Yeah, talent wise you can't argue against the 40's. Robinson, Charles and Pep all at their peaks. What one can say against it as the greatest boxing decade is the hiatus during the war, that the marquee division (HW) didn't have its best decade and that a slew of very good fighters never got their deserved title shot.
You're a good man, after about '97 or '98, rap ment nothing to me, especially when Pac and Biggie passed.
Hard to say. I think the guys Duran/Hearns,Leonard and Hagler and Benitez made the welterweight to middleweight divisions one of the best and most exciting in boxing history. Look at those 5 names. The divisions around that time were great, but the heavyweights of the 1980's were actually worse than the previous decade. Guys like Tony Tubbs and Pinklon Thomas were the start of the lackadaisical heavyweights who would fight great one fight and then not get in shape the next time. Tyson cleaned up a mediocre division in the late 1980's, but the welt to mid were one of the best ever in the 1980's, and the lower divisions were great also with Arguello and Pryor and even the excitement of a guy like Mancini, who was not great, but he fought so hard and was exciting. I don't think any other decade had the excitement of the 1980's as far as boxing.
The welts and middleweights of the 1980's were the best in my mind, and the heavyweights of the 1980's the worst. Thank god for Mike Tyson to come in and clean up the division of lazy overweight guys. The best fighter of all the lazy overweight guys of the 1980's was Tim Witherspoon. He had real talent, but no consistency like the great Holmes. Had Witherspoon had the mindset of Holmes I am not sure who could have beaten him. He was complete except for consistency..