View Full Version : Era Misconceptions


Kinetic Linking
06-11-2009, 01:06 AM
The term "golden age of bla bla bla" is thrown around too loosely.

One era misconception I'm aware of, assuming it's a misconception, is that the 70's was the "golden age" of heavyweights. I don't buy it, plain and simple. I don't care how many names you rattle off, videos of the 70s do not impress me and I watch a lot of videos and am very open minded about the past.

The other one I'm aware of is the notion that Ray Robinson's era was the "golden age" of middleweights. Again, I don't care how many names, those videos do not impress me. They're not bad - Ray was in some good fights. But I don't think it was the toughest era.

them_apples
06-11-2009, 01:12 AM
The term "golden age of bla bla bla" is thrown around too loosely.

One era misconception I'm aware of, assuming it's a misconception, is that the 70's was the "golden age" of heavyweights. I don't buy it, plain and simple. I don't care how many names you rattle off, videos of the 70s do not impress me and I watch a lot of videos and am very open minded about the past.

The other one I'm aware of is the notion that Ray Robinson's era was the "golden age" of middleweights. Again, I don't care how many names, those videos do not impress me. They're not bad - Ray was in some good fights. But I don't think it was the toughest era.

and today's era impresses you? (the Heavyweights)

the 70's had some superb Athletes, Ali, Norton, Frazier....and yes George Foreman was a beast.

Robinsons era wasn't the golden age for middleweights though, considering the 3 best middleweights in my book weren't from his era.

IMO the competition during his era was average, but he was great.

Kinetic Linking
06-11-2009, 01:23 AM
where did I say that today's era impressed me? I didn't so save yourself some time and don't check. George Foreman's one of my favorite fighters of all time, I just don't think the 70s was any kind of golden age.

Obama
06-11-2009, 01:39 AM
80s is the best decade for Heavyweights in my personal opinion, followed by the 70s, which is neck and neck with the 90s. 60s were very over rated, 50s were better. But they're all far superior to the current decade.

As for my favorite Middleweight era, I also really liked the 80s, but it slipped over into the early 90s.

them_apples
06-11-2009, 01:45 AM
80s is the best decade for Heavyweights in my personal opinion, followed by the 70s, which is neck and neck with the 90s. 60s were very over rated, 50s were better. But they're all far superior to the current decade.

As for my favorite Middleweight era, I also really liked the 80s, but it slipped over into the early 90s.

I like Haglers era for middleweights

The mid 80's to 90's was a good era for Heavyweights, with Bowe, Holyfield, Lewis, Tyson and with Holmes still sticking around. I think the 70's edges it out though with Foreman, Ali, Frazier, Norton

DeepSleep
06-11-2009, 02:18 AM
Which era do you think has better heavyweights than the 70's Kinetic out of curiosity? Remember that the era is noted for having much much more than just Ali,Foreman,Frazier,Norton:boxing:.

Obama
06-11-2009, 02:22 AM
I like Haglers era for middleweights

The mid 80's to 90's was a good era for Heavyweights, with Bowe, Holyfield, Lewis, Tyson and with Holmes still sticking around. I think the 70's edges it out though with Foreman, Ali, Frazier, Norton

All due respect to Hagler, the second half of the 80s was better than the first in the MW department.

The Body Snatcher
Sweet Reggie Johnson
Patrizio
Second to Nunn
Irish Steve Collins
Action Jackson
The Dark Destroyer
Chris Eubank
Michael Watson

...and that's just the A list, might have left someone out too. The coming of James Toney and RJJ in the late 80s and early 90s put an exclamation point on that era.

As for the the 80s Heavyweights:

Holmes (Prime -> Over the hill)
Tyson (Prime)
Holyfield (Prime)
Witherspoon (Prime)
*Qawi (Prime -> Over the hill)
Foreman (Over the hill)
Gerry Cooney (Prime)
Trevor Berbick (Prime)
Michael Spinks (Post-Prime)

That's the A/A- list of names that had a meaningful impact in the 80s. I included Qawi since Cruiserweights didn't exist in the 70s. 80s definitely takes it in the A department, but the A- department would have more depth in the 70s.

TheGreatA
06-11-2009, 11:58 AM
I can't say I agree with the 80's being a golden era for heavyweights.

Holmes and Tyson were the dominant champions, both great fighters, but aside from them the talent around was severely lacking, or I'd rather say the dedication since men such as Witherspoon, Thomas, Dokes, Page, Tubbs and others were all talented but wasted their potential one way or another (mostly drugs).

I'd say that Holyfield and Foreman were 1990's heavyweights, since that's when they made their impact on the division. Qawi, Spinks, Cooney and Berbick hardly qualify as A-list heavyweights in my opinion.

TheGreatA
06-11-2009, 12:29 PM
1970's heavyweights were in my opinion:

Muhammad Ali
Joe Frazier
George Foreman
Ken Norton
Larry Holmes
Jimmy Young
Jerry Quarry
Ron Lyle
Earnie Shavers
Joe Bugner

Other notables:

Leon Spinks
Oscar Bonavena
Floyd Patterson (for his fights against Bonavena and Ali in the early 70's)
Mac Foster
Jimmy Ellis
Gregorio Peralta
John Tate
Henry Clark
Duane Bobick
Chuck Wepner
Kallie Knoetze

1980's:

Larry Holmes
Mike Tyson
Tim Witherspoon
Gerry Cooney
Mike Weaver
Michael Dokes
Tony Tucker
Gerrie Coetzee
Trevor Berbick
Pinklon Thomas
Tony Tubbs
Greg Page
Frank Bruno
Carl Williams
Tyrell Biggs
Renaldo Snipes
Tex Cobb

Holyfield did come into the picture in the late 80's but he only became the champion in the 90's.

1990's:

Lennox Lewis
Evander Holyfield
Mike Tyson
Riddick Bowe
Larry Holmes
George Foreman
Razor Ruddock
Ray Mercer
Michael Moorer
Tommy Morrison
Oliver McCall
David Tua
Ike Ibeabuchi
Andrew Golota
Frank Bruno

black.ink
06-11-2009, 12:59 PM
It's hard to argue against the 70s being the golden age for Heavyweights.

Obama
06-11-2009, 02:11 PM
I can't say I agree with the 80's being a golden era for heavyweights.

Holmes and Tyson were the dominant champions, both great fighters, but aside from them the talent around was severely lacking, or I'd rather say the dedication since men such as Witherspoon, Thomas, Dokes, Page, Tubbs and others were all talented but wasted their potential one way or another (mostly drugs).

I'd say that Holyfield and Foreman were 1990's heavyweights, since that's when they made their impact on the division. Qawi, Spinks, Cooney and Berbick hardly qualify as A-list heavyweights in my opinion.

Spinks was an undefeated Ring Heavyweight Champion until Tyson.
Qawi was the best CW of all time next to Holyfield.
Cooney was undefeated and just destroyed 3 B level fighters in a row all with high name recognition before Holmes.
I'd say you could legitimately argue Berbick not being A-, but the rest definitely are at LEAST that.

As for Witherspoon, Don King is the leading cause for his career not living up to expectations. Well, that and getting robbed against Larry Holmes, and consequently never getting his well deserved rematch. I consider Witherspoon a top 30 All Time Heavyweight

Spartacus Sully
06-11-2009, 02:13 PM
1890-1900?

not sure but:

corbett
sullivan
jeffries
sharkey
fitzgibons
jackson any others?

maybe 1900- 1910?

Obama
06-11-2009, 02:30 PM
Whatever era you want to call Dempsey, Wills, Langford, Jeannette, McVea, and Fulton is cleary the most top heavy era to ever have existed. Problem was Dempsey only fought Fulton. :rofl:

TheGreatA
06-11-2009, 02:55 PM
Spinks was an undefeated Ring Heavyweight Champion until Tyson.
Qawi was the best CW of all time next to Holyfield.
Cooney was undefeated and just destroyed 3 B level fighters in a row all with high name recognition before Holmes.
I'd say you could legitimately argue Berbick not being A-, but the rest definitely are at LEAST that.

