In terms of world wide popularity could it be the 70's? You had Ali, Frazier and Foreman in the heavyweights. Along with Monzon as a worldwide star and Duran at lightweight. The rise of Leonard and Hagler towards the end of the decade. In terms of talent it would be the 40's though.
I'll go with the late 70's to 80 era. Lots of talent in most divisions, and the free TV era to boot, most of the time, so the exposure was there for everyone, too see the matchups. Then again I wasn't around for the earlier times as most of us weren't. So we have to rely on limited footage.
I think this one is pretty damn good but it is normal to claim the current one is the worst. They did that in the 80's and the 90's. For me, it's the 1940's followed by the 80's, the 90's, the 20's and then the 70's.
I'm not so sure of that. Personally i believe the decade was very respected as it unfolded, a rare occurrence. Then again, with a Holmes at heavyweight, Spinks at 175, Hagler at 160, Hearns at 154, Leonard at 147, Pryor at 140, Arguello at 135, Sanchez and Pedroza at 126, Gomez, Chandler, Pintor below and the likes of Duran and others punching away how could it not be seen for what it was - awesome.
The quality of heavyweight division was not rated highly at all in the 1980s. Holmes was respected but far from revered, and the splintered titles and disappointing fights and fighters really tarnished the era. A lot of people will say the 80s on this thread because a lot of us grew up then, and many of those who are younger see it as the last time boxing was truly popular and glamourous. The era just before PPV took over completely to sell us lesser quaity for a higher cost. The last time most of the best fighters genuinely seemed prepared to meet the best. At the time, boxing was riding high off the Muhammad Ali/Color TV era, and the best fighters and fights were being packaged well for TV, often free or easily accesible TV. The last time all regular guys in the street could name a half-dozen or dozen of the current fighters, and talk about upcoming fights.
Have to strongly disagree on some points Sonny. Holmes had indeed become quite revered even when taking the easy fights late career. The boxing community as a whole had come to accept Holmes worth as an exceptional ATG well before he was beaten by Spinks. Lets not forget too that Tyson's impact was in the 80's, a fighter that you agreed was the most overrated hyped up no heart fighter in history. If he was so hyped up surely he carries the division almost on his own. Overall it may have been average but these two greats carried it immensely. Good points, you make me long for the days of yore The fact is that we had myriads of great fighters too.
Agreed. Ali transcended the sport and he had a few monsters to contend with. The press was all over him and boxing rode his coattails. Duran was a throwback. Leonard shared and later picked up Ali's mantle. Hagler was a throwback. Then you have the fights on shows like "wide world of sports" on Saturday afternoons -which helped enormously.
Holmes's problem was he wasn't really a draw. People would watch Holmes because they watched boxing and it was on TV. People would watch Tyson because they liked Tyson. The splintered titles in the post-Ali pre-Tyson 80s era, and indifference to Holmes's style or personality, damaged the division. Never before had the heavyweight crown been split so badly, and the politics of boxing and confusion exposed so severely. I suspect only Holmes-Ali, Holmes-Cooney and Tyson-Spinks rivalled the Hagler-Leonard-Hearns-Duran battles as far as money goes, (and Ali and Cooney as fighters didn't remotely justify the pay they generated for Holmes). The heavyweight division is probably weak when welters are commanding record-purses.
Yes but the thread uses "For overall talent and depth of champions and contenders" as it's criteria so popularity of lack of aren't in the mix i'd venture. Fair points but again not relevant perhaps. Agree the overall depth was weak.