Well, a rare heavyweight thread for me anyway. I think once you've lived through an era you tend to remember it warts and all and not the airbrushed version of history retold 20-30 years later (at least I do). I'm frequently surprised how people either remember or believe from what they've read that the 90s was a golden era for the heavyweights. Having lived through it, there were some monumental low points during that era that seem to have been forgotten. But then, I probably do the same thing about the 70s heavyweights (an era I did not experience first hand)! Bearing this in mind, what are the high and low points in the ring of the following heavyweight eras: 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s
A low point would undoubtedly be the small space of limbo between Ali's banishment, and Frazier's rise to prominence. That tourney where the likes of Jimmy Ellis, Thad Spencer, Ernie Terrell etc were all claiming to be the best in the world was pretty low.The highes are pretty obvious. Patterson, Liston, Ali, Frazier.
I agree. The "1990s golden era" doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It was quite a poor era for heavyweights. The Bowe-Holyfield trilogy was good. But then we had third-raters like McCall, Bruno, Seldon, Botha holding the titles. Tyson biting off Holyfield's ear in a tantrum. Moorer getting KO'd by a fat old Foreman. Mercer utterly outboxed by old Holmes. Lewis sent into one punch oblivion by a crude McCall. McCall crying against Lewis in rematch. Lewis v Akinwande ! Golota throwing away the lead against a seemingly prematurely shot Bowe, twice. Bruce ****ing Seldon. Herbie ****ing Hide. Tommy "The Joke" Morrison
For me, the first heavyweight Era I took notice of, was the 80 s. Frustration mostly, that all these names kept coming up as the next big thing and win a belt, just to see em lose it a year later. I didn't appreciate Larry Holmes enough, I wanted to see him beat at times or tested at least. Now, looking back, I see just how great Larry was. He basically saved that decade imo. And I'm like you regard s the 1990 a.. Good Era, lot of big punching names, but a great deal of big fights didn't happen. I give the 80 s a 6 out of 10 And the 90 s an 8. Lol.
There were some bloody good heavyweight s around in the 80 s George. I blame the governing body's for the reason I put that decade below the 90 s. It took till 1988 to finally get a unified champ.
Well if you start at the top, it's Holmes and Tyson vs Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe and an older Tyson. Dunno about you, or anyone else, but I'd definitely rate prime Tyson higher than Bowe and an older Tyson, and I rate Holmes higher than Holyfield and Lewis. I'd also pick Holmes and Tyson to go 4-0 vs the four pillars of the 90s. I know that's cutting it quite fine and not exactly airtight as an argument but I think you can get what I'm going for; I rate Holmes and Tyson as the better fighters, quite clearly. Even at the bottom, I've often seen Dokes rated as the worst of the 80s titlists, which I think is a pretty good sign. Dokes was much, much, much better than Bentt or Hide. In the middle, who are the mid tier (or extremely high, just not in that top four) guys of the 90s? Ike? Tua? Morrison? Mercer? Moorer? Well, I don't think those guys are much better, if at all (and I only think one of them better anyway, being Ike), than the list of guys from the 80s. A roster of guys like Witherspoon, Thomas, Douglas, Page, Dokes, Coetzee, Berbick, Bruno, Rudduck, Smith, Biggs, Tubbs, Williams etc make for a better, deeper era. Even the logistics of the 80s were better IMO. Less belts, less paper titlists like Herbie Hide or Michael Bentt. This one isn't necessarily fair, as it can't work both ways just because of how time works, but there's the countless examples of 80s heavyweights doing extremely well in the 90s: Tyson's entire 90s run Holmes schooling Mercer, giving Holy a hard fight Ferguson beating Mercer Witherspoon almost beating Mercer* Tubbs almost beating Bowe* Cooper giving Holy and Moorer all they could handle Morrison going life and death with ancient Rudduck and old Williams Etc etc *I had in favour of the 80s fighter. Sure, there's examples where the 80s fighters did awful, but it can be forgiven based on how old they were, IMO. Finally, there's a strawman argument that Holyfield was basically an 80s HW, and that Lewis would've been if he didn't do both Olympics. I wouldn't make either (and I'm not about to), but I guess it's worth mentioning as a footnote at the end.
For me , and my age, I only see one era because prob it shaped my life somewhat, Ali/Vietnam/Civil Rights, etc so its the 70s. Not just Ali/Frazier ( great as they were ) but fighters whose names symbolize a time frame : Quarry, Bonavena, Chuvalo, Ellis, Spencer, Martin, Terrell, Williams, Shavers, Lyle, and more, when I see hear those names, I am wafted back to my youth, Cars, Clothes, Songs, Girlfriends, Holidays, Mums, Dads, ups downs, a time that's gone , nether to be replaced, little did I realize, a coming of age, that's what the names above mean to me, the other decades, just decades to me.
The HW division from 1990-6 was mostly very good with a lot of big names in exciting fights but it certainly wasn't as great as some make out, there were a lot of fights that should have happened which didn't (Tyson vs Holyfield in 91, Foreman, Bowe and Lewis vs Bowe etc.) It was 1997 that the division went from being exciting to a bit of a wasteland or that's my personal memory of it at the time, by the end of that year Tyson, Bowe, Moorer, Mercer, Foreman and Morrison were all finished leaving only Lewis and Holyfield left.
Something I observed: The 1987 and 1988 three spots were given to Adilson Rodrigues ( 4 overall counting Tyson as champ) and Dokes (vacant champ). These have to be two of the weakest top 3 heavyweights contenders in the modern era.
