Which Era was the Strongest?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by cross_trainer, Sep 20, 2007.


Page 1 of 2
  1. cross_trainer

    cross_trainer Liston was good, but no "Tire Iron" Jones Full Member

    18,216
    14,030
    Jun 30, 2005
    How do you determine whether one is strong or weak? As a result of some discussions with China_hand_Joe (who, despite his trolling, seems to bring out the best in the Classic forum), I would recommend a three-point program...



    1) Skill of the fighters -- This encompasses both the average amount of experience top fighters have (number of bouts + quality of opposition) and how good they look on film.

    2) Talent pool -- How many fighters were active? Was the culture supportive of boxing (lots of gyms in various places, well-televised)? Were there good (and frequent) books available to teach novices? Interestingly, poverty is an important indicator as well, since many of the best fighters seem to come from poorer backgrounds (their motives may vary, but their performance was usually pretty good).

    3) Training -- How well were the fighters trained, i.e. how "scientific" were their training regimens by modern standards? How hard did most of them work? (Work ethic is often overlooked)





    Which era would you consider the strongest, based on this criteria? Also, would you add any other variables?
     
    cross_trainer, Sep 20, 2007
    cross_trainer, Sep 20, 2007
    #1
  2. OLD FOGEY

    OLD FOGEY Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,670
    98
    Feb 18, 2006
    One criteria I might add, although it could be covered obliquely in talent pool and skill level, is did the best fight the best a reasonable amount of the time?
     
    OLD FOGEY, Sep 20, 2007
    OLD FOGEY, Sep 20, 2007
    #2
  3. cross_trainer

    cross_trainer Liston was good, but no "Tire Iron" Jones Full Member

    18,216
    14,030
    Jun 30, 2005
    I thought about including that as a variable, but chose not to for the following reason: just because fighters never face each other doesn't mean they're not talented. If Ali and Frazier never fought, they would still be just as talented as ever.

    It's only when unwillingness to face opponents prevents you from getting experience that it becomes a problem...for instance, if you spend your whole life fighting tomato cans and never see what it's like to face a good opponent.
     
    cross_trainer, Sep 20, 2007
    cross_trainer, Sep 20, 2007
    #3
  4. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,940
    47,981
    Mar 21, 2007
    None is the "strongest". With almost no exceptions the very best fighters from one era will be a total match for the very best fighters of another era. It's EQUAL because boxing is primarily about what is within, mental, heart. Unique in my opinion.

    Human endevour can only reach to certain heights - nobody from the 40's "tried harder" than every fighter from the 90's .
     
    McGrain, Sep 20, 2007
    McGrain, Sep 20, 2007
    #4
  5. Bummy Davis

    Bummy Davis Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,667
    2,152
    Aug 26, 2004
    I think its hard to say in ERA's because the 140lb era was real strong recently with Hatton,Tzsu,Floyd,Castillo,Cotto, Etc. and the Heavys Now are starting to get thick, In the 50's the Heavyweights had some seasoned Vets, the 70's had raw power but beatable, some of the big power punchers were beaten by Jerry Quarry 6" 197LBS, Mac Foster 6"4 220 Shavers,Ron Lyle6"3 220, Buster Mathis 6"3 250,Thad Spencer ETC...IMO the 40's were deep and fought weekly or monthly but I think there is always talent in every era in various divisions
     
    Bummy Davis, Sep 20, 2007
    Bummy Davis, Sep 20, 2007
    #5
  6. SgrRyLeonard

    SgrRyLeonard Active Member Full Member

    777
    134
    Jun 4, 2006
    Two of the strongest Welterweight eras were the 40's and the 80's, while for the Heavyweights it was the 70's and probably the 90's as well.
     
