The 90s are a true golden HW era; HW 70s are nostalgia...

Yeah pretty much

 

100% agree. Left a much longer post the other day on this same topic.
70s were great too for sure, but boxing fans have a bad habit of discrediting more modern eras in favor of the old timers.
I also believe H2H, 90s era would dominate the guys from the 70s

 

How many cattle did the 90's bench press?

 

Because they were bigger right? And you might be right.

But the biggest of that erea would be just average in size today.

 

The only argument I can see for the 90's is that they were bigger an therefore better h2h. But in that case I suppose the current era is the best of all.

A major drawback for the 90's is that the best fights happened at least five years to late. In fact Bowe-Lewis and Bowe-Tyson didn't happen at all and Tyson-Lewis didn't happen in that decade because Tyson ducked him.

In the 70's, the big fights happened when they were at the most relevant. Frazier-Norton is the one we never got to see,

And, as I said, if you want to do they were big bad h2h monsters compared to the 70's, then remember that Ike and Tua would be dwarfed by Dubois, Kababyel and Bakole, and Morrison by Anderson. You should also remember how relatively well old Foreman and Holmes did in the 90's,

 

As I said in another thread, 90s were by far the most interesting era to me, but mostly because of the fights that happened at the lower level. In fact, tons of great fights were missed in 90s between its best fighters:

- Lewis vs Bowe
- Bowe vs Tyson
- Lewis vs Tyson (it happened eventually in 2002 when the fight has become pretty much irrelevant)

Also, Holyfield vs Tyson in 1991 and Holyfield vs Lewis in 1996-97 or even in 1994 would be better than when they have actually happened.

So, the only fights between 4 best heavyweights of that era has happened between Holyfield and Bowe when they were in their primes. Well, you can add Holyfield vs Tyson because both were about equally past their respective primes, but still I think that fight would be better and more dynamic in 1991.

Talent wise 90s were fantastic of course, but boxing politics prevented a lot of great fights from happening and allowed guys like Seldon and Bruno to win the titles

 

Yes. This was after all an era where they held titles and Moorer, Foreman and Briggs were lineal champions.

 

Hi Buddy.
I was just viewing a YT with Simon Jordan and Spencer Oliver ( who is very poor ) they were discussing the current HW scene , it got me to looking up the rankings, so we have in no particular order :
Usyk - very good fighter, but near the end.
Parker - fairly competent, but no earthshaker.
Zhang - Old
Kabayer - who ?
Bakole - big and strong, but untested.
Joshua - busted flush
Hrgovic- hasn't turned up .
Ajagba - who ?
Wardley - can punch a bit.
Really, is this state of current HW boxing, dear oh dear....
stay safe fellow posters.

 

Not just bigger, but they fought more aggressively in my opinion. I'm not a huge fan of the 15 round fights, as I've stated before. Sure those guys had more stamina, but they also had a lot more rounds of guys just playing padicakes. The 12 round guys just got down to business quicker.

 

70s featured 4 top 10 Heavyweights of all time Holmes, Ali, Frazier, Foreman.

You also had Foreman, Holmes, in their 40s who were from the 70s era competing in the 90s era.

The issue was for the 90s era is that apart from Bowe vs Holyfield none of the top fighters fought eachother in their primes.

 

I could believe this, if a geriatric from the 70s didn’t come back to win the heavyweight championship, and another (Holmes) was still a force upon his return.