Were the 70s really the golden era of boxing?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by ivancho, Mar 31, 2025.


  1. ivancho

    ivancho Member Full Member

    142
    216
    Nov 23, 2020
    Were the 70s really the golden era of boxing?
    Many people consider the 1970s to be the golden era of boxing, but why? Is this claim based on facts, or is it just perception?

    One possible reason is that boxing was televised worldwide during that time, and most people had a TV at home. Plus, the sport had iconic figures like Muhammad Ali, a true showman with incredible charisma.

    However, I believe boxing was actually more popular in the 1930s and 1940s. Back then, being the heavyweight champion was the pinnacle of all sports, even above football or baseball. And it wasn’t just in the U.S. There were also boxers from all over the world..
    So, if the 1930s and 1940s had more boxing clubs and less competition from other sports, why do people still consider the 70s the best era of boxing? Was it just because of television?
    Or is it the perception that fighters from that era were more skilled, with fancy movements and a more entertaining style?

    What do you think?
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2025
  2. dmt

    dmt Hardest hitting hw ever Full Member

    9,937
    13,790
    Jul 2, 2006
    Its because they look better on film.

    Frazier looks better on film than any 30's or 40's heavyweight except Louis.

    I mean Schmeling was excellent. But other than having a better counter right hand, Frazier did most things better. Frazier was physically stronger, better at cutting off the ring vs movers, had a far superior left hook, was a better body puncher, and never struggled with the likes of Jack Sharkey for example.

    Boxing may have had immense popularity in the States in the 30's and 40's and even Internationally. But i believe the International competition was stronger in the 70's. I mean you have Joe Bugner (UK), Gerrie Coetzee (South Africa), etc. fighting in the 70's.

    IMO Holmes, Foreman and Frazier are significantly better than any 30's or 40's heavyweight not named Joe Louis. I like Walcott and Schmeling but Holmes/Foreman/Frazier are considerably ahead.
     
  3. Devon

    Devon Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,600
    4,605
    Dec 31, 2018
    The 90s had far more names, the 70s had iconic names. The guys at the top were more memorable, but the 90s had far more contenders.
     
  4. HistoryZero26

    HistoryZero26 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,229
    2,692
    Jan 6, 2024
    In HW. In the whole sport its just another era. We just had a thread where people are debating whether Thomas Hearns would run the table against Bob Fosters competition. So the level of respect for the 70s isn't across the board its just at HW.

    Boxings popularity is not a factor in the 70s being considered the best. If anything boxing being more popular would be a reason it'd be inflated like the 90s is.
     
    bolo specialist likes this.
  5. dmt

    dmt Hardest hitting hw ever Full Member

    9,937
    13,790
    Jul 2, 2006
    Only issue is 90's guys, with some exceptions, did not fight each other when those fights mattered. Lewis-Bowe 92, Tyson-Holyfield circa 91-92, Holyfield-Lewis circa early 90's.

    Ali and Frazier fought each other twice when both men were still performing at a very high level. Lewis and Holyfield fought twice when the latter was less than a year away from struggling vs Ruiz.

    90's may have had more depth overall but due to certain fights not happening when they mattered the most, no way can i rank it ahead of the 70's.
     
  6. Ice8Cold

    Ice8Cold Still raging that we didnt see Bowe V Lewis Full Member

    1,786
    2,491
    Jan 1, 2024
    They actually fought the best in the 70s in their primes!
     
  7. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    50,312
    23,311
    Jan 3, 2007
    I think it might have been the golden era of the heavyweight division. I can’t say for sure if it was the golden era of “ boxing in general. “
     
  8. cross_trainer

    cross_trainer Liston was good, but no "Tire Iron" Jones Full Member

    17,470
    12,794
    Jun 30, 2005
    It was the golden heavyweight era, in the sense that the top guys competed against each other, the fighters were charismatic, and the fights were accessible.

    This doesn't mean that they'd beat the modern guys in a time machine bout, though.

    And if the Saudis keep doing what they're doing, we may catch up on the accessibility and competition front.
     
    White Bomber likes this.
  9. bolo specialist

    bolo specialist Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,600
    7,102
    Jun 10, 2024
    Only the hws was considered a golden era. As far as "why," just look @ the names.

    Ali
    Foreman
    Frazier
    Holmes
    Norton

    ... & those were just the uppermost echelon.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2025
    HistoryZero26 likes this.
  10. Mike Cannon

    Mike Cannon Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,860
    6,728
    Apr 29, 2020
    Hi Buddy.
    You sure it was only the HWs :
    Fly -
    Ohba
    Canto
    Gonzalez
    Borkhosor

    Featherweight
    Legra
    Jofre
    Marcel
    Saldivar

    Middleweight
    Monzon
    Valdez
    Briscoe

    Lightweight-
    Duran
    De Jesus

    Bantamweights-
    Olivares
    Martinez
    Pimentel
    Castillo
    Not a bad bunch....
    stay safe Bolo, like your posts immensely, chat soon buddy.
     
    Reinhardt likes this.
  11. bolo specialist

    bolo specialist Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,600
    7,102
    Jun 10, 2024
    I would argue that the 40s-early 50s were the golden eras for mw, lw, & fw.
     
  12. MixedMartialLaw

    MixedMartialLaw combat sports enthusiast Full Member

    1,438
    2,239
    Jun 30, 2021
    Wasn't the 70-s when boxing exploded globally? You had over a billion people watching Ali take on Foreman.
     
    Reinhardt and bolo specialist like this.
  13. cross_trainer

    cross_trainer Liston was good, but no "Tire Iron" Jones Full Member

    17,470
    12,794
    Jun 30, 2005
    Which would be what you'd expect in an era where the middle of the bell curve trended smaller. More little guys = more good little guys.