If the 70s are the supposed Golden Heavyweight age....

Leon was a paper champion.

The decade of the 70's runs like this:

70-72: frazier
72-74: foreman
74-76: ali
76-78: norton
78-79: holmes

Those names are the reason it's a golden age.

Imo the 30's was better because they fought each other more frequently.

 

He'd stand a decent shot with the current heavyweight era.

The late 70s wasn't really the great part of the era.

It was still strong, but you had a champion who already had more than one controversial decision in his favor and a that same champion was declining more and more in each fight.

Being extremely inexperienced, Leon went into the fight without high expectations and outhustled Ali to a decision win. In the rematch Ali did not underestimate Leon and beat him. That version of Ali was litterally the only time Leon could have been champ. The rest of the champs of the 70s beat Leon handily. Ali pre 1978 even beats Leon handily.

 

You see Neon Leon beating either of the Klits, even at their current age? We're talking about him being THE champion, right?

What quality the 70's had during the first half, it lacked during the second half. Ali was shot post-Manilla and always had close calls going his way, assuring an artificially prolonged reign. Foreman basically only had the Lyle fight after losing the title, then lost to Young and retired. Frazier was done after Manilla. Holmes was climbing the rankings and Norton... well I've never been impressed by him.

 

I think when people are talking about the " golden age of heavyweights" they're generally referring to the time frame spanning from about 1967-1975. By 1977 Foreman was gone.. Frazier was gone.. Quarry, Ellis and Patterson were gone.. Ali and Norton were past it.. The "late" 70's were hardly a golden age, and I don't see Leon Spinks as bolstering any kind of an argument that the golden age was weak.

 

I took it as being a champion.
If it's the champion then beating the completely shot Ali was just about the only time.

 

I can't see him even bothering them.

 

Sometimes weak champions occur in strong eras.

It only takes one upset to drag the title beneath the sumit of the era, and then it can pass to god knows who.

 

Not far off actually.

Patterson was shoddy against sonny but if was a fair underdog and I don't think it was a big surprise.

Lewis was very poor v rahman.

It all depends how you view official results and the status of a champion.

Going purely from a lineal point of view the worst performance is either floyd v sonny; spinks v tyson; or mm v foreman.

I don't really care about lineal this or lineal that, ali was nothing but a paper champ going into the leon fight.

 

Fair enough - although I'd even doubt he wins a title. Winning a gold medal is a tremendous performance, but who is his best win as a pro - shot Ali aside? Ledoux? Evangelista? Even Maskaev has a better resume.

I never really thought about this, but this may well be true. Michael Spinks vs Tyson, Willard vs Dempsey and Patterson vs Liston were wiped away as defending champions as well, though they didn't exactly have Neon Leon in front of them. :!:


Still, give the right circumstances, anything can happen in boxing. I consider the 90's to be a pretty strong era (both first & second tier) but Moorer still managed to become the champion during that time.

 

Not necessary THE worst but one of the worst, yes.

 

Sugar Niko vs Holyfield's Corpse also was a great masterpiece of technical boxing

 

Which of the active boxers do you think would be beaten by Spinks?

For reference, this is the current Boxrec top10:

1. W Klit
2. V Klit
3. Povetkin
4. Adamek (not sure why)
5. Chambers
6. Fury
7. Helenius
8. Thompson
9. Dimitrenko
10. Pulev

A pretty good list, although I'd have Haye and Chisora in there instead of Adamek and Dimitrenko.