As for Witherspoon, Don King is the leading cause for his career not living up to expectations. Well, that and getting robbed against Larry Holmes, and consequently never getting his well deserved rematch. I consider Witherspoon a top 30 All Time Heavyweight

Spinks did have those two wins over Holmes (both were somewhat controversial especially the latter) but aside from that he didn't do much at heavyweight other than beat a seemingly unmotivated Cooney.

Qawi was a great light heavyweight but I wouldn't consider him the number 2 at cruiserweight. He never had much of a heavyweight career.

Cooney was a great prospect but in the end he didn't accomplish all that much. Norton, Young and Lyle were pretty much done by the time Cooney got to them and he never fought against the likes of Weaver, Coetzee, Dokes, Witherspoon and others.

I agree about Witherspoon and I rate him rather highly. He was possibly the third best heavyweight behind Tyson and Holmes during the 80's.

Kinetic Linking
06-11-2009, 04:37 PM
Here are the eras, not in order of strength -
1900-1910
1910-1920
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-2000
2000-2010


There's only 10 or 11, and a handful of championship fights will give you a clear enough picture of the strength of the era.

I'll just say this, if you leave out all the eras from pre 1950, or even pre 1930, for all weight classes, your answer is going to be wrong. There are some obvious peaks early in the century for various weight classes. You may know a lot about the past 30 years, but history didn't start 30 years ago so get a clue.

Oh yeah, and I'm beginning the eras roughly when video started being used, which isn't fair but it's the best you can do.

Kinetic Linking
06-11-2009, 04:53 PM
There are multiple peaks, of course, and it's probably best to identify them all before comparing them. I'm going to use single fights to identify eras, but only because I consider the fights to be fairly representative of the era. Obviously they're some of the best fights, but I won't throw some fluke fight where one guy is just cleaning out a division. Again, when I say "peak" I don't mean all time, I just mean "one of a number of high points in history."

Hagler Hearns is an obvious peak. Both those guys are better conditioned, among other things, than most middleweights in history.

Ali Foreman is an obvious peak. Say what you want about that fight, but two great heavyweights showed up to fight.

Dempsey Tunney is a peak for 180-190 pounders, that fight takes place at a higher speed than most fights in history and the game died to a great extent when both guys retired

Greb probably had a peak middleweight fight but there's no footage

Obama
06-11-2009, 05:38 PM
Spinks did have those two wins over Holmes (both were somewhat controversial especially the latter) but aside from that he didn't do much at heavyweight other than beat a seemingly unmotivated Cooney.

Qawi was a great light heavyweight but I wouldn't consider him the number 2 at cruiserweight. He never had much of a heavyweight career.

Cooney was a great prospect but in the end he didn't accomplish all that much. Norton, Young and Lyle were pretty much done by the time Cooney got to them and he never fought against the likes of Weaver, Coetzee, Dokes, Witherspoon and others.

I agree about Witherspoon and I rate him rather highly. He was possibly the third best heavyweight behind Tyson and Holmes during the 80's.

I don't see how your points keep them from being semi-elite fighters. They were CLEARLY above the B level competition. But, whatever.

Now I want to know who your top 5 CWs are.

TheGreatA
06-11-2009, 05:46 PM
I don't see how your points keep them from being semi-elite fighters. They were CLEARLY above the B level competition. But, whatever.

Now I want to know who your top 5 CWs are.

My argument is that Spinks and Qawi were A-class light heavyweights but only B at heavyweight, especially Qawi who never found any success there. Cooney in my opinion never proved himself to be A-class.

Qawi's cruiserweight resume is not all that great. He only had wins over Piet Crous, Lee Roy Murphy and Leon Spinks at that weight as well as the great effort against Holyfield the first time. He was beaten twice by Holyfield, once by Ossie Ocasio as well as Robert Daniels.

Carlos DeLeon is in my opinion the number 2 at that weight. Other good cruiserweights were Johnny Nelson, David Haye, JC Gomez, Juan Marc Mormeck, O'Neil Bell, Tomasz Adamek, Vassiliy Jirov, Al Cole, Anaclet Wamba and Qawi rates somewhere among them.

Jim Jeffries
06-11-2009, 05:55 PM
ROFL at Gerry Cooney being an A/A- level fighter. Sparked by Michael fricken Spinks at the prime age of 30 is about all you need to know. Hyped beyond belief after a few wins over some corpses for the Holmes matchup and never did anything of note, ever again.

Obama
06-11-2009, 06:18 PM
My argument is that Spinks and Qawi were A-class light heavyweights but only B at heavyweight, especially Qawi who never found any success there. Cooney in my opinion never proved himself to be A-class.

Qawi's cruiserweight resume is not all that great. He only had wins over Piet Crous, Lee Roy Murphy and Leon Spinks at that weight as well as the great effort against Holyfield the first time. He was beaten twice by Holyfield, once by Ossie Ocasio as well as Robert Daniels.

Carlos DeLeon is in my opinion the number 2 at that weight. Other good cruiserweights were Johnny Nelson, David Haye, JC Gomez, Juan Marc Mormeck, O'Neil Bell, Tomasz Adamek, Vassiliy Jirov, Al Cole, Anaclet Wamba and Qawi rates somewhere among them.

Sigh, stop paying attention to fights a guy has after he's over the hill. Anything after the first Holyfield fight is meaningless. And resume isn't everything, CW division simply didn't have much talent. Qawi is clearly above all the guys you mentioned there aside from DeLeon. James Toney was a better CW than damn near all of those guys. I think you're just basing your list on record / time spent in the division.

ROFL at Gerry Cooney being an A/A- level fighter. Sparked by Michael fricken Spinks at the prime age of 30 is about all you need to know. Hyped beyond belief after a few wins over some corpses for the Holmes matchup and never did anything of note, ever again.

Uh, anything Cooney did post Holmes is irrelevant. His prime ended there and then. At the TIME however, he was clearly an A- fighter. You're undefeated and destroy 3 B level guys back to back to back, then lose to a top 5 ATG Heavyweight, and somehow you're not even A-? Come now.

TheGreatA
06-11-2009, 06:24 PM
Sigh, stop paying attention to fights a guy has after he's over the hill. Anything after the first Holyfield fight is meaningless. And resume isn't everything, CW division simply didn't have much talent. Qawi is clearly above all the guys you mentioned there aside from DeLeon. James Toney was a better CW than damn near all of those guys. I think you're just basing your list on record / time spent in the division.

That's basically what you have to base it on.

Qawi was very good but he did very little at cruiserweight compared to some of the others and I wouldn't rate his head-to-head abilities as a cruiserweight very high either due to his obvious limitations.

Qawi was basically over the hill for all of his cruiserweight career, so in that case it should just be ignored completely.

My real point however was that he should not be considered A-class as a heavyweight by any means.

Obama
06-11-2009, 06:30 PM
That's basically what you have to base it on.

Qawi was very good but he did very little at cruiserweight compared to some of the others and I wouldn't rate his head-to-head abilities as a cruiserweight very high either due to his obvious limitations.

Qawi was basically over the hill for all of his cruiserweight career, so in that case it should just be ignored completely.

My real point however was that he should not be considered A-class as a heavyweight by any means.

A = elite
A- = semi-elite

I'm not calling him elite material. But before he was over the hill, semi elite is about right. Consider it B+ if you must. It's still better than B.

Jim Jeffries
06-11-2009, 06:38 PM
Uh, anything Cooney did post Holmes is irrelevant. His prime ended there and then. At the TIME however, he was clearly an A- fighter. You're undefeated and destroy 3 B level guys back to back to back, then lose to a top 5 ATG Heavyweight, and somehow you're not even A-? Come now.

So Cooney's prime ended at 27? Young, Lyle and Norton were completely shot by the time they faced Cooney. Who else did he fight to make him A-?

