Decade vs Decade Tournament. Match 1 1970s vs 1940s

I am not sure whether this idea will garner enough interest or not, but for something different, i think it might be interesting to run a decade vs decade tournament to see which decade really has the best fighters. The rules are that each decade must choose one fighter from the original 8 weightclasses and they are pitted against each other with the winner getting a point for the team. I have chosen the above two decades at random and will do so for each of the other decades we have fighters in. If a match ends in a draw then the winner will be decided by picking the pitting the next best heavyweights from the eras against each other. Each individual poster is welcome to name their own participants, and choose their own rules for their matches, to make things as exciting as possible, or even just rate legacy vs legacy.

For Example, My teams would be as follows:

Heavy - Joe Louis v Muhammed Ali
Light Heavy - Gus Lesnevich v Bob Foster
Middleweight - Tony Zale v Carlos Monzon
Welterweight - Ray Robinson v Ray Leonard
Lightweight - Ike Williams v Roberto Duran
Featherweight - Willie Pep v Eder Joffre
Bantamweight - Manuel Ortiz v Ruben Olivares
Flyweight - Jacky Paterson v Miguel Canto.

Looking at that, there is two all star teams. Feel free to substitute anyone you think would or should be in the sides and to make a pick. I tend to think that this one will go down to the wire, with the 70s having a slight advantage, perhaps due a little to better familiarity and media coverage, but the 30s have every chance of winning if they can win some tight contests.

Just thinking, if people cant make a call on particular divisions due to total lack of knowledge, the can call a bye on that round and i will add up the results of individual matches, rather than adding each individuals team score results.

 

I just did a quick scan of CBZ records and largely used length of reigns to make a quick call. As i said, feel free to put anyone you want in, and make your predictions of how the matches go.

I think you make an excellent point about Ezzard Charles who must get the light heavyweight spot. Gus was good, but i think that Ezzard gives the 30s a much better chance to beat Bob Foster. How could i forget Ezzard. Billy Conn, i was going to put in, but left him out, because i remembered that he only fought a year or so as a light heavy, but on checking, i forgot that while he was campaining as a heavy, he mostly weighed as a light heavy! The Conn that fought Louis, was a light heavy! And I think he probably beats Foster, based on what he did to Louis, also. I was going to say it was a moot point, because ordinarily i would say
Charles deserves the spot ahead of Conn, but stylistically, i am almost thinking that Conn is a very safe bet to beat Foster. I think i am going to go with Charles (maybe we push charles down to middleweight. Maybe the young Ezzard Charles who lost to Ken Overlin but defeated Charley Burley might get a run against MOnzon at middleweight.

You badly underate Zale, I certainly rate him ahead of Lamotta. Saying that, it is a split hair between Zale and all the guys you mention, imo, but i do tend to think Burley would be a better option, now that i have had a better thought about it. The other guy, who you didnt mention but who i think probably has the best chance of picking up the win in an ESB poll, is Archie Moore. For most of the 40s, he did compete as a middleweight, and all though he struggled with these guys in actual fights, i get the feeling that he might thrive under ESB conditions. Monzon picks himself but Moore vs Monzon is a very interesting head to head match up. I will need to decide between Moore and Burley before i make my predictions.

One thing your post has demonstrated is tah the depth in the 40s is unbelievable. Also, i think that they actually have a very strong chance of upsetting the 70s. Maybe we should start a separate thread and take a vote to see who can determine the correct decade to win. I am sure many other decades will have surprises once they are looked into properly.

 

Hey Burt, i was going to pair off each of the decades against other decades every couple of days or so, with the winners advancing to the second round. I thought if we dont do too many at once, we can pick appart each others picks (like suzie did with mine) and eventually get the best lineups and picks.

I was picking at random, so perhaps the next match that I (or we) should make will include the 20s. YOu are right, it is a golden decade that can go match for match with Anyone. Anyone else bold enough to think of a decade to step up and challenge the 20s in round 1?