The golden 70's contenders... compared to those of the 50's

The late 60's to the mid 70's are often referred to as the golden era of heavyweight boxing. Seeing as to how Ali, Frazier and Foreman competed this seems pretty reasonable.

However, you also hear claims like "the 70's contenders would've been champions in any other era", and for me that's where it starts itching. This basically implies that not only the champions (Ali, Foreman, Frazier; i'll touch back later on Ellis and Leon Spinks) were of extraordinairy quality, but that the contenders were also. Implications that the likes of Quarry, Ellis, Shavers and Lyle would've been champions during the 50's. Let's examine some of the facts regarding this subject.

This content is protected

Jerry Quarry is usually the name that's first dropped as "would have been champion if not for...". However, it should be pointed out that he lost to Eddie Machen, a former 50's contender. It's true that Quarry was young and had only 17 fights (all victories), but at the same time, he got his title shot only two years later when he managed to reach the final of the HW elimination tournament. Machen, on the other hand, was in the twilight of his career and would compile a 1-3 (0) record after their fight until retirement.

It is in fact almost a boxing tradition that a rising powerhouse fights and aging but game contender, to put on a good performance. Machen himself is an example of this, when he twice beat the fading Valdes in his 12th and 14th pro fight, as is Lewis when he knocked out Weaver, Joe Frazier who stopped Machen in his 13th pro bout, few months after Machen beat Quarry... and most recently, Povetkin beating Byrd in his 14th fight.

Jerry got past Patterson, but needed two tries and some people thought Patterson got the better of him. Again, this is an aging 50's fighter who goes up against a near-peak version of Quarry. On top of that, Patterson is conceived to be one of the "lesser" champions in history, so if there really was substance to the claim that Quarry would've been champ, then he should've easily gotten by an older version of this "ordinary" champion.


Quarry also lost to Ellis (i will come back to him later), but later during his career he easily knocked out Shavers and beat Lyle comfortably on points.

So, his record outside of the real big names is good, but to me nothing that suggests extraordinary. Now, if one adds that he performed absolutely horrible in both outings against Frazier and Ali, he looks more ordinary. I mean, i respect his guts and resilience, but outside of the first round the first Frazier bout, i don't think he won a single round against them in all four fights combined! One would expect a "would've been champ" to at least be competitive...




On to Jimmy Ellis....

Ellis started as a middleweight, and a mediocre one at that; he was never rated in the top10. He was young during this time, but not THAT young. For instance, he was 24 when he lost to Carter and Benton. At 24, Ezzard Charles had posted wins over Burley, Maxim and Moore. Of course, Charles doesn't set the standard, but he IS one of the fighters that is often referred to as one of the "weaker" champions, in whose era the 70's contenders would've been champions.

This content is protected

However, the catch is that little more than two years later, Ellis was not only beating heavyweight contenders, he swept the entire heavyweight division outside of Ali (banned) and Frazier. He twice knocked down Bonavena to beat him on points, took Quarry by decision as well as Martin and Patterson. He then loses badly to Frazier. He career went south after this.



Shavers lost badly to an aging Quarry as well as to other mediocre fighters and never really beat a ranked top contender. Lyle, too lost to an old Quarry. Norton is of higher quality in that he would give a boxing type of fighter hell, but folds like a cheap suit against a puncher or pressure fighter. Jimmy Young does stand out to me, as he arguably beat Ali, one-sidedly beat Foreman, Lyle twice and Shavers according to most observers as well as a close fight with Norton that could've gone both ways. Most people also thought Bonavena lost to an ancient Patterson.



Coming back to the 50's, is it really a stretch to see Walcott, Moore or Charles repeating what Ellis did to Bonavena or Quarry? They did anything that Ellis did, better (including the early middleweight career in Charles' and Moore's case). I'd be pretty confident in them picking them over Shavers and Lyle as well. They will always have their punchers' chance, but the reality of the situation is that their puncher's chance never materialised against a live ranked fighter, except when they fought each other. :yep

This content is protected

Now, some people will say that Ali, Foreman and Frazier demolished their "lesser" opposition because they were that great, but i think it demonstrates moreso the lack of depth and quality of the contenders.

For instance, Charles and Ali were both seen as going back when they challenged Marciano and Foreman, respectively. Ali beat a peak Foreman rather easily and despite declining badly, kept the title for four years until he lost the title to one of the worst champions ever, in Leon Spinks. Admittely, Ali got favorable decisions, but you can wonder how long a badly fading fighter can hold on to the title until losing to Neon Leon.


Ali, Frazier and Foreman only lost to each other, outside of Young and Norton. Being dominant can also mean that the second rate fighters weren't of all that high quality. For instance, most people consider Joe Louis' and Larry Holmes' opposition to be of fairly weak quality, and they were the among the most dominant champions in history.


So, to conclude, i don't want to take anything away from Ali, Foreman and Frazier's greatness, but i do think that the high quality of the contenders during their period is often exagerrated, and most of their fame comes from losing, often onesidedly, to them. It is a fact that some of the aging 50's contenders/champions like Machen and Patterson did really well against the young, new generation.

 

Well i wouldn't say they were "nothing special", just not as much as they're often made out to be.