Obama
06-11-2009, 06:52 PM
So Cooney's prime ended at 27? Young, Lyle and Norton were completely shot by the time they faced Cooney. Who else did he fight to make him A-?

They were not COMPLETELY shot. And his prime ended because he stopped training after the Holmes fight. He was built as the Great White Hope, and let his people down. He never recovered emotionally.

Norton had just beaten an undefeated Randall Cobb.
Lyle beat Scott LeDoux 1.5 years before, then won 2 of his next 3 (against nobodies I know) OK, Lyle was B- at best.
And Jimmy Young simply was not even over the hill. He simply got robbed a lot. He hadn't really lost a fight since Ernie Shavers knocked him out when he was still green. That was the last time he was KOed prior to Cooney getting the job done. KOing Young was not easy, Foreman couldn't do it and got exposed terribly.

Kid McCoy
06-11-2009, 06:54 PM
So Cooney's prime ended at 27? Young, Lyle and Norton were completely shot by the time they faced Cooney. Who else did he fight to make him A-?

Norton and Lyle were well done by the time Cooney faced them, which is probably why he was matched with them. In fact both retired afterwards. Young was a decent win, though. He trained hard for Cooney and was desperate to get a shot at Holmes. He made a decent fist of it too and was very unlucky with the cut.

Cooney's management did right by him, they matched him carefully against some well-known but fading names to build up the hype and got him a superfight and massive payday against Holmes. But that's all. He was never really elite, or even semi-elite.

Obama
06-11-2009, 06:58 PM
Yea well no ordinary fighter ever beat Cooney, even after he was past his prime. The guys Cooney did beat, he destroyed. Give the man the benefit of the doubt. If you had to guess, the smart money would be to say he was semi-elite.

Jim Jeffries
06-11-2009, 07:00 PM
Norton and Lyle were well done by the time Cooney faced them, which is probably why he was matched with them. In fact both retired afterwards. Young was a decent win, though. He trained hard for Cooney and was desperate to get a shot at Holmes. He made a decent fist of it too and was very unlucky with the cut.

Cooney's management did right by him, they matched him carefully against some well-known but fading names to build up the hype and got him a superfight and massive payday against Holmes. But that's all. He was never really elite, or even semi-elite.

Cosign and out. I won't respond to the guy who says "Cooney let his people down in the Holmes fight."

Obama
06-11-2009, 07:30 PM
Cosign and out. I won't respond to the guy who says "Cooney let his people down in the Holmes fight."

You're reading into that too much. Doesn't mean I personally think he did. Nor do I think the racial attitude at the time was right. But it was definitely there. And Cooney definitely never recovered psychologically.

Silencers
06-12-2009, 04:16 AM
I think the 70s were the best time for the heavyweights. I mean the division was loaded with talent. Pretty much all the top 15 to 20 ranked heavyweights of the time could have been top contenders/titlists in any era of the division.

I prefer the 90s over the 80s as well.

LondonRingRules
06-12-2009, 04:33 PM
The term "golden age of bla bla bla" is thrown around too loosely.

One era misconception I'm aware of, assuming it's a misconception, is that the 70's was the "golden age" of heavyweights. I don't buy it, plain and simple. I don't care how many names you rattle off, videos of the 70s do not impress me and I watch a lot of videos and am very open minded about the past.

The other one I'm aware of is the notion that Ray Robinson's era was the "golden age" of middleweights. Again, I don't care how many names, those videos do not impress me. They're not bad - Ray was in some good fights. But I don't think it was the toughest era.

** It's no misconception that nobody is impressed with you no matter how you rattle on.

Thanks for sparing us the need to name names. POOF, you'll be gone with nary a trace or a thought you ever existed, and a new golden age of kiddies will start............:yeah:

bklynboy
06-12-2009, 05:53 PM
They were not COMPLETELY shot. And his prime ended because he stopped training after the Holmes fight. He was built as the Great White Hope, and let his people down. He never recovered emotionally.


Cooney had some talent but he didn't like to box and despised the label "White Hope". Every time someone mentioned it he would clam up. The man, as I understand it, didn't have a passion for the sport; was not comfortable in the spotlight and wanted nothing to do with the "White Hope" label.

By saying he didn't "have a passion for the sport" I mean that he wasn't single-minded on being the best and to-hell-with-what-everyone-else-is-saying. The other stuff bothered him and certainly interefered with his career. He would never have become an ATG but he would have fought a lot more and done a lot more.

bklynboy
06-12-2009, 06:00 PM
The term "golden age of bla bla bla" is thrown around too loosely.

One era misconception I'm aware of, assuming it's a misconception, is that the 70's was the "golden age" of heavyweights. I don't buy it, plain and simple. I don't care how many names you rattle off, videos of the 70s do not impress me and I watch a lot of videos and am very open minded about the past.



If the 70s weren't the golden age of heavyweight boxing which era was?

The 20s with Dempsey riding high? The 30s with Louis?

You make a statement like that and you need to back it up, unless you're just trolling.

Sugarj
06-12-2009, 07:17 PM
I agree, if the 70s weren't one of the best eras of heavyweight boxing, what was?

Video footage prior to the Dempsey era was sparse at best and we have to rely on legend and contempory accounts.

No one can say that the 20s were amazing for heavyweight boxing, much as I love Dempsey, Tunney, Sharkey and the rest. Dempsey only defended his title five or six times between 1919 and 1923 and then didn't defend till three years later in 1926! By any standards this is poor, even though the fights were great when they happened and generated the first million dollar gates.

The 30s were pretty good by hollywood, glitzy standards and colourful characters like Max Baer, Tony Gallento, Max Schmelling and Primo Carnera certainly brought plenty of headline attention. When WW2 was looming the Schmelling fights with Joe Louis grabbed alot of attention but to be honest Louis was the only true all time great in the era.

The 40s simply highlighted Louis's dominance until his decline set in, evidenced most in the Jersey Joe Walcott fights in the late 40s. He was head and shoulders above the opposition and WW2 certainly got in the way of his activity. Not a truely dramatic era in heavyweight boxing.

The 50s were more interesting, Ezzard Charles and Walcott having something like four wars with each other before Marciano came along and beat both twice each in great fights. To be honest the Marciano reign was pretty short lived, albeit dramatic! Then things moved on to Floyd Patterson who was fast, powerful but exciting largely due to his lack of punch resistance.

The 60s was a great era for heavyweight boxing. Plenty of excitement came from Patterson and Johansson as they swapped titles and repeatedly bounced each other off the canvas. Sonny Liston was grabbing as many headlines for his lifestyle outside boxing as his sheer force inside the ring. His rise to the top was savage, his fights with Cleveland Williams then Floyd Patterson were sheer violence. Then young Cassius came along with all the poems and predictions, stops Liston twice then embarks on wowing fans with his amazing ability until the 1967 Vietnam suspension. The era closes with Foreman winning gold at the Olympics whilst Frazier wipes through the likes of Quarry and Ellis in exciting fights.

The 70s was terrific, superfight after superfight, almost too many to list, with fighters of similar ability, full of drama.

Think:

Ali Frazier 1
Forman Frazier 1
Ali Foreman
The Ali Norton Fights
Ali Frazier 3
Lyle Foreman
J.Young Foreman
Ali Shavers
Shavers Holmes 2
Holmes Norton
Shavers Norton

Can any other era boast fights like these? Boxing purists surely must be impressed by the skills of Ali and Holmes at least! The Rocky films helped the latter part of the decade too.

The 80s were exciting because of the rise of Tyson. To be honest the first five years were dominated by Holmes and the second five Tyson. These two were clearly head and shoulders above the rest so I wouldn't say the era was too celebrated. Michael Spinks, Tony Tucker and Tim Witherspoon, were clearly the best of the rest in an era of crackhead contenders!

