The 1990's. The best decade of talents at heavyweight?

But you never know when Seldon might get knocked down by some phantom punch and then do a shaky leg routine.

 

RING magazine rankings are not the best indicator.
The 1970s might be the absolute worst decade in the RING's history for credibility of ratings, considering the ratings scandal surrounding the US championship tournament.

I'd be the first to say the 1970s heavyweight scene often gets overrated.

Still, I don't have as much confidence in old Foreman and old Holmes of going back in time and facing the 1970s crop as you do.
Old Foreman would struggle to beat Dino Denis.

No, I don't think so.
Don't forget Holyfield was about as old is the 1990s as Ali was in the 1970s, and taking punishment enough too.
I don't see Holyfield beating Foreman or Holmes if they were in their 20s.
Bowe merely has a "one night chance" to do something in the decade. A trilogy against any of the 1970s elite would finish him worse than the trilogy with Holyfield did.
Lennox The Lion Lewis got KO'd early by fighters who wouldn't stand a chance against little Joe Frazier.

 

The 70s are a bit overrated in terms of talent.
You had 3 greats and a very good fighter in Ken Norton, but divisional depth isn't as great as it's described.

Guys like Young, Shavers and Lyle are good fighters, but the 90s had contenders of that quality and in heaps as well.

Overall it's remembered as an era of great fights where a lot of very needed match-ups, both on championship and contender level happened, often multiple times. Something like that will hardly be replicated again.

And it was a GREAT time for the division without a doubt. Just not as good as the 90s as far as quality and depth is concerned.

 

I'm not sold on the 1990s depth either.

There were more hyped, protected, well-marketed HWs due to the onset of the PPV era, I'll concede that.

The "alphabet champions" of the 1990s were a case of s****ing the barrel too.

 

I think the rankings are too conservative. I don't see why Douglas and Ruddock wouldn't be in the top 75 and why a lot of others wouldn't at least be arguably top 100.

 

Frans Botha vs Chuck Wepner, who you pickin?

 

And the plot thickens.


,

That was in the late 70's by which point Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Quarry, etc were all gone. And that period sucked so badly I don't think it mattered weather or not one needed to draw straws over Stan ward deserving to be # 10 or Ossie Ocasio.

I do.. Very much so. If Foreman could beat Michael Moorer, Lou Savarese and arguably Shanon Briggs than he'd have no problem with a 37 year old Patterson, Jose Urtain, Jose Garcia, Chuck Wepner, Larr Middleton, Leon Spinks, Jack Bodell etc.. Hell I'd give him a chance against some of the interim champions like Ellis, Spinks and an old Norton..

About as much as an old Bugner did :good

He was 28 when he won the title in 1990 and still going back and forth in life and death battles in his late 30's. Ali at age 37 wouldn't stand a chance against Lennox Lewis while Holyfield lasted a combined 24 rounds against him without going down and probably won about 7 or 8 of them.

I can see him wearing down and weathering the young erratic Foreman of the 70's who had **** defense, poor stamina and bad ring generalship.. I concur he wouldn't beat Holmes. But Evander at even age 40 could have gone the distance with him. Ali wouldn't beat Holmes in the late 70's either and while still being younger than Holyfield.

Put him up against Norton and Frazier as many times as you like.. Hell you can even start a weekly TV series entitled " Bowe, Frazier and Norton" and I'd still pick Bowe every time.

Yeah the man who sparked Vitali Klitschko, David Tua, Razor Ruddock, Gary Mason, Andrew Golata and many others get sparked by Chuck Wepner on the basis of ONE night when he failed to take an opponent seriously.. And incidentally, I'd pick that ONE opponent to do some pretty good work in the 70's himself.

 

Good post.

You also have to keep in mind that a large number of the top guys in the 90s simply didn't fight each other.

Tyson Holyfield (91)
Tyson Lewis (96)
Lewis Bowe (92)
Tyson Bowe (96/97)

And thats just the top 4.

Then we have Moorer and Foreman who only fought Holyfield.

We didn't see Lewis vs Holmes/Foreman.

Had we seen more of the above mix it up, I think the 90s would have had a good case of being the better era.

The 90s just had the star power but the 70s had the fights

 

Botha probably.
Wepner was never top 10 in the world, I don't care what RING ratings say.

 

90s are better.

��

Frank Bruno would **** Enry Cooper up.

