You had some extremely skilled fighters, a good crop of very skilled and, perhaps even more importantly, the big fights were being made in most cases. So is there a case for the 80's as the best decade? Fighters: Duran, Holmes, Benitez, Leonard, Spinks, Hagler, Hearns, Whitaker, Holyfield, Chavez, Tyson, McCallum, Arguello, Nelson, Camacho, Curry, Pryor etc Big fights/rivalries: Duran-Leonard, Leonard-Hearns, Hearns-Hagler, Hagler-Leonard, Arguello-Pryor, Spinks-Holmes, Holyfield-Qawi, McCallum-Curry, Tyson-Spinks, Benitez-Leonard/Hearns/Duran etc
Nah, 30s, 40s, 50s were better. 20s, 60s, 70s and 80s were about on the same level. Before and after the depth wasn´t quite as good.
I should probably have included the 30's as a poll option, but I'm less sure about the 40's. Sure, there were some fantastic fighters during the decade, but many of the potentially biggest fights weren't made, both because of the war (which robbed of the some best fighters of good years) and the racial factor (the black murderer's row). During the 80's you had a couple of the best LWs ever (Duran, Whitaker, Chavez), one of the best WWs ever (Leonard), one of the best MWs (Hagler), one of the best LHWs (Spinks), one of the best CWs (Holyfield), two ATG HWs (Tyson and Holmes), one of the great "weight travellers" (Hearns) and very many of these squared off against each other.
Yes but many of those were inbetween decades fighters like Duran, Whitaker, Chavez, Holyfield, Holmes. You can easily say Duran, Holmes are 70s fighters, Whitaker, Chavez, Holyfield are 90s fighters and then the 80s don´t look so well anymore. This diminishes it´s claim to fame somewhat. I´m also one of the guys who think the 80s are a tad overrated. Most people around grew up in the 80s and it´s fighters, including myself, and that leaves a stong impression.
All of Holyfield's CW career was during the 80's and it was as a cruiser I had him listed. Holmes had many of his big wins and most of his title fights in the 80's, so you can't "easily" say he was a 70's fighter. Duran had his best years in the 70's, but he still brought very much to the game in the 80's. You can compare it to Robinson during the 50's. Whitaker and Chavez had their big fights in the 90's, but they were title holders during the 80's. Chavez was 27 and Whitaker 25 when the decade ended. But even if we exclude these fighters, the following had their best years during the decade: Leonard, Hearns, Hagler, Spinks and Tyson - and all of them squared off against at least one of the others. Then we also have a solid back-up crew of Arguello, Pryor, Benitez, McCallum, Curry, Nelson etc; guys who also had some unforgettable fights.
I´m not argueing the greatness of this decade, I´m just saying it´s not the best ever. btw. I think higher of Arguello than of Hearns, Hagler, Spinks and Tyson. He´s not a "back up".
The 60's and 70's? There were som great ones around, for sure, but not really great champions from LW up to HW. You'd have to combine the two decades to get that.
It may very well not be, but you haven't made a convincing case. Fair enough. Then we have ATG fighters ranging at least from 135-220 lbs during that decade. Six "full" divisions counting CW.
Do I really need to mention every great fighter from Armstrong to Louis for the 30s? It won´t even be close.
Go ahead. I'm less sure of that myself. Were there many more than 5-6 ATG champions and many more match-ups between them?