The 90s was an amazing era for boxing. It starts with Tyson losing the title in the Buster Douglas drama, and coming back into number one contender position with some savage wins and then two exciting wars with Razor Ruddock before getting jailed for rape. In the meantime Holyfield and Bowe swap titles in amazing fights, Michael Moorer has some good performances, notably against Holyfield. Lennox Lewis seems to be the most exciting newcomer with his second round KO of Ruddock, until he runs into Oliver McCall's right hand! The Foreman comeback gains credibility with great shows against Cooney, Holyfield and then wins the title back in his mid 40s with the KO over Moorer, amazing! All this before 1995!! Colourful fighters like Tommy Morrision, Herbie Hide and the ever present Larry Holmes kept fans glued too! The late 90s were memorable for the Tyson comeback, which was pretty exciting until he met Holyfield and both those fights were exciting if controversial! Then the era closes with the colourful Andrew Golota, beating Bowe up twice, losing by DQ twice then getting pulverised by Lennox Lewis who clearly dominates the late 90s with exciting fights with McCall, Holyfield and future champ Shannon Briggs. A great era!

This decade: Oh dear! Whilst not without drama this decade is clearly a weak one. That said it started well with Lennox Lewis's dominance, exciting fights with Michael Grant, David Tua, both fights with Rahman, Tyson and then Vitali Klitchko were clearly good for the fans. Tyson excited with several non title affairs too, plus Roy Jones's win over John Ruiz was a great achievement! The last few years have been dominated by the influx of dominant eastern European champions, some very tallented but without consistency in performances, drama or headlines. To be honest the Klitchkos have been involved in some great fights, but also really boring ones too. Injuries and temporary retirements plus the lack of one really dominant champion will no doubt ensure that this last era becomes largely forgotten!

I'd honestly say that the 60s, 70s and 90s were the best eras.

bklynboy
06-12-2009, 07:58 PM
I agree, if the 70s weren't one of the best eras of heavyweight boxing, what was?

Video footage prior to the Dempsey era was sparse at best and we have to rely on legend and contempory accounts.

No one can say that the 20s were amazing for heavyweight boxing, much as I love Dempsey, Tunney, Sharkey and the rest. Dempsey only defended his title five or six times between 1919 and 1923 and then didn't defend till three years later in 1926! By any standards this is poor, even though the fights were great when they happened and generated the first million dollar gates.

The 30s were pretty good by hollywood, glitzy standards and colourful characters like Max Baer, Tony Gallento, Max Schmelling and Primo Carnera certainly brought plenty of headline attention. When WW2 was looming the Schmelling fights with Joe Louis grabbed alot of attention but to be honest Louis was the only true all time great in the era.

The 40s simply highlighted Louis's dominance until his decline set in, evidenced most in the Jersey Joe Walcott fights in the late 40s. He was head and shoulders above the opposition and WW2 certainly got in the way of his activity. Not a truely dramatic era in heavyweight boxing.

The 50s were more interesting, Ezzard Charles and Walcott having something like four wars with each other before Marciano came along and beat both twice each in great fights. To be honest the Marciano reign was pretty short lived, albeit dramatic! Then things moved on to Floyd Patterson who was fast, powerful but exciting largely due to his lack of punch resistance.

The 60s was a great era for heavyweight boxing. Plenty of excitement came from Patterson and Johansson as they swapped titles and repeatedly bounced each other off the canvas. Sonny Liston was grabbing as many headlines for his lifestyle outside boxing as his sheer force inside the ring. His rise to the top was savage, his fights with Cleveland Williams then Floyd Patterson were sheer violence. Then young Cassius came along with all the poems and predictions, stops Liston twice then embarks on wowing fans with his amazing ability until the 1967 Vietnam suspension. The era closes with Foreman winning gold at the Olympics whilst Frazier wipes through the likes of Quarry and Ellis in exciting fights.

The 70s was terrific, superfight after superfight, almost too many to list, with fighters of similar ability, full of drama.

Think:

Ali Frazier 1
Forman Frazier 1
Ali Foreman
The Ali Norton Fights
Ali Frazier 3
Lyle Foreman
J.Young Foreman
Ali Shavers
Shavers Holmes 2
Holmes Norton
Shavers Norton

Can any other era boast fights like these? Boxing purists surely must be impressed by the skills of Ali and Holmes at least! The Rocky films helped the latter part of the decade too.

The 80s were exciting because of the rise of Tyson. To be honest the first five years were dominated by Holmes and the second five Tyson. These two were clearly head and shoulders above the rest so I wouldn't say the era was too celebrated. Michael Spinks, Tony Tucker and Tim Witherspoon, were clearly the best of the rest in an era of crackhead contenders!

The 90s was an amazing era for boxing. It starts with Tyson losing the title in the Buster Douglas drama, and coming back into number one contender position with some savage wins and then two exciting wars with Razor Ruddock before getting jailed for rape. In the meantime Holyfield and Bowe swap titles in amazing fights, Michael Moorer has some good performances, notably against Holyfield. Lennox Lewis seems to be the most exciting newcomer with his second round KO of Ruddock, until he runs into Oliver McCall's right hand! The Foreman comeback gains credibility with great shows against Cooney, Holyfield and then wins the title back in his mid 40s with the KO over Moorer, amazing! All this before 1995!! Colourful fighters like Tommy Morrision, Herbie Hide and the ever present Larry Holmes kept fans glued too! The late 90s were memorable for the Tyson comeback, which was pretty exciting until he met Holyfield and both those fights were exciting if controversial! Then the era closes with the colourful Andrew Golota, beating Bowe up twice, losing by DQ twice then getting pulverised by Lennox Lewis who clearly dominates the late 90s with exciting fights with McCall, Holyfield and future champ Shannon Briggs. A great era!

This decade: Oh dear! Whilst not without drama this decade is clearly a weak one. That said it started well with Lennox Lewis's dominance, exciting fights with Michael Grant, David Tua, both fights with Rahman, Tyson and then Vitali Klitchko were clearly good for the fans. Tyson excited with several non title affairs too, plus Roy Jones's win over John Ruiz was a great achievement! The last few years have been dominated by the influx of dominant eastern European champions, some very tallented but without consistency in performances, drama or headlines. To be honest the Klitchkos have been involved in some great fights, but also really boring ones too. Injuries and temporary retirements plus the lack of one really dominant champion will no doubt ensure that this last era becomes largely forgotten!

I'd honestly say that the 60s, 70s and 90s were the best eras.

Great post.

I wasn't ranking the decades, just trying to get the OP to give his ideas. But to continue the discussion and to try and see what other decade beside the 70s could be considered the best I'll give it a go.

I think that the 60s and 70s were the two best decades. I think that the 30s, 50s and 90s battle it out for next three positions, followed by the 20s, 80s and 2000s. (I'm not ranking the 1900s and 1910s).

From reputation the 00s were a great decade, but I can't judge it. By reputation they would be a toss-up with the 60s and 70s.

The 1910s, like the 1900s is also hard to judge especially with the Johnson troubles and inactivity among the champions.

The 1920s as the above poster wrote were too short of fights to be ranked as the "GREATEST DECADE"

The 30s were great for drama and in that I think it probably ties with the 90s (Louis, Primo and Braddock) but it had in addition, a dominant chamption in Louis.

The 40s -80s Agree with above post

The 90s I probably rank lower than most in that there wasn't a representative fighter or pair of fighters that dominated the era.
Tyson had his melt down. Lewis had potential but, for whatever reasons, never capitalized on it. The Foreman saga had drama, I rooted whole heartedly for him but look at the Axel Foley (spelling) fight. Big George lost that fight. That was one of the few times I was happy about a bad decision / robbery as Foley did not deserve to be called HW Champion. But he definately beat Foreman that night. Holyfield is the closest I can think of as a man who leads his era.

All in all the 1990s had potential, massive potential, but IMO fell short.

Sugarj
06-12-2009, 08:23 PM
Good stuff!

I guess I quite enjoyed living through the 90s era of heavyweight boxing, dominant champs aside. It seemed full of drama and some great fighters. I think the peak Bowe, Holyfield and Lewis would give any fighters in history trouble. I'd agree with you that Holyfield probably just shades the decade, but its so close, its hard to argue against two Bowe defeats and both Lennox Lewis fights, that said I thought Holyfield may have been a touch unlucky in the Lewis rematch. That was Holyfield's last great performance for me.

