Best aging heavyweight era v the new wave?

This is actually a very interesting question. If some eras do produce better fighters than others, you'd expect some correlation between an era's quality and the amount of time that the older fighters hung around in the top 10 after their primes.

(Subject to all sorts of qualifiers like changes in crowd preference for more or less attrition based styles).

I wonder if a pattern like this holds for sports where we can determine superior performance, like track athletics or weightlifting...? :think

 

I think we could add thge early 50s to that list, with Walcott, Charles, Johnson and Moore handeling the up and coming contenders, preventing them from realy taking control of the division.

Between the early 50s, late, 50s and 60s, you have a bit of a two step tango going on between the eras.

The 1890s/early 1900s is another good example. The old guard (Fitzsimmons and Corbett) clean out the new generation over a fairly short period.

 

Perhaps this is a phenomenon in eras where there are more technical boxers?

 

We could add Lennox Lewis's era to the list.

Vitally Klitschko, Hasim Ramhan, and Shannon Briggs all went on to win major title belts after Lewis retired.

 

Why not?

Rather than revising the test when it doesn't fit our preconceptions about the 70's, perhaps we should revise our preconceptions...

 

It would be interesting to look at the average age of top 10 fighters overtime. I would expect to see the dip during years of changing guard.

 

It's normal for some rising contenders to lose to, or have close wins over, more experienced fighters who are past their primes. Joe Louis lost to Schmeling on his way up .... I've read an article or two from the time that voiced this as reason to revise the notion that the post-Tunney early 30s crop had been a poor lot.

Sometimes though it is clear that the older guys are left-overs from a BETTER time.
Post WW2, around 1946 - '50, guys like Jersey Joe Walcott and Elmer Ray and even Lee Savold - aging fighters who hadn't been major factors before - were enjoying peak career success. The conclusion drawn was that post-war HWs were not as good as pre-war.

I probably tend to be in a minority in believing the 1970 - '75 era is overrated, on depth of quality HWs anyway.
The age of Liston, Patterson, Ingo, Machen, Folley, young Cassius Clay, and ancient Archie was possibly just as strong, and was nothing to write home about either.

 

Walcott didn't have success in the 30s because A. He didn't train because he had to work a gruelling low paying job to feed a family of 6 B. He often went starving for days C. He had no management(lost out on Blackburn after he developed Typhoid) Nothing to do with the depleted talent. Walcott beat PLENTY of good fighters who were all top contenders pre WW II(jimmy bivins, Lee Q Murray, etc)

 

1946-1950 is a respectable answer.

You had Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Joe Louis, Elmer Ray, Lee Savold, Jimmy Bivins all aging fighters still ruling the division....

Then in 1951 a breed of new young contenders came up and took over Rocky Marciano, Clarence Henry, Bob Baker, Rex Layne, Roland Lastarza..and eventually Nino Valdes