out of the 60's 70's 80's and 90's ?? Boxers in their Prime to be placed in that decade ...Rank decades in order 1, 2, 3, and 4 ... List your guys if you want and state your case
My first instinct says the 80's for the fab 4, then add in Tyson, Spinks, Holmes. But there's probably a good case for all of them. Tough one.
Actually, the 90's might be the best. Roy Jones, Lopez, ODLH, Lennox Lewis, Holyfield, James Toney, Mayweather and Pacquiao coming up
I’d have to sit down and really think about it and will probably come back with a more detailed response when I get home. Logic would say the 60s because fighters fought more and I think in general divisions were deeper. Off the top of my head I’d rank them 60s 80s 70s 90s
I think across all weight classes they are likely all pretty comparable, although one may have more standouts in one division than another.
The 60's welters & MW's were very deep and could hold their own with any other decade, especially since prime Napoles was really a 60's fighter, being he won the WW title in 1969, at 29 years old, after being avoided by various champions at lower weight divisions.
Overall, I'd put the 90s at the bottom due to the lack of depth and the proliferation of titles (although that started in the 80s). In 1980 there were still only two world titles per weight division. By 1990 that number had doubled. With hindsight I can't see that as anything other than a bad thing. There were standout fighters in the 90s who compare favourably with fighters from the other decades talent-wise but I don't think they were as proven as a lot of the fighters from the 60s, 70s and 80s. There was an awful lot of ducking going on because it was that much easier to avoid a fellow titlist.
I'd say 70's, 60's, 80's & 90's. Divisions were much deeper earlier on because of the lower number of weight classes and as stated before, only 2 belts.
A difficult question ,every decade produced at least one ATG or more in each division to a degree .But personal choice I'd say 70s /through to the 80 s .
Except for the 90's it's very difficult. 90's is at the bottom of the list. 70's 80's 60's 90's I have no issue with anyone putting the 60's at no 2. These 3 decades are so tight. Very tough to call.
Gotta go 90s between all the great HWs, solid HW contenders + you had ATG smaller guys like Tito Trinidad, Roy Jones, Chavez and Whitaker. ODH too even though he dress like a womam
Interesting note, for roughly a year and a half (from June 1975 to November 1976), the only reigning world or alphabet champion born in the United States was Muhammad Ali. All the champs in all the other weight divisions were from other countries. When Bobby Chacon lost the WBC Featherweight Title to Ruben Oliveres in June 1975, Ali became the only remaining U.S. world champion. When Danny Lopez won the WBC Featherweight title in November 1976, that gave the U.S. two champions again. And Lopez had to fly to Ghana to win it. And during that June 1975 to November 1976 period, Ali didn't fight in the U.S. much. Though he did fight a lot. Ali fought Bugner in Malaysia, Frazier in the Philippines, Coopman in Puerto Rico, and Dunn in West Germany. His only U.S. fights were Young and Norton (in Maryland and New York). Not sure what that means. Just thought it was interesting. I don't think there was another decade when the U.S. only had one titleholder in the whole sport. And the one fighter from the U.S. who was champ didn't fight in the U.S. very often. Could that be used as an example of how much depth there was globally? Or was that a down period for U.S. fighters in the sport as a whole?