Oh and it was Axel Schultz who had the close fight with Foreman, he did definitely land more punches. But to be honest Moorer beat Schultz fairly decisively and would have done even if Schultz was granted the crown. If Moorer had beaten Foreman he too could have been a well decorated heavyweight of the decade, but his chin would have surely been too fragile to have realistically expected him to beat the likes of Bowe, Tyson or Lewis. He did have two entertaining fights with Holyfield though, a win a piece.

bklynboy
06-12-2009, 08:56 PM
Oh and it was Axel Schultz who had the close fight with Foreman, he did definitely land more punches.

My bad, that's not the first time I mixed up Axel Schultz with Axel Foley (Eddie Murphy's character in Beverly Hills Cop).

CCobra
06-13-2009, 03:28 PM
Whatever era you want to call Dempsey, Wills, Langford, Jeannette, McVea, and Fulton is cleary the most top heavy era to ever have existed. Problem was Dempsey only fought Fulton. :rofl:

I don't think it was Dempsey's fault that he didn't fight Wills or Langford. First off, Langford was way over the hill by the time Dempsey was Heavyweight champion of the world. Langford was beaten by Tate (Dempsey's sparring partner) on numerous occasions as well as being knocked out by Fulton (who in my eyes is neck and neck with Sharkey as being Dempsey's best victories). As for the Wills fight it is definitely not the fault of Dempsey for the fight occuring. Muldoon, Kearns & Rickard all opposed the fight happening and instead opted for Tunney at the time the fight was perhaps at the peeks of its interest. I know that Dempsey outright refused to fight Jeanette but it was when he was on the rise and suffered a beating at the hands of another black fighter (Johnson) not long before the pair were to meet.

Kinetic Linking
06-15-2009, 08:41 PM
I'd make one big suggestion to those of you who disagree with me. There are videos of all the eras I'm comparing, and I'd suggest basing your arguments on those videos. Statistics matter but they don't mean a lot when compared to a video.

I've watched a fair amount of video, and I consider there to be no comparison between the 20s and the 70s. The 70's was a peak, but not as big a peak as the 20s.

JAB5239
06-15-2009, 09:57 PM
I'd make one big suggestion to those of you who disagree with me. There are videos of all the eras I'm comparing, and I'd suggest basing your arguments on those videos. Statistics matter but they don't mean a lot when compared to a video.

I've watched a fair amount of video, and I consider there to be no comparison between the 20s and the 70s. The 70's was a peak, but not as big a peak as the 20s.

Video would very well be the end all if it was a fair comparison, but it isn't. You simply can't see certain nuances on older film that was taken from a distance with only one angle and at a speed that left out many frames. It is very important to take into consideration the newspaper accounts of the day and eye witness testimony. This will give you a better idea of how fighters from long gone era's really fought instead of just judging on crappy old footage. This isn't directed to you KL, but to the many people who blindly judge without having all the facts together.

Obama
06-16-2009, 09:56 PM
I don't think it was Dempsey's fault that he didn't fight Wills or Langford. First off, Langford was way over the hill by the time Dempsey was Heavyweight champion of the world. Langford was beaten by Tate (Dempsey's sparring partner) on numerous occasions as well as being knocked out by Fulton (who in my eyes is neck and neck with Sharkey as being Dempsey's best victories). As for the Wills fight it is definitely not the fault of Dempsey for the fight occuring. Muldoon, Kearns & Rickard all opposed the fight happening and instead opted for Tunney at the time the fight was perhaps at the peeks of its interest. I know that Dempsey outright refused to fight Jeanette but it was when he was on the rise and suffered a beating at the hands of another black fighter (Johnson) not long before the pair were to meet.

There are no excuses to be made for Dempsey before he became Champion however. He solidified that he was elite when he beat Fulton in 1918. Langford, Jeannette, and McVea weren't prime anymore but still very dangerous opponents. I also don't see why he couldn't have fought them on his way up like Wills did, why are they only relevant after he became Champion? Wills had fought ALL 3 of those guys while they were still in their prime in the first 4 years of his career, fighting Jeannette a mere 2.4 years into his career, and he'd fight all of them over 20 times throughout his career, in addition to 1 fight with Fulton. Dempsey had fought 1 elite Heavyweight in his first 4 years (Fulton, 1 time), then not again until 8 more years down the road.

Would things have been different if Dempsey's career started 4 years earlier like Wills' did? I'd say maybe but there's no evidence to indicate that considering he only stepped in the ring with a credible Black opponent once, John Lester Johnson, who was a B level fighter. I figure the fact that he didn't win has a bearing on him never stepping in the ring with one again.

Also, it's never mattered to Whites before or after if they were fighting elite Black fighters past their prime. Sharkey didn't care that Wills was washed up. Jeffries didn't care that Peter Jackson was washed up. Was Dempsey more "noble" than them or was it simply because by 1918 Langford, Jeannette, and McVea weren't washed up yet, and still had moments of greatness left in them.

As for Wills being side stepped for Tunney, you do realize Wills was already 37 years old at that point? Less than a month after Tunney beats Dempsey (31 years old), Sharkey beats Wills. If the fight was to be made at the most meaningful time, it would have needed to happen a couple years before Dempsey went on his 3 year hiatus. When Dempsey became Champion, Wills was 30 years old. So who was trying to sign a contract at this point?

Spartacus Sully
06-16-2009, 11:45 PM
Historically the golden age is the time before the time before the time when everthing was in its rawest and most perfect form. alot of stuff happened in boxing between the greek ages of slaves boxing for their master and when the queensbury came out with his rules.

I think your going to have to go back alot farther then 100 years if you want to find a golden age.

LondonRingRules
06-17-2009, 12:59 PM
There are no excuses to be made for Dempsey before he became Champion however. He solidified that he was elite when he beat Fulton in 1918. Langford, Jeannette, and McVea weren't prime anymore but still very dangerous opponents. I also don't see why he couldn't have fought them on his way up like Wills did, why are they only relevant after he became Champion? Wills had fought ALL 3 of those guys while they were still in their prime in the first 4 years of his career, fighting Jeannette a mere 2.4 years into his career, and he'd fight all of them over 20 times throughout his career, in addition to 1 fight with Fulton. Dempsey had fought 1 elite Heavyweight in his first 4 years (Fulton, 1 time), then not again until 8 more years down the road.


** Less than zero excuses for your racial baiting Obamy. I'd remind you again that your giving our noble president a bad name and need to swap out your name.

Of course, since he's half white, yeah, do a hatchet job on him, eh?

Facts are meaningless to you as you repeat the same weary long disproven mantra over and over again and again with no end in sight. No wonder Malcolm left your little black glee club on the dark side of the moon.


We're all still laughin' how Oscar and Ricky were A-level fighters when Floydy fought them but only B level fighters when Manny took on Floydy's abandoned rematch obligations and obliterated them like they were D-level fighters.

That's at you Obamy, not with you.

JMM-PAC
06-17-2009, 01:13 PM
** Less than zero excuses for your racial baiting Obamy. I'd remind you again that your giving our noble president a bad name and need to swap out your name.

Of course, since he's half white, yeah, do a hatchet job on him, eh?

Facts are meaningless to you as you repeat the same weary long disproven mantra over and over again and again with no end in sight. No wonder Malcolm left your little black glee club on the dark side of the moon.


We're all still laughin' how Oscar and Ricky were A-level fighters when Floydy fought them but only B level fighters when Manny took on Floydy's abandoned rematch obligations and obliterated them like they were D-level fighters.

That's at you Obamy, not with you.

WHAT? :bigeyes: You never make no sense, i never understand a word of what you say!

Obama
06-17-2009, 01:13 PM
** Less than zero excuses for your racial baiting Obamy. I'd remind you again that your giving our noble president a bad name and need to swap out your name.

