Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What decade had the most depth in the hw division

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by TBear View Post
    The seventies have it. I think the 1930's had some great fighters but it did not produce the matches that the 70's did.
    What guys from the 30s stand out for you???

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Holywarrior View Post
      When they all fought eachother. 70s. 60s actually wasn't bad either. 90s too.
      Originally posted by New England View Post
      it's the 70's.


      honorable mentions go to the 90's and the 60's.
      I really can't see how the 60s can be in the discussion. It was a bunch of average fighters in my opinion, incl Floyd Patterson.

      Of course, it was spearheaded by Liston first, then Clay and then Frazier.

      But, maybe aside from Ali-Liston II, there weren't many big big fights happening as Ali wasn't there when Frazier dominated, Patterson ducked Liston for three years before getting sparked out like everyone knew he would.

      A strong division should have multiple fighters who can make interesting fights with each other. I'm not sure I can say that for the 60s.

      70s and 90s were both awesome though. Real good stuff.

      Comment


      • #13
        The 90's HW boxing scene was good ****.

        Foreman
        Morrison
        Lewis
        Tyson
        Holyfield
        Mercer
        Holmes
        Golota
        Tua
        Bruno
        Bowe
        The Klitschko's were emerging

        But like Sugar Adam Ali said,alot of good fights were not made.

        Foreman-Tyson not being made just breaks my heart...I'm a huge Foreman fan I would have loved to have seen them fight. I think Big George would have got the finish.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by BKM-2010 View Post
          90s was almost as good or better than 70s but the division was moving along so fast. A lot of great heavyweights who were only a factor for a short time or in different time periods. What I mean is, if all the heavyweights of the 90s had around the same prime years from the early 90s onwards, we may have seen the best depth ever in the HW division.
          No I don't think the 90s were the best. Sometimes, the best guys didn't fight eachother. Tyson didn't fight a alot of the big guys from the 90s. Same with Bowe. Bowe never fought Tyson or Lewis. Lewis never fought Tyson or Holyfield at their best. Tyson didn't fight guys like Morrison, Foreman, etc.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by young_robbed View Post
            No I don't think the 90s were the best. Sometimes, the best guys didn't fight eachother. Tyson didn't fight a alot of the big guys from the 90s. Same with Bowe. Bowe never fought Tyson or Lewis. Lewis never fought Tyson or Holyfield at their best. Tyson didn't fight guys like Morrison, Foreman, etc.
            We aren't talking about who had the best matchups,, but which era had the most talent and depth,,, I think it is the 90s, and it's a shame that all those fights didn't happen...
            But just because the fights fans wanted to see didn't happen, that shouldn't take away from the depth of talent in that era

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by Sugar Adam Ali View Post
              We aren't talking about who had the best matchups,, but which era had the most talent and depth,,, I think it is the 90s, and it's a shame that all those fights didn't happen...
              But just because the fights fans wanted to see didn't happen, that shouldn't take away from the depth of talent in that era
              Then again the 70s had amazing depth too. We got Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Lyle, Bonavena, Patterson, Holmes, Ellis, Young, Quarry, Shavers, etc. That is incredible era and the best part is most of these guys fought eachother when they could.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by young_robbed View Post
                Then again the 70s had amazing depth too. We got Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Lyle, Bonavena, Patterson, Holmes, Ellis, Young, Quarry, Shavers, etc. That is incredible era and the best part is most of these guys fought eachother when they could.
                90s is still better overall in terms of depth and talent. But yes since everybody fought eachother in the 70s and had a TON of legendary fights because of it, it is the golden era.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Sugar Adam Ali View Post
                  Im not so sure that the 70s were better at the top than the 90s..

                  70s- Past prime Ali, Frazier was past it by 72ish, Prime Foreman, you can even throw in prime ken norton

                  90s- prime tyson, prime lennox, prime holyfield, prime Bowe

                  I think you could make the case that the early 90s had the most prime talent in history,,, 70s guys were still very good, but frazier and ali both i feel were better in the 60s...
                  Like i stated before, the only downfall to the 90s heavyweights were they did not fight each other when it mattered most... except for bowe-holyfield...
                  Tyson wasn't prime in the 90s but I'll give you the others and yes, Ali was on the slide but Foreman was primed and Frazier had a brief period of prime too.

                  Having said that, it just goes to show how good the 70s guys were post prime versions of Ali/Frazier would probably be too much to handle for most of the guys in the 90s, not to mention the fading post 95 version of Holy, the almost shot tyson of the late 90s and the fat, psychologically weak Bowe post-Holy.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by LacedUp View Post
                    I really can't see how the 60s can be in the discussion. It was a bunch of average fighters in my opinion, incl Floyd Patterson.

                    Of course, it was spearheaded by Liston first, then Clay and then Frazier.

                    But, maybe aside from Ali-Liston II, there weren't many big big fights happening as Ali wasn't there when Frazier dominated, Patterson ducked Liston for three years before getting sparked out like everyone knew he would.

                    A strong division should have multiple fighters who can make interesting fights with each other. I'm not sure I can say that for the 60s.

                    70s and 90s were both awesome though. Real good stuff.
                    The 60s had prime Ali, prime Liston, prime Frazier, prime Quarry, Patterson, Johannson, Norton, Machen, Folley, Williams... even if you write off Patterson and the likes as "average" you still have three prime ATGs in the 60s.

                    The 90s had prime Lewis, prime Tyson, and prime Holyfield; I rank Ali, Frazier, and Liston above all three of them.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by LacedUp View Post
                      I really can't see how the 60s can be in the discussion. It was a bunch of average fighters in my opinion, incl Floyd Patterson.

                      Of course, it was spearheaded by Liston first, then Clay and then Frazier.

                      But, maybe aside from Ali-Liston II, there weren't many big big fights happening as Ali wasn't there when Frazier dominated, Patterson ducked Liston for three years before getting sparked out like everyone knew he would.

                      A strong division should have multiple fighters who can make interesting fights with each other. I'm not sure I can say that for the 60s.

                      70s and 90s were both awesome though. Real good stuff.
                      Patterson average?!!?!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP