Heavyweights - The 70's

I would probably agree. The decade is golden for heavies.

 

I would say that 1970 up until 1975 was the "golden era". The late 70's was more of a transitional period, with old stars like Ali fading and new ones like Holmes coming up.

 

Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Young, Quarry, Lyle, Shavers... not bad. A young Holmes toward the end of the decade as well. Many of them fought eac hother as well.

The 90's were very good as well (a still very good Tyson, Holyfield, older but still very good versions of Foreman and Holmes, Bowe, Lewis, McCall, Ruddock, Mercer, Morrison, etc.) but only Holyfield fought the other top fighters.

The 90's could have been as good, but wasn't

 

I'd go with the 90s in terms of depth and even top level quality

 

I agree with the time frame of probably 1970-1975, with 1973 being the peak year.. By 1977 Foreman was gone..... Frazier and Quarry were gone.. Ali and Norton were reaching the point of being past it, while men like Jean Coopman were fighting for the title and Leon Spinks was winning it..

 

The 70's are ridiculously overrated.
Ali - prime was 3 years before the decade began. The 70's only provided a look at a fighter in slow motion decline, revealing an alltime great set of whiskers that became his ultimate personal undoing. Rounded out the second half of the 70's against some of the worst challengers ever to the title.

Frazier - peaked in March of 71 and pretty much entered a free fall for the rest of the decade. Best win post-Ali I is probably a shot Quarry with a bad back in 75.

George Foreman- one of the most protected prospects in recent memory. Best pre-Frazier win was against ancient, cruiserweight Peralta. Destroys a Frazier that we now know was shot or close to it and a perpetually chinny Norton. Outsmarted by a vastly declined Ali and outlasted by a very inconsistent Jimmy Young.

Norton- Excellent second level fighter who swept away the pretenders to the crown but who himself fell short.

Quarry, Shavers, Lyle, Bonavena, Bugner... all vitally flawed fighters.

 

Seconded, this.

 

I think most eras, at least post-war, are pretty even. 55-65 had many technically good fighters, the 80's had many talented fighters that combined size and skill well, and the 90's was filled with hard hitting monsters, some pretty skilled as well.

For me the 70's (and late 60's) stand out because everyone faced each other. This created some great match-ups. Just to have two undefeated champions facing each other...

 

I think that the 90s and the 70s are the best eras for boxing. the greats or the 70s= Ali, Frazier, and foreman. the 90s=Tyson, Foreman, Bowe, Lewis, and holyfield. 50-50.

 

This is a bit oversimplified, and frankly if the 90's is your decade of choice, then you may want to consider a few points:

1. You had a cruiser weight and a light heavyweight who both won the title and one of whom became one of the decades' best heavyweights.

2. You had two 40+ ex-champs on the comback trail, both of whom breached the ratings, while one of them took the lineal title.. ( Incidentally, the one who became champ, was the same guy who you belittled in another thread, only 20 years older. )

3. You had men like Bruce Seldon and Frank Bruno winning alpha straps, while an ancient Tony Tucker was rated the #1 contender for those belts on two occasions..

4. You had two of the biggest upsets in history, both of them pulled off by men who were more or less fringe types..

5. You had one of the most blatant duck jobs in history by a man who threw a fragment of the title in the trash, rather than to defend it against a solid contender whom he had already signed a contract to fight...

6. You had one of the era's most prominent participants abscent for nearly half the decade due to a Jail sentence..

7. At one point, Pierre Coetzer was a #1 ranked contender by one of the sanctioning bodies, and partook in a title elimination bout with Riddick Bowe, and I can't think of one solid opponent that he beat to be in such a unique position..

8. You had a man who ducked a mandatory to face Axel Schultz, got his ass kicked by him, then forfeited the belt rather than face him again..

9. You had Francois Botha ascending to the top of the division at one point, only for us to discover that he was on steroids..

10. Overall, you had a decade where even though the talent was deep, some of the most important matches were never made, and by the time some of them finally were, the participants were past their primes..

11. You had fights where a lot of fouling took place, such as Tyson's biting of Holy's ear, Holy's head butting, Golata punching Bowe in the nuts, etc. etc.. etc..

 

The parts in bold are the result of alphabet rankings and titles, which don't really mean enough to define an era. A titleist who isn't the top guy in the division is realistically just a top contender

1. Lots of old ATGs were around or under 200lbs, I don't think its a big deal when a fighter moves from CW to win a HW belt- it happens in all the other divisions

2. This just shows the lineal champ isn't always the best fighter at the time

4. Upsets happen in boxing, especially amongst heavyweights

5. True, but he was no more than the 4th best fighter of the decade. Its more a criticism of Bowe than the division itself

10. Fair point.

11. I don't see the significance...?

 

I buy the 70's as being great, of course, just a bit over-rated. However, tis true that the matches were made consistently at the top. I think it's the biggest problem today and what stagnates the division.