Are the 70's HW's overrated?

Yes, they are.

Not more than three of them could compete against today's top ten.

Small, out of shape sluggers. Except Jimmy Young.

 

i agree with this. The top 3: Ali, Foreman, Frazier were great and would be in any era but after that there is a huge dropoff. norton never even won the title in the ring. i consider holmes part of the 80s. People say a guy like Quarry or Young would dominate today :-(

Wlad would destroy anyone outside the top 3 including norton. wlad-frazier is a 50-50 fight imo. foreman smokes wlad. ali should win a decision but wlad is a live underdog with (1970-174 ali). anytime after that, wlad beats ali. although a 60s ali toys with wlad

 

And let's face fact, Ali was largely rubbish through the 1970's. Outside of his beating of Foreman (give credit) he struggled with little, motivated Joe Frazier- who was on the slide after 71, limited and vastly over-rated Norton, and lost to cocaine great, Spinks. Not to mention a string of less-than-optimal challengers after Foreman. That Ali couldn't sniff the top-10 today.

 

Yes they vastly are overrated but-

I think people will agree that I dont favour fighters from the 70s over other eras and would be more than willing to acept that those from another era were better if the case was there.

I have approached the question criticaly over the years and have had to conceed against my will that this was the greatest concentration of heavyweight talent.

Take Joe Frazier for example. If he had come allong under the reign of Jeffries, Dempsey, Louis or whoever he would have totaly set himself apart from the other contenders whether he beat the champion or not.

 

I totally disagree with you.

Aside from Foreman, Ali and Frazier, there were several '70s heavies who could be top contenders or beltholders today. This list includes Lyle, Shavers, Bugner, Quarry, and Young. Easily.

 

I would not pick any of those to beat Chagaev, Valuev, Peter or Klitchko.

 

I would pick them in close fights over everyone you mention except Klitschko.

 

I think the HW division was, probably, the best.

 

:huh

 

Yes, but so are all the other eras , to think that Frazier had 26 fights going into the 1st Ali fight but both men were great that night but could have tough fight with guys from the 40's and 50's. Foreman had so many flaws in his style (power was not one of them) but even smaller men like Charles and Walcott could have exposed his flaws like Ali did Peralta showed us they were there and he was no Charles. Jimmy Young had great defensive skills but were they better than Billy Conn on the night he 1st fought Louis. The olympic Champs Ali, Frazier,Foreman were great talent and it goes for today too, Vlad,Lewis,Jones,Chagaev,Sultan,Povetkin,Charles all had great to good amatuer careers and proved there pedigree but there really is no school of hard knocks anymore unless it is coming out of Russia...but my answer to the question is the 70's are overated by some but are equal to the other eras and not inferior, just the same

 

Well, wether this is true or not it doesn't mean much. The sport has evolved, like all sports, during the last 30 years, so that kind of comparisons doesn't hold much water. Athletes like Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Connors, Bjorn Borg, Jack Nicklaus probably wouldn't be very competitive if you moved them with a time-machine directly from the 70's to compete with today's elite, but that doesn't mean they weren't great.

A more reasonable comparison is how entertaing fights from different eras are and how long the memmory of them will last, and here the 70's stand out. It definitely outclass the dismal state of today's division. Which of the fights today will be fondly remembered in 30 years time? Not that many, I wager.

 

I don't know if I'd pick Quarry to beat Valuev. Sure, he was a much better fighter on a pound for pound basis, but he'd have a hell of lot of size to contend with. I certainly couldn't see a knockout win for Quarry, and he'd have to be on his toes all night to squeak out a decision. I haven't seen enough of Chagaev to draw a comparison between him and anyone else.

 

Jimmy Young would beat anybody today apart from Klitchko. I would put money on it.

Ron Lyle probably would as well.

Frankly I would could imagine the older version of Patterson crucifying these overweight slobs that we call beltholders today.

Quarry would give us some exciting fights at cruiserweight then step up.

I see no reason why even sombody like Joe Bugner couldnt pick up a belt. It would only take a bit of clever managment.

 

Ali put his opponents into the spot light - he had a habit of making each one of his fights have a theme.

Much of what Ali said, when he was on top of the world, was taken as gospel because of his 'larger than life' personality - for example; in his second interview with Michael Parkinson, he made a point to explain how much of a better boxer Bugner was than Foreman.

They were definitely a good group of fighters; bigger than the bunch in the prior decade, but better?

Ted Spoon would conclude that, generally, the exposure that these men got due to television and Ali has helped their pedigree ten fold - past contenders/alphabet champs like Billy Miske, Tommy Farr, Rex Layne and Tim Witherspoon were no lesser than any from the 70's crop.

They were not part of the ‘merry-go-round’ that was the 1970’s heavyweight scene - these men were beaten in any fashion and then effectively flushed out, unable to stamp down some distinction.

 

The problem with rating any decade during said decade is that the estimation always grows rosier with time. I remember in the 1990's how the scribes were bemoaning the heavyweights- and particularly Lennox Lewis- in comparison to the Tyson era. Well, most agree now that the 1990's was a far better era than the mid to late 1980's.

That was the nature of my comments regarding the current beltholders versus their 70's counterparts. We simply do not know. One group is an unfinished entity; the other is canonized-perhaps mythologized- property.

My instinct tells me the heavies today are very under-rated. But we must see them in more fights, and over the arc of their careers, to properly assess.