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

thats a great list really impressive post

Imo the 70s fighters were far better....imo....aged,shot, 40 something relics from the 70s like foreman and holmes were able to beat 90s contenders like moorer,mercer,stewart,coetzer,saverese and briggs and mccall (screw the scorecards)....the same two gave a peak holyfield a hard fight.

Tyson after 1991 was not 70 percent of what he had been 86-88.

The top 90s fighters were lewis ,bowe,holyfield and than a shot tyson,ruddock and witherspoon and mercer.

The 1970s top four of ali,foreman,frazier,holmes beats all those guys.
With the 1990s big four apart from tyson being serious threats as cintenders and only threatning say a less peak frazier in 76.

Dont get me wrong the 1990s guys were a very good crop.

The lennox of the 90$ wasnt as good as the peak lewis of 2000-2003 all his best wins came than, he struggled with holy in the 1990s and kayoed a distracted and shot ruddock who was bever the same after 20 rounds with tyson.

As for tyson in the 90s he was just an intimidating mirage after 1991

My biggest regret is foreman didnt come back 5 years earlier in 82 rather than 87.therby an 84-86 foreman would have been fresher and better than what we actually saw in 87-98 and would have had a clash with holmes in a superfight,tyson at his peak and perhaps even got holyfield in 89

 

good post:good

I am under the impression that all eras had their up and downs, the split title eras had the watered down top 10's and the best were not fighting the best. Prior to Louis the best did not always fight the best for whatever reason The Louis days were days with a sole champion and the race to get a title shot, Marciano had the same and it continued but there are some who berate dominant champion eras and fighting number 1 contenders as weak eras. Ali came along and like Louis beat the best and fought the best. Holmes and the politics of the time did not always fight the best nor rematch any tough fights and there were many of the top fighters of that era never fought. The 90's had a few superstars and Magoo explained the pro's and con's quite well.

These days it seems like Vlad has been pretty dominant and is fighting the best and I think there has also been a lot of talent out there now and contenders that would have been a presence in any era but not everyone is happy.

I think its 6 of one and half a dozen of another. There are no better era's. On the surface it appears at times but there are many nuances in every era and it all balances out. The Holmes era was weird and IMO Larry gets a B- or a C but all others pretty much equal

 

Moorer was outboxing Foremans ears off throughout the fight, it was Foremans 40 pounds weight advantage and power that saved him. Also he got gifted decisions and was allowed title shots without earning them, he got lucky. Mercer was young when he lost to him, experience trumps youth at times.

 

Well the 80's was the decade of talented but lazy hw

 

Great point which I highlighted. I agree the '70s was better.

 

Very true. Then Tyson came along......................insert image of man mopping up a huge mess.

 

going by decade is misleading. early 90s is ok but then the dilution with fake wbo and the expansion into cw means late 90s was beginning to stifle.

 

40something man has all the advantages? talk shyte much?

 

Great heavyweights imo.

Remember that fat **** Francois Botha. I forgot he went to K-1 after boxing. Beat Jerome Le Banner, a kick boxing legend.

Good fight with M Moorer, undercard of Tyson-Holyfield number 1. Moorer inflicted Botha's first pro defeat. Loved Tyson's brutal stoppage of Botha in 1999.

 

Golota
Briggs

Those guys reigned supreme in the FCF

Fruit Cake Federation

 

Not the best, but one of the best, no doubts.