80's HW's vs. the present HW's

[babulous]

The hw of the 80's ( prime Tyson, Bruno, Tucker, Dokes, Weaver, Smith, the past his time Holmes) vs. The hw's of the present ( klitchko's, Bryd, Ruiz, Brewster, Mesi, Rahman, the past his time Lewis)
Which era was the more dominant? I feel that the era that Tyson went thru is definitely the most difficult era of the 2. It wasn't the toughest era by a long shot, but before we take credit away from Tyson claiming he went thru a weak era, just step back and look at our hw champions of today DQ Ruiz, pitter pat Bryd, robotic frankenstien Vitali & glass joe Wladimir.

[Slapsie Maxie]

The early 80's was a pretty good era ( don't forget to include Pinklon Thomas, who at his best was a problem for everyone )and Tyson had to beat some live ones. Now, we are in bust period of the cycle and, with a couple of exceptions, there is really no one and a prime Tyson would have gone through these like a knife thru butter.

More interesting is what Tyson would have done against the early 90's heavies ( Bowe, Prime Lewis, Mcall,even Mercer, Holy when he just moved up from Cruiser ) He beat Ruddock, but for all the well catalogued reasons, never met these guys or met them when he was past his best.

[theguvnor]

Did Tyson take a leaf out of "Marvelous Marvin Hagler's book and change his name to "Prime Mike Tyson"?.
He gets referred by this name so often in Boxrec, i was wondering if i had missed something

[bollox]

Today's guys are bigger but the 80's fellas were better fighters, although quite a few fall into the Watsed Talent category Good point re: early 90's, here were sone excellent fighters out there

[revporl]

THe 80's was the most medicore decades for the heavys, Holmes aside. I remember the Witherspoon/Page fight, possibly one of the dullest title fights ever, and others involving Thomas, Tubbs et al as a succesion of fat bodies mauling each other into exhaustion/boredom. There was a resurgence in the 90's with Bowe/Holyfield/Tyson/Lewis etc providing some excellent matchups, before the scene abated slightly into what it is now. I would still rate the chances of, say, V Klitschki, Byrd, Sanders over most of the alphabet soup of the mid 80's, but I agree the heavyweight scene needs a bit of a kickstart at the moment.

[Professor X]

The '90's had some great heavyweights, but why couldn't Bowe, Lewis and Tyson have gotten some round-robin action going? That's shameful.

I'd rate the '80s heavyweights and todays heavyweights about even...neither one constitutes a golden era...right down there, maybe, with the Joe Louis "Bum of the Month" era.

[dempseyfire]

I'll still take Witherspoon-Page over Ruiz-Oquendo-did you see that fight?? No fight tops the ugliness of that so-called title squabble. Ruiz-Rahman was right behind it.

Bottom line-Pick ANY era before 2000 and it beats the HWs of today.

Maybe the early-mid 1950s were weaker: with a top ten that looked like this:
1. Archie Moore
2. Bob Baker
3. Tommy Jackson
4. Don Cockell
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Earl Walls, Canada
7. Nino Valdes, Cuba
8. John Holman
9. Franco Cavicchi, Italy
10. Rex Layne

Only an old Charles, Moore, and Valdez were really something to talk about, but I know nothing about Holman, Cavicchi, and Walls.

[Tantum]

Did Tyson take a leaf out of "Marvelous Marvin Hagler's book and change his name to "Prime Mike Tyson"?.
He gets referred by this name so often in Boxrec, i was wondering if i had missed something

Wow.

[tonyevs]

I'll still take Witherspoon-Page over Ruiz-Oquendo-did you see that fight?? No fight tops the ugliness of that so-called title squabble. Ruiz-Rahman was right behind it.

Bottom line-Pick ANY era before 2000 and it beats the HWs of today.

Maybe the early-mid 1950s were weaker: with a top ten that looked like this:
1. Archie Moore
2. Bob Baker
3. Tommy Jackson
4. Don Cockell
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Earl Walls, Canada
7. Nino Valdes, Cuba
8. John Holman
9. Franco Cavicchi, Italy
10. Rex Layne

Only an old Charles, Moore, and Valdez were really something to talk about, but I know nothing about Holman, Cavicchi, and Walls.

