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