The 80's lost generation of Heavyweights?

Cocaine and rehab centers became vogue in the 1980s. So you heard more about substance abuse in the 1980s.

But boxers have always abused drugs and alcohol, and there were always top boxers who didn't train properly all the time.

The writer Jack Newfield just coined the phrase "The Lost Generation of Heavyweights" while he was blaming Don King for all their ills.

But the 80s heavyweights weren't different than any other era, really.

There were two dominant champs in the 1980s (Holmes and Tyson). That's the way it is in most decades. A couple of dominant champs, and a lot of also-rans.

In the 1980s in boxing, the sanctioning bodies started to flex their muscles more, too, so there were a lot of vacant titles and a lot of stripping of belts, and a new org. was created (IBF) to go with the WBC and WBA, so a lot of those also-rans briefly held titles.

But the boxers themselves weren't much different or weren't more prone to trouble.

People have the perception the 80s heavyweights were different, because the guys who didn't succeed were all collectively handed that "Lost Generation" tag.

I liken it to every decade or so there are certain summers that the media dub the SUMMER OF THE SHARK and news stations highlight every shark attack, and push panic buttons. Then you realize later it was just a slow news cycle and there weren't more shark attacks those summers than any other summer.

The 80s heavyweights basically didn't have any more substance or discipline issues than heavyweights in every decade before and after.

 

Yeah, people have always done alcohol and cocaine.
It just became fashionable to publicize it in the "Just Say No" era and the era of "celebrity rehab".

The 1980s "Lost Generation" HW thing is over-played.
The actual problem was the fact that it was the FIRST time in the modern era where the heavyweight championship became splintered into 2 or 3 'title belts' on a long-term basis, that was a shock to many, and it came in the shadow of Muhammad Ali era.

Actually the 1980s was quite a competitive era. Don King's monopoly at least served to match contenders against contender several times a year, and also led to the re-unifying of the titles in the late 1980s. Some of the fights were good. Some of the heavyweights achieved decent records.

The media made it negative. Until Tyson came along.

 

I agree. You could find a "Lost Generation of Heavyweights" in every era. Guys who were considered future champs but never got a shot. Guys who suffered from substance abuse or didn't train properly and lost important fights as a result. Guys who got shots but failed and never got another. Guys who choked when the big moment arrived, or got robbed of a decision in favor of the "house" fighter.

Newfield kind of went overboard lumping those 80s heavyweights together and then blaming King for every bad thing that happened to any of them.

Because you could do that with a collection of heavyweights and authority figures in practically every decade.

 

The 1930s heavyweights weren't very consistent, for starters. There was only one title, and it changed hands nearly every year. What if there had been THREE TITLES to fight for?

How many of those guys would've been two or three-time champs? And how many more fighters would've been champs with more than one belt to go after?

Lou Nova would've been a champ. Buddy Baer. Galento probably would've. Did Galento have training and substance abuse issues?

Probably would've had the "Why won't the Baer brothers unify the title?" discussion 70 years before the Klitschkos arrived.

 

Dubblechin makes a good case above for the 1930s.

I'd also say the 1950s. Perhaps the heavyweights were even far less consistent that the 1980s generation.
Charles, Walcott, Marciano, Patterson and Johansson held the title in the era.
Leading contenders such as Nino Valdes, Bob Baker, Rex Layne, Tommy Jackson, Zora Folley had some very uneven records and performances.
I think heavyweights have always fought uninspiring fights.

Muhammad Ali, The Greatest, was an uninspiring slob in half of his 1970s fights, if we're honest, and due to a poor work ethic probably.

 

This is true.

It would be easy to do in every single decade.
The only thing different about the 1980s was the first time the 'alphabet title' situation really properly carved into the heavyweight division.

 

Interesting take. It's definitely as valid a perspective as any.

 

You're right. If there was only one title in the 1980s, few (if any) of those beltholders beat Holmes or Tyson.

Like previous decades, most would've been seen as just top contenders. And people don't tend to keep track of how consistent top contenders are or what drink/drugs they are consuming.

But when those 80s beltholders won and lost from fight to fight, it stood out more because they were billed as title fights.

Pre and post-fight Drug testing also started to come into play in the 80s. There wasn't much of it prior to the 80s. And it was scattered in the 80s. But that's where it started to take off.

I mean, Leon Spinks was shot up with painkillers before the first Ali fight because he had a rib injury. He couldn't even feel punches to his side ... or even throw punches without collapsing in pain. And that was in a heavyweight title fight in Vegas. (Nevada didn't have drug testing in 1978.)

We'll all heard stories of fighters entering the ring after binge drinking the night before or of Jean Pierre Coopman drinking wine in his water bottle between rounds of the Ali fight.

atsch

Liston was supposedly shooting heroin around the time he fought Wepner. There was no drug testing then. He could've been on it while he was fighting. He could've been on it when he got knocked out by Martin.

(Was it Mike Ayala who shot heroin before entering the ring against Danny Lopez in the 70s?)