And Charles and Moore weren`t even natural heavyweights.

[dempseyfire]

I'll still take Witherspoon-Page over Ruiz-Oquendo-did you see that fight?? No fight tops the ugliness of that so-called title squabble. Ruiz-Rahman was right behind it.

Bottom line-Pick ANY era before 2000 and it beats the HWs of today.

Maybe the early-mid 1950s were weaker: with a top ten that looked like this:
1. Archie Moore
2. Bob Baker
3. Tommy Jackson
4. Don Cockell
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Earl Walls, Canada
7. Nino Valdes, Cuba
8. John Holman
9. Franco Cavicchi, Italy
10. Rex Layne

Only an old Charles, Moore, and Valdez were really something to talk about, but I know nothing about Holman, Cavicchi, and Walls.

And Charles and Moore weren`t even natural heavyweights.

Yeah but neither are Toney and Byrd and Moore and Charles are twice the fighters they are.

[tonyevs]

I'll still take Witherspoon-Page over Ruiz-Oquendo-did you see that fight?? No fight tops the ugliness of that so-called title squabble. Ruiz-Rahman was right behind it.

Bottom line-Pick ANY era before 2000 and it beats the HWs of today.

Maybe the early-mid 1950s were weaker: with a top ten that looked like this:
1. Archie Moore
2. Bob Baker
3. Tommy Jackson
4. Don Cockell
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Earl Walls, Canada
7. Nino Valdes, Cuba
8. John Holman
9. Franco Cavicchi, Italy
10. Rex Layne

Only an old Charles, Moore, and Valdez were really something to talk about, but I know nothing about Holman, Cavicchi, and Walls.

And Charles and Moore weren`t even natural heavyweights.

Yeah but neither are Toney and Byrd and Moore and Charles are twice the fighters they are.

Point proven

[zslayton]

I think both eras are about the same. I don't want to take anything away from Tyson, Holmes, Holyfield, or Lewis for what they did because those guys can fight and would fair well in all time greatest tournament, but after those guys the talent is very forgetable.

The guys today are bigger, but the guys from the 80's had more skill.

[Cap]

I'll still take Witherspoon-Page over Ruiz-Oquendo-did you see that fight?? No fight tops the ugliness of that so-called title squabble. Ruiz-Rahman was right behind it.

Bottom line-Pick ANY era before 2000 and it beats the HWs of today.

Maybe the early-mid 1950s were weaker: with a top ten that looked like this:
1. Archie Moore
2. Bob Baker
3. Tommy Jackson
4. Don Cockell
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Earl Walls, Canada
7. Nino Valdes, Cuba
8. John Holman
9. Franco Cavicchi, Italy
10. Rex Layne

Only an old Charles, Moore, and Valdez were really something to talk about, but I know nothing about Holman, Cavicchi, and Walls.

Earl Walls of Canada, known in Britain as "The Hooded Terror", was a athletic phenom. He had all the physical tools, but his heart was never completely in the sport. When he was really "on" he destroyed guys. Other times he just went through the paces. He retired from boxing still rated in the top ten, and went into real estate. For a time there had been talk of a match with Marciano, but financial backing fell through.

Cap

[Cap]

The hw of the 80's ( prime Tyson, Bruno, Tucker, Dokes, Weaver, Smith, the past his time Holmes) vs. The hw's of the present ( klitchko's, Bryd, Ruiz, Brewster, Mesi, Rahman, the past his time Lewis)
Which era was the more dominant? I feel that the era that Tyson went thru is definitely the most difficult era of the 2. It wasn't the toughest era by a long shot, but before we take credit away from Tyson claiming he went thru a weak era, just step back and look at our hw champions of today DQ Ruiz, pitter pat Bryd, robotic frankenstien Vitali & glass joe Wladimir.

