Was the 80s actually stronger than the 70s heavyweight era

I think the 1970s and 1980s were similar in terms of quality. The problem was that in the 1980s, we had two great boxers: Tyson and Holmes, but they were past their prime. The third, who could be considered a great, Holyfield, didn't fight them until the 1990s, when both were clearly past their prime. In the 1970s, we had four greats: Foreman, Ali, Frazier, Norton, and towards the end, Holmes came in and had a great fight with Norton. There were great fights between Frazier, Ali, and Foreman, and their significance is particularly marked by the Ali-Frazier rivalry. We didn't have that in the 1980s. Maybe if there had been a Tyson-Holmes fight in 1986, or a Tyson-Holyfield fight in 1989, but those fights took place at different times.

 

If you lower the bar of greatness to include someone like Norton than I would think guys like Thomas and Douglas would qualify as well

 

I don't think Douglas put on a single fight in the 1980s as good as the three Norton-Ali and Norton-Holmes fights. The bar is still a bit higher.

 

No. 1990 is the first year of the 90's. The world goes by the Gregorian calendar which starts at 1 BC then proceeds to 1 AD with no year "0" involved.

The Gregorian calendar.

 

Sullivan clears both

 

70s was definitely not more top heavy.
Tyson and Holmes beat everyone in the 70s.

 

When I think of poor conditioning, partying too hard and half arsed training I think of Joe Frazier in the 1970's. Otherwise, I hate to break the news to you but cocaine wasn't invented in 1980. As far as half hearted efforts, the entire post-Zaire title scene. with the exception of Holmes-Norton (which I have other misgivings about) was an embarrassment. Ali had turned title fights into cheap theater comedy routines. The collection of raw talent in the 1980's was unrivalled until, well, the 1990's.

 

Not in a million years.

 

Okay that makes it closer but I would still say the 80s have a good argument in terms of talent.

80s Foreman should still be able to beat norton or Frazier

 

Yeah and Chavez beat Whitaker. Youre just full of your usual contrarian **** and vinegar.
Go and rewatch ***** tits Tony Tubbs, Greg Page, Michael Dokes, wobbly bottomed Terrible Tim, Pinky Thomas, Trevor Berbick (a one round KO victim from a 70’d also ran) etc handpass the titles between themselves and tell me again with a straight face that the 80’s rocked lol. These wastrels won and lost repeatedly against each other with nary a half decent fight amongst them.

Joe Frazier even at his hard partying worst could still go to ****ing war for 15 hard rounds at a pace the aforementioned butterballs could barely even dream of. Any version of Frazier up to Manilla would destroy these underachieving inconsequentials.

Tyson to this day is chronically overrated on account of being better than all these 80’s guys and taking out the trash. It was a good effort by Mike and much needed for boxing at the time but with the caliber and frailties (physical and mental) of these guys it tends to get blown out of proportion legacy wise. Yhe 80’s guys were a lost era.

 

Stop it.

 

Holmes fought in both eras.

Tyson was better than 70s Ali.

Frazier and Holyfield were equals, but Frazier logged the big win in his decade.

Foreman was better than Ruddock, or at least looked better against smaller heavyweights.

I prefer Spinks over Norton.

All fairly close, but Thomas, Witherspoon, Tucker, Douglas, Tubbs, Berbick, Cooney, Coetzee, Dokes and whoever else were a level higher than Quarry, Lyle, Young, Shavers, Ellis and the rest of them.

 

In a nutshell.

 

I get why people compare the two eras because on paper the 80s looks pretty deep. You had Holmes, Witherspoon, Thomas, Page, Dokes, Tucker, Coetzee, Weaver, and of course Tyson. There was a lot of talent, but most of those guys never stayed consistent. A lot of short peaks, management issues, and drug problems held that generation back.

The 70s might not have been as deep, but the top guys were on another level. Ali, Frazier, Foreman, and Norton were all elite fighters who proved it against each other. Holmes was coming up too and he bridged both eras. Those fights were wars and the champions from that decade still hold up as all-time greats.

In the 80s you had a lot of "what could have been" fighters, but very few who actually reached that same level. Holmes was great, Tyson was great, but everyone else kind of traded wins and losses.

So I’d say the 70s were stronger at the top, and the 80s had more overall depth but less consistency. The best of the 70s like Ali, Foreman, and Holmes would still handle most of the 80s heavyweights in head-to-head matchups.