Of course, since he's half white, yeah, do a hatchet job on him, eh?

Facts are meaningless to you as you repeat the same weary long disproven mantra over and over again and again with no end in sight. No wonder Malcolm left your little black glee club on the dark side of the moon.


We're all still laughin' how Oscar and Ricky were A-level fighters when Floydy fought them but only B level fighters when Manny took on Floydy's abandoned rematch obligations and obliterated them like they were D-level fighters.

That's at you Obamy, not with you.

They were semi-elite, and downgraded to good. Most people with common sense would agree with that. They visibly became different fighters after Floyd beat them.

And how many times do you have to get racist? You've been rude to me every post you've ever made.

What's odd is what you quoted was not opinion based whatsoever...I stated facts, and asked a question. So what are you crying about?

Jim Jeffries
06-17-2009, 05:17 PM
WHAT? :bigeyes: You never make no sense, i never understand a word of what you say!

:lol1::lol1:

Anyway. Lol at Obama criticizing a 5-0-2 Jeffries for fighting a past prime Peter Jackson, while slamming Dempsey for not fighting a past prime Langford while on the way up. No credit for pre prime Jim but full credit for prime Jack Johnson for fighting an equally past it (but much more inactive) Jim. Double standards son, and we all know why you have em. You've been a disappointment during your stay with us, much like your namesake.

Obama
06-17-2009, 06:17 PM
:lol1::lol1:

Anyway. Lol at Obama criticizing a 5-0-2 Jeffries for fighting a past prime Peter Jackson, while slamming Dempsey for not fighting a past prime Langford while on the way up. No credit for pre prime Jim but full credit for prime Jack Johnson for fighting an equally past it (but much more inactive) Jim. Double standards son, and we all know why you have em. You've been a disappointment during your stay with us, much like your namesake.

Yet another racist.

Since you don't know how to read very well, I'll clear up some of your idiotic assumptions:

I consider Johnson's win over Jeffries on the same level as his win over these guys:

Frank Childs (x2), George Gardner, Denver Ed Martin (x2), Jack Munroe, Morris Harris, Bob Fitzsimmons, Tony Ross, Frank Moran, Tom Cowler, and Jack Thompson

As for Jeffries win over Jackson, I don't consider that noteworthy because Jackson was WAY WAY past it. He was past his prime before he retired, and came out of retirement. He was completely shot. Jeffries on the other hand retired in his prime. Jeffries was 35 when he met Johnson, with little wear and tear over his professional career. Jackson was a little older when he met Jeffries, with much more wear and tear over his career, and would be dead from tuberculosis within 3 years.

Bottom line, Johnson fought a B level fighter, Jeffries fought a C level fighter. And besides, I rate Jeffries over Jackson.

them_apples
06-17-2009, 06:33 PM
They were semi-elite, and downgraded to good. Most people with common sense would agree with that. They visibly became different fighters after Floyd beat them.

And how many times do you have to get racist? You've been rude to me every post you've ever made.

What's odd is what you quoted was not opinion based whatsoever...I stated facts, and asked a question. So what are you crying about?

stop saying "anyone with common sense would agree with that" to back up your own statements. I disagree with just about every racially biased post you write.

Obama
06-17-2009, 06:57 PM
stop saying "anyone with common sense would agree with that" to back up your own statements. I disagree with just about every racially biased post you write.

a) You're an idiot

b) There's nothing racially biased about any of my posts. A smart person would realize that.

Jim Jeffries
06-17-2009, 07:21 PM
Yet another racist.

Since you don't know how to read very well, I'll clear up some of your idiotic assumptions:

I consider Johnson's win over Jeffries on the same level as his win over these guys:

Frank Childs (x2), George Gardner, Denver Ed Martin (x2), Jack Munroe, Morris Harris, Bob Fitzsimmons, Tony Ross, Frank Moran, Tom Cowler, and Jack Thompson

As for Jeffries win over Jackson, I don't consider that noteworthy because Jackson was WAY WAY past it. He was past his prime before he retired, and came out of retirement. He was completely shot. Jeffries on the other hand retired in his prime. Jeffries was 35 when he met Johnson, with little wear and tear over his professional career. Jackson was a little older when he met Jeffries, with much more wear and tear over his career, and would be dead from tuberculosis within 3 years.

Bottom line, Johnson fought a B level fighter, Jeffries fought a C level fighter. And besides, I rate Jeffries over Jackson.

Well if Jeffries was still a B level fighter after SIX YEARS without a fight, no wonder people were still calling him the third greatest HW that ever lived back in the early 70's.

You are able to realize the difference between a 7 fight Jeffries and a prime Johnson and put their respective opposition in context, aren't you? And easy with the racist accusations there Flawless.

Sugarj
06-17-2009, 07:22 PM
Hi Kinetic, Nice to find another boxing historian who likes the 20s. Rather than just being a 'stat guy' I have actually watched these films from the 20s and so on, as many Dempsey fights as I can get hold of, to be honest not all the film's quality were great and he only fought a handfull of times in the 20s.

Whilst the 20s was a boom time for heavyweight boxing, the public tended to love their champions based on their legend, not everyone got to see title defenses on cinema, let alone live. Thats why alot of old time champs like Corbett and Johnson did theatre to see the masses, whereas Dempsey spent nearly as much time in the 20s acting in silent movies, spending time with his sultry movie star wife Estelle Taylor and hob nobbing with Charlie Chaplin, much to the delight of the crowds, who came to see him as he travelled about doing exhibitions, not many fights.

As for the actual fights:

1919 Dempsey Destroys Willard: Its quite a laugh watching the hapless Willard get repeatedly knocked down, but is this fight any better to watch than Foreman vs Frazier in 1973?

1921 (I think) Dempsey vs Carpentier: Was this four round mauling of a light heavy by a heavy any more entertaining than Frazier's forth round destruction of Ellis? Or of his two round obliteration of Bob Foster?

1923 (I think) Dempsey vs Firpo: Great fight, see saw, cant knock it, but it is surely equalled by Lyle vs Foreman?

1926 Dempsey vs Tunney: One sided boxing display by Tunney over 10 rounds, probably bettered by Ali Frazier 2 for this type of performance plus some.

1926 ( I think ) Dempsey vs Sharkey: Interesting come from behind type of win for Dempsey, Surely Young vs Foreman is even more compelling? Or Ali vs Foreman?

1927 Dempsey vs Tunney 2: the best comparision is probably Tyson vs Douglas from the 80s but, the Thrilla in Manilla with Ali vs Frazier 3 eats this alive for viewing pleasure.

Dempsey had a couple of other fights this decade, Gibbons, Brennan etc but the films are a bit cack. Surely Norton vs Holmes or Shavers vs Ali were more crowd pleasing.

The 20s had some great moments but heavyweight boxing was not the spectacle it was in the 70s from a stat or video point of view.

Obama
06-17-2009, 07:33 PM
You are able to realize the difference between a 7 fight Jeffries and a prime Johnson and put their respective opposition in context, aren't you?

Sure. I did not criticize Jeffries for fighting the man, you can't expect to fight credible opposition in every single fight that you have. I got no problem with the fact that the fight happened. You missed the point entirely. Hate makes people blind. This is the case with you.

Jim Jeffries
06-17-2009, 07:39 PM
Sure. I did not criticize Jeffries for fighting the man, you can't expect to fight credible opposition in every single fight that you have. I got no problem with the fact that the fight happened. You missed the point entirely. Hate makes people blind. This is the case with you.

But you hate and belittle Dempsey for not fighting a far past his best Langford? Give Jack no credit because he didn't fight any black fighters during his title reign, all the while praising Jack Johnson, who did the exact same thing.

I agree, hate and racism makes people blind. What is your top 10 ATG HW list again?

Obama
06-17-2009, 07:42 PM
On another note, Bernard Hopkins is about 6 years past his prime as well. Yet I consider him a semi-elite fighter. I can make the same cases for Larry Holmes and George Foreman when they came out of retirement and continued to amaze, beating Ray Mercer and Michal Moorer respectively.