I survived the 80s and hoped I'd seen the worst heavyweights ever, then along came Ruiz, Oquendo, Botha, Mesi etc. Hard to say which was worse. They're all brave guys, but talent-wise, many of them should have been accountants or sanitation engineers.

Cap

[theguvnor]

Its interesting. When some people talk about Tyson losing when ”past his prime”.
Tyson was 30 years and five months old when he fought a 34 years and 1 month old Holy in their first fight. Therefore wasn’t Holy even further past his prime than Tyson?
Also, the Lewis fight. Tyson = 36 years old – 9 months younger than Lewis.

Strange how so many Tyson fans claim “ oh yeah but… a prime Tyson would have done this … or that”. For example a Prime 21 year old Tyson would have beaten a 37 year old Lewis. SO what - we were all faster, fitter and stronger when in our youth.

I don’t know of any heavyweight, going back to John L who didn’t have some kind of personal problem outside the ring which caused a distraction to their training or whatever. But being champions they dealt with it.

Why is Tyson’s fall from grace explained away as “he had it rough” or “if it wasn’t for the prison sentence”. Like I said, name me a heavyweight champ who didn’t have problems to contend with outside the ring.

[zslayton]

Its interesting. When some people talk about Tyson losing when ”past his prime”.
Tyson was 30 years and five months old when he fought a 34 years and 1 month old Holy in their first fight. Therefore wasn’t Holy even further past his prime than Tyson?
Also, the Lewis fight. Tyson = 36 years old – 9 months younger than Lewis.

Strange how so many Tyson fans claim “ oh yeah but… a prime Tyson would have done this … or that”. For example a Prime 21 year old Tyson would have beaten a 37 year old Lewis. SO what - we were all faster, fitter and stronger when in our youth.

I don’t know of any heavyweight, going back to John L who didn’t have some kind of personal problem outside the ring which caused a distraction to their training or whatever. But being champions they dealt with it.

Why is Tyson’s fall from grace explained away as “he had it rough” or “if it wasn’t for the prison sentence”. Like I said, name me a heavyweight champ who didn’t have problems to contend with outside the ring.

PEOPLE HIT THEIR PRIME AT DIFFERENT TIMES. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT AFTER MIKE GOT BLASTED BY BUSTER THAT HE HAD LOST SOMETHING. WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IS THAT THE BULLY GOT BUSTED AND THAT SHOWED PEOPLE THAT IF THEY STAND UP TO MIKE AND HIT HIM BACK, IT WOULD CAUSE HIM DIFFICULTY. FOR SURE HE WAS PAST HIS PRIME WHEN HE FOUGHT LEWIS, AND MAYBE HOLYFIELD, BUT WHO CARES. ALL FIGHTERS FIGHT WAY PAST THEIR PRIMES.

THE GUYS FROM THE 80'S WERE BETTER TECHNICAL FIGHTERS THAN THEY GUYS TODAY. GERRY COONEY WOULD DESTROY ALL THE GUYS TODAY. A 1980 LARRY HOLMES WOULD BEAT THEM ALL AS WOULD THE 1987 MIKE TYSON AND THE 1986 TONY TUCKER. HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME DECENT FIGHTERS OUT THERE TODAY.

[Tootall]

I can see guys like Tony Tucker or Tim Witherspoon at their best beating most of the top ten today and even giving Lewis a hard time. Larry Holmes in the early eighties would clean up in this era- making slugs like Tua, Ruiz, and Rahman look foolish. Larry is also one guy who Byrd definitely could not come close to outboxing. The Tyson of 88' ( the one with actual hand speed to go with his power ) would also look just as good as he did then-although maybe not against Lewis or Klitscko. This is an interesting subject.

[Sweet Scientist]

Am I missing something here???...the '80's vs. today???...Larry Holmes was at his peak in 1980-81-82...and was still half decent in '83-'84...I don't think there's a guy out there who could beat the 1985 Holmes...and some of the all time greats would have had their hands full with the 1980-82 version...Larry Holmes alone tilts the scale on this question...and when you add the 1987-1989 Tyson...it's no contest whatsoever...

[zslayton]

Am I missing something here???...the '80's vs. today???...Larry Holmes was at his peak in 1980-81-82...and was still half decent in '83-'84...I don't think there's a guy out there who could beat the 1985 Holmes...and some of the all time greats would have had their hands full with the 1980-82 version...Larry Holmes alone tilts the scale on this question...and when you add the 1987-1989 Tyson...it's no contest whatsoever... :roll:

I agree. Larry Holmes doesn't get enough credit, probably because he was the young lion that finally put Ali out of the game. His jab is one of the best the heavy's have ever seen and he could box circles around any of the guys today. Factor in Tyson for 88 and it is no contest. Both were awesome and are top 10 all time greats. Who that is fighting in the heavyweight division at this point, and still a factor (not an aged Evander), can that be said of? NOBODY. The heavy's out there right now are as weak as ever.

[6 Pack]

Am I missing something here???...the '80's vs. today???...Larry Holmes was at his peak in 1980-81-82...and was still half decent in '83-'84...I don't think there's a guy out there who could beat the 1985 Holmes...and some of the all time greats would have had their hands full with the 1980-82 version...Larry Holmes alone tilts the scale on this question...and when you add the 1987-1989 Tyson...it's no contest whatsoever...

THank you

I was reading this thread, going down the posts, and about to write the same thing thinking "Man, the 80's had a prime Holmes and Tyson!"

Both of those guys would tear through these pugs.

Those two guys aside, the other 80's heavyweights were hot/cold. On the right night, when inspired and not distracted (whether be by drugs or King fornicating them over) guys like Thomas, Witherspoon, Douglas, Tucker, Page, Tubbs were fighters to be reckon with.

Need proof? Tubbs took an in-experienced Riddick Bowe to school in the early 90's when Bowe took a step up in competition. Douglas took Tyson to school in 1990. Witherspoon made a fairly young Holmes look entirely beatable (and some say beaten) in their title fight. Tucker was a contender through most of the 90s beating Oliver McCall, Orlin Norris, and taking LennoxLewis the distance for his WBC belt.

Those mediocre 80' heavyweights were followed by a bunch that were a clear cut above (Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield, Riddick Bowe, Tyson again, Holmes again, Foreman, Michael Moorer, Ray Mercer), but what we have now is not much at all.

Byrd is supposed to be a master boxer, but he looks like garbage every fight. Ruiz is more of a wrestler than a boxer. Holyfeild and Tyson are 175 years old. Toney should not even be a heavyweight. In the 90's he would not have gotten as far as he has. But in today's heavyweight sweepstake, he is a legit top 5 contender! And he has only beaten a used up Holyfield who every one is begging to retire and a fat cruiserweight who has not fought any body!

[6 Pack]

Its interesting. When some people talk about Tyson losing when ”past his prime”.
Tyson was 30 years and five months old when he fought a 34 years and 1 month old Holy in their first fight. Therefore wasn’t Holy even further past his prime than Tyson?
Also, the Lewis fight. Tyson = 36 years old – 9 months younger than Lewis.

Strange how so many Tyson fans claim “ oh yeah but… a prime Tyson would have done this … or that”. For example a Prime 21 year old Tyson would have beaten a 37 year old Lewis. SO what - we were all faster, fitter and stronger when in our youth.

I don’t know of any heavyweight, going back to John L who didn’t have some kind of personal problem outside the ring which caused a distraction to their training or whatever. But being champions they dealt with it.

Why is Tyson’s fall from grace explained away as “he had it rough” or “if it wasn’t for the prison sentence”. Like I said, name me a heavyweight champ who didn’t have problems to contend with outside the ring.

I am speechless that you are a boxing fan and can write such a stupid post.

You been following boxing long? You may have picked up over the years that guys hit their prime at different ages. To say Lennox Lewis at 25 would have beaten Lennox Lewis at 35 is a joke.

Did you see Lewis before he hook up with Manny Steward? Lewis peaked late, IN HIS 30s, if you can believe it!

Tyson peaked very early, in his early 20's. By the time Tyson hit 30 he was a clear notch or two below his prime.

