the 50's fighters were better than the 70's fighters!

Well you've chosen two very insignificant things to prove your point. You cant seriously tell me the heavyweight division was in a better state in the fifties. Bring Ingemar Johansson into the seventies and see what happens, he gets destroyed by Ali, Frazier and Foreman. The seventies was a golden era for heavyweights, barring Marciano the fifties was not. Dont get me wrong the fifties were good, mostly in the middleweight division where Robinson, Olson, Fullmer and Basilio were facing off and earlier on that decade at welterweight with Robinson fighting Kid Gavilan and stopping LaMotta in their last battle. Pep and Saddler were also battling it out at the start of the decade. But I still prefer the seventies, along with the heavyweight division you had the rise of Roberto Duran and lots of other latino fighters like Napoles, Benitez, Canto, Cervantes, Olivares, Zarate, Gomez, Pedroza, Sanchez, Ortiz and Laguna. Carlos Monzon and Alexis Arguello were both at large with Monzon fighting Griffith, Benevuti, Napoles and Valdez for the middleweight title although the 160 division wasnt as strong as the fifties probably.

Two great decades but I think the seventies edges it.

 

This is a ******ed post but I had to comment on: "but a over-the-hill machen beat a prime jerry quarry and went ten rounds with a prime joe frazier!" Both Quarry and Frazier were green when they fought Machen.

 

Using your logic the thirties must have been a vastly superior era compared to the 50's, as Jersey Joe, little more than a punching bag in the thirties not only floored marciano and was clearly ahead in their fight when stopped, but also stopped Charles.
And as Klompton remarked neither Quarry nor Frazier were nowhere near the finished product when they faced Machen.
Btw Machen didn't go 10 against Smokin' Joe, he was stopped in the tenth after having being knocked down in the first and not winning a single round.

 

Great post

 

Could n't have put it better myself :good

 

put like that,it doesn't even look close. robinson was at his best in the 40's ditto lamotta,saddler and pep.70's easily

 

Thank you.

 

the 50's were much better p4p , but h2h i think the 70's were better.

 

Jant said it better a few months back.

The 70's had more GREATS in Ali, Foreman, and Frazier, were the 50's and 40's had more Good fighters.

 

I go with that :good

 

This is one of those things that gets repeated so often people start to believe it. However, the facts really don't bare it out.

Fact: Ali was at his best physically Jan 1, 1970. He was game as hell, but increasingly depleted throughout the decade, so much so as to make his belt a farce with questionable judging, extravagant bending of the rules and questionable title opponents.

Fact: Performance-wise, Frazier peaked March 8, 1971. Aftwards he beats extremely used-up versions of Quarry and Eillis. Nothing.

Fact: Foreman was able to conjure a whopping 2 title defenses, one against the great King Roman. Otherwise, he is figured out by a shopworn Ali and a less than awe-inspiring Jimmy Young. Retirement is his best career move as he is in line for more defeats.

 

70's fighters must have been better than 90's fighters if a 40+ year old Foreman was able to regain the title 20 years after losing it.

90's fighters must have been better than today's fighters if a 46 year old Holyfield was robbed of a win against a top 5 ranked heavyweight title holder.

 

Well Holyfiled did get his shot against the weakness link in the title holders imo.

Nothing saids anything regarded this, was the early 2000's weak when Jones Jr won a alpha title over Ruiz?? Is beating Ruiz making Jones Jr better head to head.

Prime matchs up that would tell about this era is vs the Kilts, not the likes of Vauly imo.

Same goes for Foreman, he did it vs one of the weaker champs in Moore, but would be more impress if Foreman did it vs Tyson or Holyfiled or even Lewis.
Does not tell anything, just the right matchs up at the right time against the lesser champs.