Was the 1980's the best decade for boxing?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Bokaj, Nov 9, 2010.


  1. JLP 6

    JLP 6 Fighter/Puncher Full Member

    1,866
    31
    Sep 24, 2010
    40's:
    SUGAR RAY ROBINSON
    EZZARD CHARLES
    WILLIE PEP
    SANDY SADDLER
    ARCHIE MOORE

    80's:
    SUGAR RAY LEONARD
    MARVELOUS MARVIN HAGLER
    TOMMY HEARNS
    WILFREDO BENITEZ
    LARRY HOLMES

    Names off the top of my head. I have to give the edge to the 40's then to the 80's.
     
  2. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    Canzoneri
    McLarnin
    Ross
    Chocolate
    Ambers
    Armstrong
    Louis
    Lewis
    Walker
    Loughran
    Schmeling
    Zale

    back-up:
    Hostak
    Apostoli
    Thil
    Overlin
    Baer
    Berg
    Petrolle
    Singer
    Davis
    Garcia

    Just from the top of my head, guess I forgot a few.
    Young Corbett III
    Arizmendi
     
  3. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,143
    13,097
    Jan 4, 2008
    Many good fighters. I would say that, if Holmes and Duran are to be viewed as mainly a 70's fighter and Chavez and Whitaker as mainly 90's fighters, Walker and Zale should be seen as 20's respectively 40's fighters. Loughran as mainly a 20's fighter at all.

    Schmeling certainly doesn't match-up with the upper tier of the 80's fighters. I'm sceptical to him and Baer being mentioned at all. They were champs, but not great champs. They're closer to Page et al than to 80's Tyson or even 80's Holmes.
     
  4. Titan1

    Titan1 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,685
    2,562
    Oct 18, 2004
    80's was probably not the best decade, but in a way, it was.You had superfights, fights on network tv where you could see up-and-coming fighters, and magazines less than $2, at least in the early part of the decade.Then the WBC put their crap in motion with the 12 round title limit, fights left network TV, and the IBF came into being, along with some other organizations, putting into spin a confusion from which boxing may never recover.
     
  5. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    :lol:

    Not really, Schmeling and Tyson are very close actually. In terms of resume there isn´t much between them at all. Sorry.
     
  6. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,143
    13,097
    Jan 4, 2008
    You're delusional.
     
  7. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    No, I´m just not glorifying the decade I grew up in.
     
  8. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,143
    13,097
    Jan 4, 2008
    Sure, do a poll about if Schmeling's 30's is as good as Tyson's 80's. Or better yet, just stop drinking at daytime.;)
     
  9. Swarmer

    Swarmer Patrick Full Member

    19,654
    52
    Jan 19, 2010
    Well as far as list-making bodhi seems to have that covered. Here's how I see it for the 30's: the era was not, IMO, the end of boxing's technical development. However, it was very close, and it was insanely competetive. You have great fighters in that era that easily rank in top 10 in various weight classes and a couplethat rank top 10 in multiple divisions;. guys like Armstrong, Louis, Walker, Ross, Ambers, Canonzeri, Chocolate, McLarnin etc were genuinely great, they fought stiff competition and they fought often.... You have a serious contender for the GOAT and top 3 p4p in Armstrong, and in Louis you have the most fundamentally sound puncher of all time, and arguably the greatest heavy ever. The 30's is ripe with tons and tons of proven all time great fighters at a wide range of weights.

    The 40's arguably has an even greater claim. You have an active, prime SRR, Charles, Willie Pep and Saddler, Burley, Marshall, Williams Zivic, LaMotta, Cerdan, , an active but faded Louis, Walcott, Gavilan, Angott... And they all had incredible fights, plenty of classic series like Zale-Graziano. Fighters from this period look very very modern and complete, and the level and frequency of competition is quite high. You see the business aspect of the fight game starting to mess things up a little bit more here, but overall you have a who's who of ATG's.

    I guess my original post says 50's, must have skipped a key. Good decade too, but not on the same level as those two, IMO.
     
  10. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,143
    13,097
    Jan 4, 2008
    You make a good case. It does bother me, though, that a couple of those you mention didn't even get the chance to fight for a title.

    But I agree that many of the 40's fighters really look splendid on film. Robinson at WW was sublime.
     
  11. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,143
    13,097
    Jan 4, 2008
    If we look at the best 10 years for boxing, I'd probably say 1945-1955. Four (Robinson, Pep, Charles and Moore) out of my top 10 hit their primes during this period. Five (...+ Louis) were active all in all.
     
  12. Swarmer

    Swarmer Patrick Full Member

    19,654
    52
    Jan 19, 2010
    Agreed. If i could have nominated this period as a decade I would have.
     
  13. PetethePrince

    PetethePrince Slick & Redheaded Full Member

    28,760
    84
    May 30, 2009
    Fixed
     
  14. ironchamp

    ironchamp Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,365
    1,033
    Sep 5, 2004
    80s

    Sugar Ray Leonard
    Tommy Hearns
    Marvin Hagler
    Wilfred Benitez
    Larry Holmes
    Mike Tyson
    Donald Curry
    Evander Holyfield
    Michael Spinks
    Marlon Starling
    Mark Breland

    They had some pretty good fighters throughout the entire decade and the superfights were made.