What do you guys consider a stronger Heavyweight era?

[SCtrojansbaby]

No Im not. From 1978 to 1985 the fighters I named were all in the top 10 at one point or another. I don't even have to look it up, I'd bet my house on it.

And that was leaving Ken Norton out, to boot!

We are talking about 2 different time periods then

[Superflo777]

The 70's being the better of the 2 because they were all hungrier and tougher men, bar Holyfield and maybe Bowe getting a small nod.

Bowe wasn't really hungry, his prime lasted a couple of fights and he lost his will after that.

[JAB5239]

We are talking about 2 different time periods then

I have no idea what you though we were talking about but I was using the timeline for the specified era using the fighters I listed.

[TBear]

Mike Weaver, Dokes, Cobb and Coetzee are no more gifted than Adamek, Haye, Arreola and Povetkin.

I do disagree. It is just not fair comparing the division today to the previous era's.

[JAB5239]

For me the problem with this current era isn't necessarily lack of talent (though the average depth of talent is lower than it has been for quite a while outside the champs) but rather poor matchmaking and the general lackadaisical attitude of its contenders.

The part I bolded was a problem with 78'-85' era too. Most of them just weren't driven. But I see a big gap in the overall skill levels of the two era's. Most of the contenders today are just big. They're not good combination punchers, use little head movement, rarely feint, are not committed body punchers (a huge pet peev of mine) and seldom parry or slip punches.

[Superflo777]

I do disagree. It is just not fair comparing the division today to the previous era's.

Is it fair to not look at the fighters and their skills individually and rate them fair but just belittling because they are fighting in a "bad era" ?

[them_apples]

The part I bolded was a problem with 78'-85' era too. Most of them just weren't driven. But I see a big gap in the overall skill levels of the two era's. Most of the contenders today are just big. They're not good combination punchers, use little head movement, rarely feint, are not committed body punchers (a huge pet peev of mine) and seldom parry or slip punches.

to be fair are they really that big?? they are blown up. Blowing up doesn't benefit you in boxing.

They still got small reaches and average around 6'2-6'3 which has been common in the HW division for a while.

Lifting weights wont make your Bones thicker and your skull and fists larger. As Vitali would say about Ademek. These are the characteristics that make a person hit harder (exclusivity as well) and take a better punch.

[JAB5239]

to be fair are they really that big?? they are blown up. Blowing up doesn't benefit you in boxing.

They still got small reaches and average around 6'2-6'3 which has been common in the HW division for a while.

Lifting weights wont make your Bones thicker and your skull and fists larger. As Vitali would say about Ademek. These are the characteristics that make a person hit harder (exclusivity as well) and take a better punch.

Good point.

[Anthony342]

So there haven't been many strong heavyweight eras? So what are considered the strongest ones? 1920s and 30s? 40s? 60s and 70s perhaps?

[Barn]

So there haven't been many strong heavyweight eras? So what are considered the strongest ones? 1920s and 30s? 40s? 60s and 70s perhaps?

70's and 90's are usually described as the best, with the 70's leading. There's been a lot of average ones as you would expect and it's completely up to the observer whom he thinks is the best era's after them two.