What was the best era or eras in history?

Heavyweights - 1971 through 1975.

Lightweights/Welterweights - 1940s

 

1905-1915
Joe Gans has a good chance to KO Roberto Duran.
Packey McFarland has a good chance to outpoint Thomas Hearns and Ray Leonard.
Mike Gibbons has a good chance to outpoint Marvin Hagler.

 

I believe the 2 best era's in boxing was the 1920s when the champs were:
Flyweight- Jimmy Wide /Pancho Villa
Bantamweight-Pete Herman
Featherweight- Johnny Dundee
Lightweight- Benny Leonard/ Lew Tendler
Welterweight- Jack Britton/Ted Kid Lewis
Middleweight- Harry Greb? Mickey Walker/Tiger Flowers
Light Heavy- Jack Delaney? Gene Tunney/Tommy Gibbons
Heavyweight- Jack Dempsey/Gene Tunney
And my era growing up in the early 1940s
Flyweight-Midget Wolgast
Featherweight-Willie Pep/Sandy Saddler
lightweight- Ike Williams/Beau Jack/ Bib Montgomery/ Sammy Angott
Welterweight- Ray Robinson / Kid Gavilan/ Carmen Basilio/ Billy Graham
Middleweight- Tony Zale/ Jake LaMotta/ Charley Burley/Marcel Cerdan
Lightheavyweight- Billy Conn/ Ezzard Charles/ Archie Moore/ Harold Johnson
Heavyweight- Joe Louis/ Jersey Joe Walcott
+ and dozens of top notchers who fought OFTEN against the best in every division...

 

1980,s for sure! loads of great boxers
prime Tyson
prime Chavez
prime Hearns
prime Hagler
prime SRL
many others

 

This is the best of possible worlds.

 

Mid 70's to mid 80's is my favorite

 

I said a good chance, I'm not saying that being a certainty.

I don't think Duran was a hard enough hitter to stop Gans, but the opposite is true, and I think Gans with his timing and accuracy would be able to drop Duran several times and then finish him.

Packey, despite size disadvantage, would rely on angles a lot.
Hearns was a well-schooled boxer, which means mechanical and predictable. McFarland would change directions a lot, in and out, stinging like a bee.
Versus Leonard it would be a chess match between two fighters who relied on hand and foot speed a lot. I'd think Packey was the more clever of the two and with more heart and would land slightly more often, even if neither is doing much damage.

Gibbons was an excellent counter-puncher with great foot-work, Hagler won't be able to finish him by becoming all aggressive a-la Hearns if he chose that vs smaller guy, so it's be another chess match, most probably.

 

BB's got it right here.

boxing evolved into a more fluid and athletic sport from it's crude earlier periods where it was a sort of mixture of fighting & holding wrestling type combat. this advancement became the main by the late 20s, early 30s and peaked in the golden years from then till the late 50s n 60s.

we still have this with us today of course, but the difference being the number of fights fighters take part in has dropped considerably, to the problem of 100 weight divisions and so called title belt holders.

the drop off was noted and recorded as early as the late 50s, with ebbs & peaks at different times. but overall the fewer fights, competitors, more weight divisions and sanctioning bodies have ensured us it will NEVER, Ever be close to that 'overall' Golden Period again.

 

There were more great fighters active in the 20's than at any other time in boxing history. It isn't even debatable.

 

LHW

1920's

Greb
Tunney
Walker
Loughran
Gibbons
Roosenbloom
Delaney
Berlenback
Levinsky
Slatterly
Carpantier
Siki
Flowers
Stribling
Lomski
Smith

 

Mine is the late 60's thru the mid 70's...well, ...till the late 70's, I'll say.