Second strongest heavyweight era ever

The second strongest would be the late 60's to mid 70's. The late 70's is pretty abysmal.

The first strongest would be the late 80's thru mid-1990's.

 

Pretty much agree here

I think this current era is shaping up to be a strong one now that super fights are being made like Wilder vs Joshua..and hopefully Lineal champ Fury fights the winner. And maybe one of the great cruisers steps up like Usyk and challenges the winner of Wilder vs Joshua. You have still dangerous contenders like povetkin, Parker, Ortiz, H Fury, and Whyte. Then you have promising superheavyweights emerging like Filip Hrgovic, Ivan Dychko, Daniel Dubois, Oleksandar Teslenko

 

The problem with rating "eras" is that an era isn't actually a defined period of time, and is often used fluidly to suit the argument rather than any objective comparison.

The 70s "golden era" is a prime example of this. A bunch of names are routinely thrown together as if they were all active and prime at the same time, when in reality there was minimal crossover. Holmes for example was not really a contemporary of Frazier, Foreman, Quarry and Bugner, who were effectively finished (temporarily in some cases) by the time Holmes was a leading contender.

The top 10s throughout the 70s are less stacked than certain points in the 80s and 90s, but a lot depends on how you define the strength of an era. There were 3 great heavyweights active and near prime around the same time during the 70s, and if you judge strength by the best it was obviously a loaded era. However, you consider strength as depth, and how good the guys 6-10 are, there are stronger periods. For example, the 1991 Ring year end rankings are insane on paper:

1. Evander Holyfield
2. Mike Tyson
3. Riddick Bowe
4. Razor Ruddock
5. Ray Mercer
6. George Foreman
7. Tim Witherspoon
8. Tony Tucker
9. Lennox Lewis
10. Michael Moorer

All but one held a world title at some point, and at least half are headed for the Hall of Fame.

 

Late 80`s? Tyson, maybe Tucker? Thomas was really faded by the time Tyson destroyed him, Foreman was dangerous but too slow, I really can`t think of anyone else, early 90`s Lewis was all over the place, his fight with Bruno was awful, Tyson was never the same after Rooney left, Ruddock became a one armed fighter who didn`t bother training, Bowe had good powerful combo`s but was too easy to hit, the best from that era was Holy, he was out boxing Bowe in their third fight but Bowe`s power got him, I think I give to Holy because his performance vs Bowe in their second fight was the best performance at heavy in the 90`s.

 

Tyson wasn`t any good in `91, Bowe was too easy to hit, Ruddock became a one armed fighter who got destroyed by Lewis, Mercer won the WBO title beat a limited Morrison who was wide open, then went on to get beat by a flabby Holmes, Foreman was too slow and got out boxed by Morrison, Witherspoon was well past his best, Tucker was finished, Lewis was green as hell and only knocked Ruddock out because the Razor was all over the place and Moorer had no chin.

 

Dubios doesn`t belong on that list, during the 70`s he wouldn`t even get a mention, Bunce said he has a better jab than Holmes did! WTF?

 

In 1976, Stan Ward, Bugner, Boudreaux and Bobick comprised 40% of the top 10 annual rankings.

 

80,s

 

From Mendoza

3 ) Daniel Dubois. age 20. 6-0, 6 Ko's The 6'5" 20-year-old has a pair of steam irons for fists that explodes and violently moves when they land, sapping the will to fight back against his overmatched opponents quickly. A very rare type of puncher, I think. His skills seem good offensively. His stamina, durability, and Ring IQ are anyone's guess at this point. On the plus side, he has been very active. I'm rating him ( perhaps a bit too high for now ) high base on potential.

http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/787430

Career Track, medium speed, and being only 20 he should take his time.

Compares too: Tua, Lewis or Wlad as a puncher, but at his age, we need to see a lot more before comparing him to anyone.

 

90s is the second best without a doubt

 

Six lineal champions on that list, too.

 

20,s no doubt

 

I think the 70s is considered the greatest era, generally because all the big fights happened. The 90s missed out on Bowe vs Tyson and Lewis as well as Lewis vs Tyson. Holyfield, the only man to meet all three, making himself the only one who had a true chance to make the undisputed claim as the best of the era went 1-2 2-0 and 0-2 (I'm giving Lewis the first fight) meaning there's a dark cloud of uncertainty over the era. There will always be an element of guess work when assessing the 90s, however like Seamus I still think it was the strongest era, closely followed by the late 60s/early 70s.

 

I don't think the 70s was stronger than the eras after it. I just think they made the matches happen more often.

The early 90s gets a lot of talk, but how about 2001/2002?

That division featured Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, Wlad, Vitali, Byrd, Tua, Sanders, Rahman, John Ruiz, Golota, and Roy in 2003. They weren't all prime, but they didn't suck either.