 

Regardless THOSE were the ratings.. And there were many others in the 1970's ratings who the 1990's fighters would have beaten including even some of the better ones.. If I had to pick ONE man who was better than anyone between the two eras, it would be Muhammad Ali.. But after 1974 he was visibly diminished and could have lost to some of the 90's guys too. From there I don't think its clear cut as to who would win a tournament between the two periods. But frankly I think the 90's produces more winners. Like it or not Ken Norton and Joe Frazier wouldn't fare well against a generation loaded with bigger men and heavy hitters. Sorry but for all their greatness they just didn't have the physical tools to do it. Quarry likewise would have been too small and had the tendency to bleed. Shavers has a puncher's chance against anybody but I'm not even sure he'd beat McCall or Mercer if they surivived him early.

 

Take a look at some of those guy's records and even pull up some of their fights on youtube and see if you can figure out who was more erratic between them and Seldon. I'd pick modern day light heavys and cruisers to beat a guy like Jack Bodell.

 

Ali fought everyone in the 70s, his resume is a who's who of the era, so let's put it down on paper.

70s Great fighters:

Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Muhammad Ali himself.

Kenny Norton is bordering.

90s great fighters:

Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield, Mike Tyson

Rid**** Bowe is bordering.


Then we look at the contenders:

The 70s best contenders were the following:

Ron Lyle, Earnie Shavers, Jimmy Young, Floyd Patterson, Jimmy Ellis, Jerry Quarry, Joe Bugner, Buster Mathis, Oscar Bonavena and an up and coming Larry Holmes.

The 90s in contrast had:

Ray Mercer, Razor Ruddock, Andrew Golota, Frank Bruno, Tommy Morrison, Michael Moorer, Hasim Rahman, David Tua, Vitali Klitschko, Ike Ibeabuchi.


70s gatekeepers and fringe contenders:

George Chuvalo, Alvin Blue Lewis, Chuck Wepner, Mac Foster, Duane Bobick, Spinks, Evangelista, Ocassio...


90s gatekeepers and fringe contenders:

Shannon Briggs, Zeljko Mavrovic, Henry Akinwande, Tony Tucker, Herbie Hide, Alex Stewart, Bert Cooper, Larry Donald, Jorge Luis Gonzalez, Bruce Seldon, Buster Douglas, Gary Mason, Oliver McCall...



---------------------------

And this is excluding some of the contenders from the 70s and 80s that were still good in the 90s.

As one can see the top ranks are comparable in both eras. Which one is better is really subjective. But IMO when it comes to contenders, both the top and especially fringe ones the 90s are just sizeably better.

 

Well, I don't put much stock in the rankings at all.
The point is, Foreman and Holmes, OLD and FLABBY, did prove themselves worthy of being top 10, or even TOP FIVE, during the 1990s, in fights with Holyfield, Mercer, Moorer.

Yes, I know.

:huh Bugner and Denis were about the same age.

I was refering to the 1976 Denis who faced Foreman. If you substitute the old Foreman for young Foreman, you'd probably get either a Foreman-Schulz or Foreman-Savarese scenario.

But Ali 1970-'77 is very comparable to Holyfield 1990-'97.
Fights against Foreman, Lyle, Bugner, Frazier, Norton, Shavers in the '74-'77 period are at least comparable.
Holyfield, to his credit, actually trained hard for every fight (Ali clearly did not) and enjoyed greater longevity for it.
And look at how many fights Ali had during the period in comparison to Holyfield.
More fights, superior "best wins", even better against a common opponent almost twenty years younger version.
And, yes, Ali was past his prime all through the 1970s.

I like Holyfield but young Foreman probably traps his on the ropes and mashes him.

The series would get cancelled at the 2nd week with Bowe gone AWOL to eat himself into a fat bloated slob.

What ??
Who mentioned Wepner ?

Of course.

 

The thread title isn't about ratings though.
If people want to get stuck in the discussion of ratings and lists that's up to them.
We're talking about quality and talent of the best heavyweights across a decade.

Holmes and Foreman didn't just crack the top 10 in 1990s, they proved themselves worthy of top 10 or top 5 against fighters who are being held up as examples of this 1990s quality.
That was my only real comment on the ratings. Taking them back in time and having them beat Jack Bodell or Chuck Wepner proves nothing to me.
I'm sure OLD versions of Holmes and Foreman would have been obliterated by the likes of Ali, prime Foreman, young Holmes and prime Frazier.

You're overrating the 1990s.
I'm not sure who you think would KO Norton and Frazier in the 1990s, but the list would be very very short if we're considering them anywhere near their bests.