Obama
06-17-2009, 07:45 PM
But you hate and belittle Dempsey for not fighting a far past his best Langford? Give Jack no credit because he didn't fight any black fighters during his title reign, all the while praising Jack Johnson, who did the exact same thing.

I agree, hate and racism makes people blind. What is your top 10 ATG HW list again?

Once again you prove to be unable to comprehend what you read.

For one, in 1918 Langford was still a semi-elite fighter.
For another, I in no way criticized Dempsey for not fighting credible Black opponents after he became Champion. I criticized him for not fighting them before hand, things nearly every other great Heavyweight did aside from him.

LondonRingRules
06-18-2009, 05:42 AM
And how many times do you have to get racist? You've been rude to me every post you've ever made.

What's odd is what you quoted was not opinion based whatsoever...I stated facts, and asked a question. So what are you crying about?

** Hey, Obamy, how many times do I have to tell you, you give our president a bad name. Give the name back it's honor and properly reflect your character, something like IdiAmin4U.

You came on the board slinging sludge, not facts. Facts are you were busted on the last 3 black contenders that you claimed Dempsey ducked. I proved there was near zero overlap of either eras or regions between the fighters.

Dempsey was a regional Western fighter until meeting up with Kearns, so, again there is near ZERO overlap between Dempsey and McVea, Langford, and Jeannette. There was a one month period in NYC where it is possible that he might have bumped into Langford or Jeannette who more likely were a hundred miles away in their hometowns. They were acclaimed and well monied fighters who could hardly be bothered with some hobo drifting into town.

Dempsey himself indicates a con man who ran off his manager with a ruse offered to get him a fight with Langford. Jack says he turned it down because he was living on park benches, being fed at soup kitchens, had a broken rib and still hadn't been paid a dime for his previous efforts. He left town broke and on the rails again once he realized the thing was a scam.

How many times do you have to be told, Jack had little control over his career after Kearns got him until he left Kearns and Rickard to famously sign to meet Wills in what turned out to be a 3 yr retirement to Hollywood? A lifetime would be insufficient in your case.

You didn't bring up the confrontation with Jeannette in the ring circa 1918 when Kearns had him boxing in a series of war fund exhibitions trying to build to the Willard fight because you don't know the first thing about anything that I can see. Dempsey enters the ring and then Jeannette enters the ring to prance around in the opposite corner. Kearns jumps in and a big brouhaha starts with organizers who claim Dempsey's original opponent "has left the building."

Meanwhile, Jack sits in his corner awaiting instructions. Finally Kearns has heard enough and grabs him to leave the ring. Could've been an interesting moment, but Kearn's had been doublecrossed and wasn't taking any chances with hometown decisions in advance of Willard. It was only a 4 rounder with Jeannette starting his last year of boxing, so it would've meant less than his draw with Johnson 2 yrs previous.

You're like the first grader who comes home the first day of school showing everyone how he knows 1+1=2 and is now a renowned mathematician. Except in your case, you've made up imaginary numbers from your imaginary universe. Well, go sell it to your little imaginary friends as real life folks who know what actually went down are just laughing at you or cringing as you drag Obama's presidency through your sludge.

boxxerr
06-18-2009, 06:14 AM
It is not right to just term one phase as an era. There are good fighters emerging each time, so we can only comment on the time frame in which they fought as the best time of theirs if they have proved them self.

BennyST
06-18-2009, 06:31 AM
A = elite
A- = semi-elite

I'm not calling him elite material. But before he was over the hill, semi elite is about right. Consider it B+ if you must. It's still better than B.

We're talking about them when they were heavyweights, as that was the whole point of the conversation. They were mentioned by you as A fighters in that era of heavyweights when they were clearly not. They would have struggled to be B fighters at that stage. Great fighters years before. I think you're missing the point GreatA is making.

BennyST
06-18-2009, 06:35 AM
I don't see how your points keep them from being semi-elite fighters. They were CLEARLY above the B level competition. But, whatever.

Now I want to know who your top 5 CWs are.

It was based on their heavyweight days, not at their best at LHW. The point GreatA was making was based on the heavyweight era of the 80's and 90's.

Obama
06-18-2009, 08:02 AM
You didn't bring up the confrontation with Jeannette in the ring circa 1918 when Kearns had him boxing in a series of war fund exhibitions trying to build to the Willard fight because you don't know the first thing about anything that I can see. Dempsey enters the ring and then Jeannette enters the ring to prance around in the opposite corner. Kearns jumps in and a big brouhaha starts with organizers who claim Dempsey's original opponent "has left the building."

Meanwhile, Jack sits in his corner awaiting instructions. Finally Kearns has heard enough and grabs him to leave the ring. Could've been an interesting moment, but Kearn's had been doublecrossed and wasn't taking any chances with hometown decisions in advance of Willard. It was only a 4 rounder with Jeannette starting his last year of boxing, so it would've meant less than his draw with Johnson 2 yrs previous.


Jeannette's last year was 1922. In 1918 he beat a very good fighter in Kid Norfolk. The fight would have meant less than Dempsey's draw with Lester Johnson 2 years previously? I think not.

JMM-PAC
06-18-2009, 08:40 AM
Jeannette's last year was 1922. In 1918 he beat a very good fighter in Kid Norfolk. The fight would have meant less than Dempsey's draw with Lester Johnson 2 years previously? I think not.

you got him there dude!

LondonRingRules
06-18-2009, 01:37 PM
Jeannette's last year was 1922. In 1918 he beat a very good fighter in Kid Norfolk. The fight would have meant less than Dempsey's draw with Lester Johnson 2 years previously? I think not.


** Agreed, you think not, nor shall you ever think more than NOT.

Jeannette retired in 1919 regardless of who he beat in his twilight years. Had Dempsey fought him and knocked him out in this period, you'd be cracking on Jack for beating a past it Jeannette, ducking him in his prime of 1914.

The 1922 return against Henry Gibson was probably as a favor for some community event. Gibson doesn't even have a record save against Joe and that was the sole card on the venue.

That's you're style kid, not even a decent smoke and mirrors setup, just one stupendous goof after every monumental blunder after a dozen stumbles..........:greddy2::ugh1:

Obama
06-18-2009, 01:48 PM
** Agreed, you think not, nor shall you ever think more than NOT.

Jeannette retired in 1919 regardless of who he beat in his twilight years. Had Dempsey fought him and knocked him out in this period, you'd be cracking on Jack for beating a past it Jeannette, ducking him in his prime of 1914.

The 1922 return against Henry Gibson was probably as a favor for some community event. Gibson doesn't even have a record save against Joe and that was the sole card on the venue.

That's you're style kid, not even a decent smoke and mirrors setup, just one stupendous goof after every monumental blunder after a dozen stumbles..........:greddy2::ugh1:

1) Why did you jump from 1918 to 1919? In 1918 Jeannette proved he was still quite good. Sure he was past his prime, but so what? Dempsey should have fought him. It would have been an upgrade from Lester Johnson regardless.

2) I would never say Dempsey ducked a prime 1914 Jeannette, that's just stupid.

3) Must you insert insults in every post? Does it make you feel like more of a man? You even feel the need to pretend I'm claiming things that I'm not in order to justify your banter. If you feel you must insult me, do what you feel. But keep it real. If I confuse you, ask a question. That's the rational thing to do.

Cuauhtémoc1520
06-18-2009, 02:58 PM
The term "golden age of bla bla bla" is thrown around too loosely.

One era misconception I'm aware of, assuming it's a misconception, is that the 70's was the "golden age" of heavyweights. I don't buy it, plain and simple. I don't care how many names you rattle off, videos of the 70s do not impress me and I watch a lot of videos and am very open minded about the past.

The other one I'm aware of is the notion that Ray Robinson's era was the "golden age" of middleweights. Again, I don't care how many names, those videos do not impress me. They're not bad - Ray was in some good fights. But I don't think it was the toughest era.

