I love the 80's. It seemed to be where the competition, genetic pool and training methods mixed best for the best fighters physically.
1. 1940's 2. 1970's 3. 1920's 4. 1980's 5. 1930's 6. 1910's 7. 1960's 8. 1900's 9. 1950's 10. 1990's 11. 1890's 12. 2000's 13. 1880's Something like that. Could rearrange a few. Some really close ones.
You need a DeLorean for this. Otherwise, you'd just be talking out of your ass. How the **** would you know what boxing was like in the early part of the 1900s?
As I said, a few could be switched around. I wouldn't argue too much with the 90's being placed over the 50's, for example. The 1890's was a much bigger era in boxing history, with a higher fanbase and with higher level noteworthy fighters in an historical sense than the 2000's. Not saying fighters of their era would beat the fighters of today under modern rules or anything, because the sports were very different between these times.
With the limited knowledge I have even on the eras and the fights I've seen. I'd have to go with the 1980's, but the more I learn about fighters of the 1970's and 1960's and the more I learn of the fights from the 1960's and 1970's the more I start to appreciate them. If I was given a choice to be around in anyday to solely watch one fighter, it would be Jose Napoles and that is coming from a guy with a hard on for guys like Duran, de la Hoya, Mosley etc. I will say on the 1880's, I've just eaten some chicken wings that I think where cooked in the 1880's.
I would say the 80's. hard to compete with the fab four plus benitez, camacho, matthew saad muhammad's all action style, and a young, probably peak mike tyson, among others.
im gonna 2000's just for the fact im younger than 25 and experienced these fights exactly when they happened