70's Ali would beat everybody around today. You said 70s Ali was rubbish? He put a fabolous performance against peak Frazier, even despite coming off a 3 year lay off. Likewise, he embarassed Jerry Quarry on two occasions in the 70s, a man who was considered a top heavyweight contender. Not to mention he was the first man to beat and stop George Foreman, who has just demolished Norton and Frazier himself, and went on win a title in the 90s! That puts it in perspective for me. You're not giving Ali his credit. Because he got the nod against Norton in the third fight does not discredit everything he achieved prior to that.
The 1970s heavyweights are definitely overrated. 1. Muhammad Ali almost dominated the whole decade, and he was no way near his best for most of it. In fact, he spent most of his fights carrying on like a big phoney wrestler against very over-matched opponents, and it started to look very pathetic very often. (Unlike when he did it as Cassius Clay). Often lacking the power and stamina to get his opponent out of there with a vintage flurry, he opted to mug for the TV cameras. 2. Joe Frazier had 3 big wins between Feb 1970 and March 1971, and then was mostly in decline the whole decade. He produced a classic with Ali again in 1975, but both men were badly faded at that juncture. 3. Foreman had two big impressive KO wins that built his reputation, in 1973 and 1974. He suffered a soul-crushing defeat to Ali. An embarrassing defeat to Jimmy Young. And his fight with Ron Lyle was reasonably seen as a confirmation that he was overrated and lacking in fundamental skills, an entertaining but horribly reckless brawl. ^ It's these three men who are the flag bearers of the division in the 1970s. They are the superior HWs. One was past his prime and going through the motions almost the whole decade. Another was ending his brief prime within 18 months of the start of the decade, and was destroyed by the third, who was exposed as just a puncher/destroyer who was ordinary after a few rounds with a skilled fighter. I love the FOTC and the Jungle Rumble and the Thrilla in Manila as much as the next man, but the idea that the heavyweight division was brimming with quality performers or even that the top 3 were firing on all cylinders for more than two or three fights is just a FALLACY. And, joking aside, guys like Ron Lyle and Jimmy Young weren't "unlucky to have been fighting in the era" (ie. "would have been champions in other eras") .... they were probably LUCKY to have fought in such an over-glorified era.
I love Earnie Shavers but that statement of his is so off base that I'm flummoxed to find an appropriate answer to it. ........ Ok, I give up. I'm off to boxrec to find these 10 Holyfields !
Definitely NOT overrated ! As has been mentioned.there were three all time greats in the mix between 1970-77,plus a couple of very good NEAR greats (Norton and Young) as well as a few very useful fighters. And at the end of the decade yet another great emerged. The golden age itself was between 1970-76. They all believed in fighting each other in those halcyon days. It was a pleasure growing up with this as a backdrop.
Possibly although in recent times they seem to have been put into their proper place. If you look at the IBHOF, there are quite a few old time heavyweight contenders that have made it in, such as Tom Sharkey, George Godfrey, Joe Jeannette and Sam McVea but no Ellis, Quarry, Shavers or Lyle who you would think were inducted if they were that highly rated in the general view.
An era is usually twenty years ... I'd say 62 - 82 had exceptionally heavyweights and terrific contenders ... again, the point made of exposure through TV was huge .. people got to see these fighters often. Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes (half of the top ten right there) ... Patterson still around, Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena, Terrell, Bugner, Shavers, Lyle, Young, Norton were all very tough and capable of terrific match ups based on styles .. I do think 88 - 98 with prime Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis was exceptional as well ..