    SgrRyLeonard, Sep 20, 2007
    SgrRyLeonard, Sep 20, 2007
    #6
  7. OLD FOGEY

    OLD FOGEY Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,670
    98
    Feb 18, 2006
    My vote would be for the 1800 to 1810 era. Jem Belcher, Henry Pearce, John Gully, Bill Richmond, Tom Molyneaux, and the great Tom Cribb.
     
    OLD FOGEY, Sep 20, 2007
    OLD FOGEY, Sep 20, 2007
    #7
  8. box03

    box03 Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,246
    1
    Aug 19, 2007
    70s and 90s were the strongest for Heavywieghts, while the 2000s and the 40s were probably the weakest in Heavywieght history.
     
    box03, Sep 20, 2007
    box03, Sep 20, 2007
    #8
  9. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,940
    47,981
    Mar 21, 2007
    A lot of people are posting about WW, HW, whatever, that isn't what this thread is about (although any given weight class might serve as a good example). I think it's more concerned with the "overall" sense of the era in relation to technique, coverage, popularity, depth etc etc etc.
     
    McGrain, Sep 20, 2007
    McGrain, Sep 20, 2007
    #9
  10. Dempsey1238

    Dempsey1238 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,719
    3,559
    Jul 10, 2005
    The 90's are over rated imo. in regards to heavyweights.

    In the 1900's we had Jeff, Corbett, Sharkey, Fitz, Johnson, MCVey, Langford ete.

    The 20's were a downer, good thing Dempsey was a big star.

    The 30's had Baer, Sharkey, Schemling, Louis, Carnea and Braddock.

    The 40's had Louis, Walcott, Charles, and perhaps Conn.

    The 50's had Marciano, Walcott, Charles, Liston, Patterson and Ingo.

    The 60's had Ali, Liston and Patterson. Joe Fraizer came late.

    The 70's had Ali, Foreman, Holmes and Fraizer. No I dont count Norton, Shavers or the Spinks "Great".

    The 80's had Holmes, Tyson, M Spinks, and a bunch of druggies.

    The 90's had past prime Tyson, Holyfiled, Bowe and Lewis. You can thown in old Foreman if you like.
     
    Dempsey1238, Sep 20, 2007
    Dempsey1238, Sep 20, 2007
    #10
  11. Street Lethal

    Street Lethal Active Member Full Member

    986
    31
    Jul 10, 2007
    Sounds good. First, how do we know how many active fighters there are in a given year? Second, should we just add numbers. Suppose that a country begins to develop boxing, and although there are more boxers added, they may not be as good as the boxers from other countries. That sounds like too difficult a problem.
     
    Street Lethal, Sep 20, 2007
    Street Lethal, Sep 20, 2007
    #11
  12. cross_trainer

    cross_trainer Liston was good, but no "Tire Iron" Jones Full Member

    18,216
    14,030
    Jun 30, 2005
    If they just started boxing, their talent pool wouldn't be as good because the infrastructure that supports them (coaches, competition, etc.) would be inexperienced.
     
    cross_trainer, Sep 20, 2007
    cross_trainer, Sep 20, 2007
    #12
  13. The Kurgan

    The Kurgan Boxing Junkie banned

    8,445
    31
    Nov 16, 2004
    The 1980s. The perfect era, especially for heavyweights- Mike Tyson, Larry Holmes, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield and Greg Page all boxing in the same freakin' decade!
     
    The Kurgan, Sep 20, 2007
    The Kurgan, Sep 20, 2007
    #13
  14. cross_trainer

    cross_trainer Liston was good, but no "Tire Iron" Jones Full Member

    18,216
    14,030
    Jun 30, 2005
    :lol: :good
     
    cross_trainer, Sep 20, 2007
    cross_trainer, Sep 20, 2007
    #14
  15. Street Lethal

    Street Lethal Active Member Full Member

    986
    31
    Jul 10, 2007
    Right. So you would have to have some sort of quantity/quality calculation.
     
    Street Lethal, Sep 20, 2007
    Street Lethal, Sep 20, 2007
    #15
Page 1 of 2