Era Misconceptions

[bklynboy]

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]

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]

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 ****. 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]

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 ****. 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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?