Was the 20s the golden era of boxing talent?

Janitor, i have genreally felt that maybe the 20s and 40s were the best, cases can be made for other eras also imo, but since my time on ESB i have been swayed to the thinking that the 40s was maybe the best, just edging it

 

I have always considered the 20s and the 40s the golden eras of the 175 division, but again i do believe that the 40s MAY edge that also

 

No doubt imo, the 20s is littered with guys i consider the 'elite' of boxing's best (by division). One of the very best times talent-wise, like you say, in contention for the title of 'best era', if there were more available footage, fo you think that would work in favour of it making its case here, or vice-versa? (I mean could it potentially be ammo for guys to call it primitive?) I would go with the former personally.

 

The 20's have my #1 Fly, #1 Light weight, #1 Middle, and #1 Light heavy.

Panama Al Brown is one of the most under rated guys in boxing. He was a tough son of a gun who fought all over the world.

 

Yea i got him top 5 at bantam personaly.

 

You're right there most definitly

 

I personally think the 40s era was golden era. Styles changed in the 1940s, boxing became modernized hands were brought high protecting the face, chin was lowered, head movement and body movement became existent, and footwork became more rythmic smooth and artistic. Combination Punching emerged from the greats of that era like louis, pep robinson etc



1940s have my


# 1 lightheavyweight of all time Ezzard Charles

# 1 welterweight of all time Sugar Ray Robinson

# 1 heavyweight of all time Joe Louis

# 1 featherweight of all time Willie Pep

 

Let me compare to the forties.

1. Fly--Wilde really peaked before the twenties, but I would see Wilde and Villa plus Genero & Panama Al Brown as giving the twenties the edge.
2 Bantam--Ortiz was champ all the way through the forties--Brown really peaked in the thirties--I would call this a wash.
3. Feather--Pep and Saddler give edge to forties
4. Light--Leonard may edge out Williams, but I do think there was more top to bottom talent in the forties.
5. Welter--Robinson gives this one to the forties. Walker was erratic at welter.
6. Middle--can't argue with Greb. Burley would probably represent the forties better than any champion.
7. Lightheavy--Charles, Moore, and Conn, make this a very strong decade for the forties-Tunney, Loughran, and Gibbons represent twenties. I chose the forties, but this might be viewed as close to a wash.
8. Heavy--Louis swings this to forties.

From feather up, in which I have seen quite a bit of film, I would go with the forties by a narrow margin. I just don't have enough info to really judge fly and bantams.

Thinking it over, I go with the forties, with Louis, Charles, Moore, Conn, Robinson, Pep, and Saddler all among best ever at their weights, plus Williams, Burley, and Cerdan, all of whom have good claims as being better than usually rated.

 

1895-1905 lightweight was better than 1920's. Better than 1940's that were mentioned here also. Gans, Lavigne, Walcott, Erne, Nelson, Griffo, Britt, O'Brien, and a long list of lesser, but still talented excellent fighters.

 

50s for me, followed by the 80s. From a USA point of view I can understand why the 20s would be in the equation. The country, having a great time in the roaring 20s, and with boxing becoming more socially acceptable, a boom amongst in particular imigrants led to the sport being arguable as big as it ever was in States.

 

It was in incredible era. Leonard, Greb, Wilde and Tunney are arguably the best in their divisions history. I have Dempsey at #3 all time at Heavy. Even if none of those divisions were at their very best, the fact that so many of the divisions had so many great fighters makes the 20's the best decade, overall, in boxing history.