Heavyweight Division Depth by Decade: Let's Discuss the Rankings

That's true. The 80s definitely had tons upon tons of great fighters, even if a lot of em had unrealized potential. Even if you just put on every champion, that's already a lot.
Holmes
Tate
Weaver
Dokes
Coetzee
Witherspoon
Page
Thomas
Smith
Tyson
Tucker
Damiani
Spinks
Berbick
Tubbs

 

Yeah I feel as if it more falls into 65-75 for what people consider 70s and 85-95 for 90s. 80s were better at the end of the decade then the beginning imo.

 

I think the thing that makes this tricky is that the overlap between 'generations' of boxers usually comes in ten year intervals in the middle of each decade, so you're likely to not only see fighters amongst multiple decades, but also different versions of those fighters amongst each decade. Dokes, Weaver, Holmes, and many an 80s fighter started in the 70s, whereas they hit their stride near the beginning of the 80s, and started to drop from therein. Or Tim Witherspoon, who was prevalent in both the 80s and the 90s, but is mostly remembered for being a two time titlist in the 80s.

 

No surprise the 50's makes your top two.

 

I like decades w depth and top notch talent.

 

And you think
Gardner
Sys
Williams
Cockell
Holman
Summerlin
Dunlap
Johnson
Oma
Savold
Fit that description ?

 

Y don’t u try naming the top twenty guys then compare that to any decade instead of the scraps.
Rocky
Patterson
Ingo
Charles
Walcott
Louis
Nino
Layne
Archie Moore
Harold Johnson
Machen
Folley
Williams
Satterfield
Baker
Henry
Liston
Jackson
Chuvalo
Lastarza
Or u can name someone like Savold who had like two fights in losing efforts

 

Ring ratings
Louis was gone after 1950
Walcott after 1952
Liston wasnt ranked
Chuvalo wasn't ranked
Johnson wasn't ranked
Layne was only ranked in 50&52
Patterson and Ingo were not ranked until 56
Williams wasn't ranked
Satterfield was ranked in53 &55.

Why don't you try answering my question?

 

You forgot about some good fighters from 70s. I'm pretty sure that Bonavena, Ellis and even 70s version of Patterson were clearly better than Seldon, Morrison or 90s version of Tucker. Bugner arguably too

 

Maybe you don’t understand what 1950s means. Means they fought in the 50s. U really will argue anything. Liston had multiple wins over ranked opponents in the 50s. I answered ur dumb question and asked u to counter with better decades this deep.
I asked u previously if you hadn’t eaten breakfast yesterday morning how would you have felt come the afternoon? U still have not answered

 

90s
70s
80s/2010s
2000s
60s
30s
20's
10's * War Years
50s
40s * War years

 

Wanted to mention that if you judge depth by a top 20-25 the 50s and 80s does way better than if you judge by a top 5-10. Theres top heavy depth and then theres iceberg depth. Those decades are among the best for iceberg depth and among the worst for top heavy depth.

Because boxing revolves around champions and top contenders people generally care about the top heavy depth more. The 2nd kind is real but it is less impactful on how an era gets remembered.

 

Liston was not ranked until 1958.