Was the 1970s really the golden age of heavyweights?

1- Mid-to-late 1960's - Early-to-mid 1970's
2- Late 80s - Mid-to-late 90s
3- Bum of the Month Club
4- 1946-1955
5- 1956-1962
6- 1975 - early-to-mid 1980s
7- 2000-2010s

 

I believe it was
Ali Foreman Frazier and Larry holmes are all in my top 10 of all time.
Shavers and Mac foster were huge bangers, Ron Lyle was onescary baaaaad looking man and Jerry Quarry had charisma and guts by the bucketful and Ken Norton was awkward for all but the big bangers.

 

It was either the golden age of heavyweights, or the golden age of big fights being made.

There are other era’s that could have had the potential to rival it, but the key fights did not happen.

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head, most of them did fight each other though Frazier Norton might of been interesting.

 

This.

I think it's generally hard to compare quality of eras, so my main criteria is if the fights were being made and from the mid 60's to the late 70's they certainly were.

The 90's were full of quality, but there were several top fights that never happened and champions like Bowe and Foreman had pretty horrible reigns. The early 80's was also stacked with talent, but some key fights went missing there as well. In the 70's the deserving contenders all got shots at the title and they fought each other as well. And there of course were legendary fights like FOTC, Zaire and Manilla.

The only thing that mars the era a bit is Frazier's "reign" after FOTC. Two defenses in two years, bot against unranked opposition. Shameful.

 

I think no.It was the most popular era but this doesn't mean it was the best.
By my opinion only Ali was better fighter than Wladimir Klitschko
from this 70s era.
The 80s/90s era created lots of far better fighter than W. Klitschko:
Tyson,Lewis,Holyfield,Spinks,Holmes,Tucker,Ruddock,Bowe,Ibeabuchi,Bruno etc.
To me the best Holmes was more a 80s fighter.

 

I think the 70's were the golden age not only of the heavyweights, but of BOXING period. The mid to late 60's ain't too far behind BTW.

 

Agreed 100%.

It's a slim line between a great era and a disappointing one. Just imagine how much worse the decade looks if we tweak only a couple dynamics.

1) Joe doesn't give Ali a rematch
2) Joe doesn't fight Foreman

As big as the FOTC was, those fights boosted the era's perception from good to great. Without the Frazier fights, Ali-Foreman doesn't mean near as much. And that effect cascades down the rest of the division because a number of guys made their name and legacy based on how they did against those two guys.

I think, for example, the perception of the early 2000's heavyweight scene got harmed in a big way due to one fight not happening- the Lewis-Vitali rematch. When the opportunities to have fights like that come up, they have to happen, or the reputation of everyone suffers just a little bit (sometimes more). The biggest fights have to happen for an era to distinguish itself in fans' minds, even if the fighters involved in that era weren't the H2H greatest ever. You won't find fans more fierce than boxing fans when we actually get the fights we want to see, and the disdain is real when we don't.

It's a thin line, and it only takes a handful of the right fights to make the difference.

 

Norton and Lyle due to shared managment.

Shavers whas never realy in the picture when Frazier was.

Young, probably no particular reason.

 

WORD!:good

That defines the 70's HW division: you were prety much sure that the guy on top was really the guy on top, because he had to defeat all/most of the deserving challengers to be there... no suspensive points in the individual and collective legacy.

Compare that for example with Mayweather "reign"; as good a fighter as he is, his legacy (and Pacquiao's) will have always a black spot because those two didn't fight each other (at least not when that fight mattered)

 

It most likely was, yeah. Not only did it have maybe the most remarkable and charismatic heavyweight of them all, but pretty much all the main players fought each other at or close to the peak of their powers.

I think the 80's may have had more actual talent (wasted though mainly) and the 90's more depth...but the 70's had the key fights being made at the right time.

 

No. The 90s and 80s had more talent. The 70s just had most of the fights made that people wanted to see.

 

A clear no.

The 1980s had :

Tyson
Smith
Tucker
Douglas
Thomas
Witherspoon
Holmes
Tubbs
Berbick



and more than a dozen of quality dangerous contenders.


The 1990s had :

McCall
Tua
Holyfield
Tyson
Bowe
Lewis
Akinwande
McCline
Ibeabuchi
Michael Grant
Ross Puritty
Orlin Norris
Corrie Sanders
Golota


And more than a dozen of dangerous contenders some of which were quality

The 2000s had :

Vitali
Valuev
Wladimir
McCline
Tua
Lewis (until 2003 , so he is just a very partial inclusion)


already at least on par with the 1970s elite and the contenders were on par with their parallels too.