of the forties. Several posters make a big deal of the losses some forties fighters had, simply listing losses to supposedly disqualify the fighter as a good man, but looking at the records of Bobich and Young shows just how shallow this approach is.

 

"Being a better fighter than Wepner qualifies you for a rating 30 years earlier."

Well, just being as good as Wepner qualified you for a rating in the seventies.

Wepner was rated #10 in 1973, #8 in 1974, and #9 in 1975.


*As for Brion, yes he did lose a couple--a split decision to Vern Mitchell (40-5-1) and a decision to Bernie Reynolds (43-4). Brion KO'd Reynolds in a return, as well as stopping former #1 contender Mauriello. What exactly do you expect a young fellow on the way up to be doing?

Between them, LaStarza and Brion were 62-2 when they fought and beaten all their opponents except for Mitchell (Brion would later beat him twice).

"unranked"

You certain. You have access to The Ring monthly rankings and the NBA rankings. My memory is that LaStarza was ranked #8 and Brion #9 in the last quarter 1949 NBA rankings, but at my age memory can be slippery and I haven't been able to find those ratings to double check them.

 

Bobick was indeed one of the best at the time he was rated, rather anyone likes it or not.

Of the men RING rated below him in 75, 76 ,and 77, can we really say any of them at that time deserved to be above him.

75:

Joe Bugner
Chuck Wepner
Randy Neumann

76:

Ron Lyle
Larry Holmes
Howard Smith
Johnny Boudreaux
Stan Ward
Joe Bugner

77:

Earnie Shavers
Kallie Knoetze
Alfredo Evangelista
Leon Spinks
Gerrie Coetzee

 

Wepner to be in the top ten from 1973-1975? Three years? This shows a lack of depth. The 70's had good talent at the top, but perhaps not at the bottom.

I would pick today's #10 man Tony Thompson, or #9 man Ruslan Chagaev to easy defeat Wepner.

 

Agree.

 

And me too.

 

It is a lack of depth. But I don't think anyone is making a serious case for this being a golden era. Thompson is at least still fighting contenders and prospects, winning some and losing some. Chagaev has only been beaten by the elite of the division. The almighty chuck wepner was beaten by everyone and their brother.

 

Well he's definitely not superman. And the current heavyweight division is on the weaker side. But its not as abysmal as some often make it out to be. In fact for the first time in a while its showing signs of life. Lot's of young prospects coming up and a few decent matchups materializing on the horizon. be interesting to see how it all comes together in a couple years when Wlad is finally gone.

 

I don't what you consider special, but he beat the then British Empire and European heavyweight champion, Jack Gardner.