I completely forgot Braddock. By 'Bum of the Month' i was not referring to a decade (30s or 40s), like most here, but what happened between say 1938 and the mid 1940s.
If Ring Magazine gave him a higher rating, based on what I think he will do in the future, then I am very flattered.
Agree it is stronger than the 60's or 70's....just too many big hard punching and skilled heavyweights
I might go with 80s. You had Tyson, Holmes and Holyfield at the top. Then about 10 or so very talented contenders if they were switched on.
You think that a huge 6'6", 245lbs, 14(12)-0 fighter being ranked 9th in the world right now by The Ring, tells us how bad this era is? A former Olympic medalist, with a long amateur career behind him, who turned pro at the age of 25 - and is now raising fast in the pro ranks, where he so far has only met opponents with winning records. Why is this a sign of a weak era? How about Eddie Mader, who in 1935 was the 6th ranked contender behind Braddock? A Journeyman with a 33-19-4 (11 ko defeats!) record when he was ranked - whose highest weight until then was 188 lbs? Mader, incidentally, finished his career with more ko defeats than ko wins with an overall record of a 57(27)- 41(29)-9... not something you see every day from a world ranked fighter! Do you think, someone like Mader would come even close to a world ranking today? And shouldn't little 5'7", 170lbs Mickey Walker's #5 HW ranking in 1931 tell us something about the strength of that era? Can you imagine him being thrown in with any of the top heavyweights today... I certainly can't!
Holyfield was not at the top in the 80's. He didn't win the title until 1990 and he only had a handful of decent wins at HW. The main problem in the 80's was that some guys just weren't fighting each other or would have one good win, then fall off or lose their title immediately. They weren't consistent and were often out of shape or on drugs.