Relatively speaking. This is an oft repeated accusation, which I think is a way to denigrate Tyson and to a lesser extent, Holmes. The 80's generation of heavies introduced the first really skilled super heavies. Almost like the father generation of today's super heavies. For some reason, I consider Holmes an 80's fighter so I'll group him with the 80's for the purpose of this post.
Maybe it's because since it came right after the 70's, people consider it "weak" in comparison. Some things the 70's had going for it was the showmanship and charisma of Muhammad Ali who was really skilled at promoting his own fights and building up public interest, the fact that you had 3 fighters considered ATG's in or near their prime that got to fight one another and it was the first era of boxing shown in color.
But, that aside, if we consider the top talents (excluding the Big 3 Frazier, Foreman, Ali) of the 1970's, they weren't any more remarkable than the top talents of the 80's. Now, the top 70's talents tended to be more consistent, but they weren't really better per se. Think of the following hypothetical fights all at their best versions:
Jerry Quarry vs Michael Spinks
Ron Lyle vs Pinklon Thomas or Bonecrusher Smith
Ken Norton vs Tony Tucker or Tim Witherspoon
Jimmy Ellis vs Buster Douglas
Trevor Berbick vs Earnie Shavers
Jimmy Young vs Tony Tubbs
Now, regardless of who you'd favor, one has to admit, none of the above fights are a foregone conclusion. Out of the matchups above, either has a chance to win it and you really wouldn't expect any blow outs.
Also, the top 80's guys may have been more formidable H2H over the heavyweight contenders of generations past simply due to being bigger along with their skill level and would've likely been top rated contenders in any era of boxing. Some could beat the champions of today or run them very close. Would Tony Tubbs really not make it as a top contender in the 50's? Would Tony Tucker really fail to crack the top 10 in the 60's?
I think the 80's were stronger than many like to give credit for.
Maybe it's because since it came right after the 70's, people consider it "weak" in comparison. Some things the 70's had going for it was the showmanship and charisma of Muhammad Ali who was really skilled at promoting his own fights and building up public interest, the fact that you had 3 fighters considered ATG's in or near their prime that got to fight one another and it was the first era of boxing shown in color.
But, that aside, if we consider the top talents (excluding the Big 3 Frazier, Foreman, Ali) of the 1970's, they weren't any more remarkable than the top talents of the 80's. Now, the top 70's talents tended to be more consistent, but they weren't really better per se. Think of the following hypothetical fights all at their best versions:
Jerry Quarry vs Michael Spinks
Ron Lyle vs Pinklon Thomas or Bonecrusher Smith
Ken Norton vs Tony Tucker or Tim Witherspoon
Jimmy Ellis vs Buster Douglas
Trevor Berbick vs Earnie Shavers
Jimmy Young vs Tony Tubbs
Now, regardless of who you'd favor, one has to admit, none of the above fights are a foregone conclusion. Out of the matchups above, either has a chance to win it and you really wouldn't expect any blow outs.
Also, the top 80's guys may have been more formidable H2H over the heavyweight contenders of generations past simply due to being bigger along with their skill level and would've likely been top rated contenders in any era of boxing. Some could beat the champions of today or run them very close. Would Tony Tubbs really not make it as a top contender in the 50's? Would Tony Tucker really fail to crack the top 10 in the 60's?
I think the 80's were stronger than many like to give credit for.
Comment