The ring's hw top 5 decade by decade.

Holyfield beat Thomas, Dokes, Stewart, Rodriguez in the 80s - better than Cooney imo

 

Taking off the rosy-tinted Classicist glasses...


1890's - Grade D-.

Jeffries
Fitzsimmons
Corbett
Maher
Sharkey

1900's - C

Johnson
Jeffries
Langfrod
Jeannette
McVea

1910's - B-

Dempsey
Johnson
Langford
Wills
Jeannette

1920's - C

Dempsey
Wills
Tunney
Sharkey
Godfrey

1930's - C-

Louis
Schmelling
Baer
Braddock
Sharkey

1940's - B-

Louis
Charles
Walcott
Bivins
Ray

1950's - B

Marciano
Liston (!)
Charles
Walcott
Patterson

1960's - B-

Ali
Frazier
Liston
Patterson
Ellis (!)

1970's - B+

Ali
Foreman
Frazier
Holmes
Norton

1980's - B

Tyson
Holmes
Witherspoon
Holyfield
Spinks

1990's - A

Holyfield
Lewis
Bowe
Tyson
Ibeabuchi (!)

2000's - B-

Lewis
Wladimir
Vitali
Byrd
Chagaev

2010's - INCOMPLETE (how can you judge a decade we are less than 2 years into?)

Wladimir
Vitali
Povetkin
Haye
Adamek

 

"You missed Tyson"

It was not deliberate, just an oversight brought on by incipient senility.

So

Tyson--2 (2*)

 

Holmes is a decent enough shout as any for the three decade thing. He was 'alright' in the early nineties.

 

"I am a teacher" "dictator"

One of the pleasures of growing old is noticing that most of the predictions made by your professors back in the old days turned out to be way off, and therefore developing a healthy skepticism about voices of authority.

 

:good without a doubt.

 

This issue was the first RING magazine I bought in a looooong time. Actually, this issue and the 90th anniversary "Oscar De La Hoya kiss ass" tribute are the only 2 I've bought since my subscription happily ended in 2007. I might be complaining a bit but I didn't care for the pixelated pictures they used for the top heavyweights in this particular article.

Apologies for the rant. Still surprised with all the nostalgia used in this issue. Anyways, Liston #2 in the 50's is a bit of a surprise. Obviously the publishers felt Liston needed to be in for his excellent body of work prior to winning the title. Holyfield at #4 in the 80's isn't bad. The only other heavy that could dispute would probably be Pinklon Thomas, though his late 80's descent hurts a ton. Ibeabuchi #5 in the 90's was surprising with Moorer or Foreman deserving that spot.

The overall grades aren't bad with the 80's deserving a "B" and the 90's an "A" instead. To be honest, the 2010's deserve a D-.

 

Seasum's post is right on. Ring rating the 2000's as a C and 1.5 years into the current decade a D shows that worthless rags bias.