I can end this silly argument....

When a 44 year old Foreman can comeback and win the HW title, it shows you how good they were in the 70's.

I don't see how any self respecting boxing fan can say looking at Ali, Foreman, Frasier etc fight and not be impressed....lol

You must look at the space shuttle and think it's nothing more than a paper airplane as well.

Kid McCoy
06-18-2009, 04:07 PM
When a 44 year old Foreman can comeback and win the HW title, it shows you how good they were in the 70's.


I don't see how that argument works. Ali, Frazier, Quarry, Young, Norton, Lyle, Shavers and co were nowhere near a world title at age 45. The same goes for Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Charles, Tyson and virtually any other heavyweight champion. Holmes is really the only other who came close. That was more a testament to Foreman's abilities than how good his first era was.

Obama
06-18-2009, 04:22 PM
Holmes beat Mercer, Foreman beat Moorer. If you pretend Moorer didn't have a title, who's win was better? And who was the better fighter between Mercer and Moorer?

Kid McCoy
06-18-2009, 04:44 PM
Foreman beat Frazier, who was better than anyone Holmes ever beat. Lyle was also arguably better than anyone Holmes beat, and the Norton that Foreman KO'd was closer to his prime than the Norton Holmes got a split decision over. What does that prove?

As for Mercer and Moorer, Moorer beat Holyfield, which surpasses any of Mercer's wins. Moorer also put a decent run together and won two heavyweight titles, whereas Mercer was hot and cold throughout his career. Not much in it really, but Moorer was the more successful of the two.

Cuauhtémoc1520
06-18-2009, 04:52 PM
I don't see how that argument works. Ali, Frazier, Quarry, Young, Norton, Lyle, Shavers and co were nowhere near a world title at age 45. The same goes for Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Charles, Tyson and virtually any other heavyweight champion. Holmes is really the only other who came close. That was more a testament to Foreman's abilities than how good his first era was.

No it's a testament to how poor the HW division was at that time foreman won when 44 yrs of age. There's no way Foreman was anything close to the monster he was when he was in his 20's, yet came back and beat Moore at age 44....

What is there to not understand? The 70's were the best era of HW not because of just big names but because they had the deepest talent.

This is the same reason I think tyson is overrated, he beat up on nobody's and when facing decent competition, he lost.

Obama
06-18-2009, 05:05 PM
Foreman beat Frazier, who was better than anyone Holmes ever beat. Lyle was also arguably better than anyone Holmes beat, and the Norton that Foreman KO'd was closer to his prime than the Norton Holmes got a split decision over. What does that prove?

As for Mercer and Moorer, Moorer beat Holyfield, which surpasses any of Mercer's wins. Moorer also put a decent run together and won two heavyweight titles, whereas Mercer was hot and cold throughout his career. Not much in it really, but Moorer was the more successful of the two.

I said who's win was better against Mercer and Moorer respectively, not who had better wins during their overall career. Also Lyle was definitely not better than Witherspoon. I can't see that being debated really...

As for Moorer beating Holyfield, yea he did, but it wasn't exactly a Holyfield that should have been fighting now was it? Yet he barely beat Holyfield... I'd say Ray Mercer's demolition of Tommy Morrison was more impressive. Even his losses to Lewis and Holyfield were more impressive than any Heavyweight win Moorer had aside from Holyfield. ...Man that was a lot of Holyfields, nearly confused myself.

Obama
06-18-2009, 05:08 PM
No it's a testament to how poor the HW division was at that time foreman won when 44 yrs of age. There's no way Foreman was anything close to the monster he was when he was in his 20's, yet came back and beat Moore at age 44....

What is there to not understand? The 70's were the best era of HW not because of just big names but because they had the deepest talent.

This is the same reason I think tyson is overrated, he beat up on nobody's and when facing decent competition, he lost.

Not sure how you can't call Holmes, Spinks, Tucker, Bruno, and Ruddock decent competition...

Let's be clear with the Moorer fight. Moorer was not an ATG Heavyweight. He was perhaps only the 4th best Heavyweight at the time. He also fought like and idiot. And in fighting like an idiot, he managed to win every minute of every round prior to the KO.

Kid McCoy
06-18-2009, 05:32 PM
I said who's win was better against Mercer and Moorer respectively, not who had better wins during their overall career. Also Lyle was definitely not better than Witherspoon. I can't see that being debated really...

As for Moorer beating Holyfield, yea he did, but it wasn't exactly a Holyfield that should have been fighting now was it? Yet he barely beat Holyfield... I'd say Ray Mercer's demolition of Tommy Morrison was more impressive. Even his losses to Lewis and Holyfield were more impressive than any Heavyweight win Moorer had aside from Holyfield. ...Man that was a lot of Holyfields, nearly confused myself.

I did say arguably, and many would argue whether Holmes really beat Witherspoon at all.

Surely the quality of the opponent's resume has some bearing on how valuable a win is? Like I said, there's not much between Mercer and Moorer, although I give Moorer the edge (I also thought his win over Holyfield was more convincing than the cards suggested). I don't see a win over one as substantially better than a win over the other, ergo not much between Holmes' and Foreman's wins over them. The only difference is Foreman beat the guy who won the title, whereas Holmes didn't.

LondonRingRules
06-18-2009, 07:19 PM
1) Why did you jump from 1918 to 1919? In 1918 Jeannette proved he was still quite good.

Originally Posted by Obama
Jeannette's last year was 1922. In 1918 he beat a very good fighter in Kid Norfolk.




** What part of [Jeannette retired in 1919 regardless of who he beat in his twilight years] do you fail to understand?

You've proven that boxing ain't your forte, but that extends also to English as well. Wrong name, wrong sport, wrong language, wrong universe.

It's like talking to a Ike Ibeabuchi on the street in the tin foil beanie who thinks the sky is made of milk, appliances are space aliens, and that Holmes is anywhere near Foreman's league...:wow:

Obama
06-18-2009, 09:46 PM
** What part of [Jeannette retired in 1919 regardless of who he beat in his twilight years] do you fail to understand?

You've proven that boxing ain't your forte, but that extends also to English as well. Wrong name, wrong sport, wrong language, wrong universe.

It's like talking to a Ike Ibeabuchi on the street in the tin foil beanie who thinks the sky is made of milk, appliances are space aliens, and that Holmes is anywhere near Foreman's league...:wow:

What part of you're the only guy who's talking about 1919 do you not understand? The subject was 1918. Perhaps you are the one with the English difficulties.

But whatever, there is only one fact that matters. The fact that Jack Dempsey, in over 80 fights, never beat 1 single credible Black fighter. Aaaaaaand that's all there is to it. Stop making excuses and get over it.

As for Holmes not being in Foreman's league...that must be a joke. You can't be that delusional.

Ziggy Stardust
06-18-2009, 10:03 PM
As for Holmes not being in Foreman's league...that must be a joke. You can't be that delusional.

He can and he is. LRR is the village idiot. He's made it life's mission to descredit Ali and in his spare time denigrates Holmes, Holyfield, and Hopkins. He's a crackpot pure and simple.

Poet

Cuauhtémoc1520
06-19-2009, 08:44 AM
Not sure how you can't call Holmes, Spinks, Tucker, Bruno, and Ruddock decent competition...

Let's be clear with the Moorer fight. Moorer was not an ATG Heavyweight. He was perhaps only the 4th best Heavyweight at the time. He also fought like and idiot. And in fighting like an idiot, he managed to win every minute of every round prior to the KO.

Holmes was past his prime, wayyyyy past his prime. Tucker was decent, Spinks was overrated and Bruno and ruddock were also decent.


Again though, nothing compaired to the talent level in the 70's. This thread is just silly.

Obama
06-19-2009, 08:25 PM
Spinks was overrated

Only lost to 1 man, Tyson. He's also pretty much universally known as one of the 10 greatest Light Heavyweights of all time, usually in the first 5.

Butttttttt, if you say so.