You really telling me you have been a boxing fan, but have not ever notice that boxers hit their peaks at different times? You never noticed some guys are done at 32, others at 38?

Stick around and watch boxing for a few more years. You may see this first hand.

BTW sorry if you are just getting into boxing as a fan and I am getting a little harsh, but it is frustrating to explain this over and over.

[theguvnor]

I am speechless that you are a boxing fan and can write such a stupid post.

You been following boxing long? You may have picked up over the years that guys hit their prime at different ages. To say Lennox Lewis at 25 would have beaten Lennox Lewis at 35 is a joke.

Did you see Lewis before he hook up with Manny Steward? Lewis peaked late, IN HIS 30s, if you can believe it!

Tyson peaked very early, in his early 20's. By the time Tyson hit 30 he was a clear notch or two below his prime.

You really telling me you have been a boxing fan, but have not ever notice that boxers hit their peaks at different times? You never noticed some guys are done at 32, others at 38?

Stick around and watch boxing for a few more years. You may see this first hand.

BTW sorry if you are just getting into boxing as a fan and I am getting a little harsh, but it is frustrating to explain this over and over.

Actually I have been a boxing fan for more than 35 years. My dad, a former pro, took me to my first “live” fight in 1966, Cassius Clay / Brian London. I remember that I was upset at not going to the Clay / Henry Cooper fight three months earlier, but that was on a school night so no go.

Getting back to your comments…..

Of course I realize that fighter’s peak at different ages. That’s got little to do with natural development and everything to do with training and lifestyle.
It is said that the human males reach physical peak at 21 - 22 years of age. Lifestyle, Training and Diet will enhance or prolong strength, endurance flexibility and body composition.
Imagine if Manny Steward had hooked up with Lewis when Lewis was 24 years old. The 25 year old Lewis would have kicked the 37 year old versions ass.

Ask Steward which version he would have preferred to work with. And while you’ve got him on the phone, ask him about Dennis Andries too. If you are saying that Steward would rather have a 37 year old Lewis or a 40 year old Andries and not the younger versions – then you are the one being stupid.
How many times have you heard trainers say – “I wish I had this guy 10 years ago” ?

Lewis “peaked” at age 21/ 22 just like the rest of the human race. The fact he had better training in later years meant he was able hang on to that peak longer.
It is a fact – all things being equal - a 25 year old man is in better physical shape than a 37 year old man. What makes the difference are the things like training, diet, motivation, desire, and of course, punches taken - things that impact on a fighter no matter what his age.

Don’t confuse ability with success. Lewis was more successful at age 37, than he was at 25, that’s true. Does this mean he was better at 37 than he was at 25… not necessarily?

I know I am speaking in general terms, there have been some exceptions of fighters developing late, but for every one you can name, there will be 40 or 50 fighters who will say that “ I was better in my youth”.
All the old fighter’s who come back after years of layoff , Foreman, for example, and claim they are better now than they used to be, they are kidding themselves.

Was Walcott better at 25 than at 37,?. Better motivated, more confident, certainly, better physically?, I doubt it. If Walcott had that confidence and motivation earlier he may have beaten Abe Simon in 1940, when aged 26, and then would have taken Simon’s place and fought Louis in 1941. both aged 27 years old. Now that would have been a good fight

You asked if I ever watched Lewis before Steward came along, yes I did. Lewis at 25 had just won the European Heavyweight Title from Chanet, I was at that fight, as well as his fights with Ocasio, Mason, McCrory, Williams, Ruddock, Bruno, and McCall.
Lewis was pretty damn good in my opinion, and wasn’t exactly a no hoper. At 25 years old he was on the brink of moving into the big time with a record of 14 – 0 – 0.
At the time of the first Steward trained fight with Lionel Butler, Lewis was nearly 30 years old and on the comeback trail after the McCall loss.

Lewis success in his 30s wasn’t because his body suddenly matured late – it was no freak of nature - no accident, - it was down to a lot of hard work.

I know one thing – If Steward had had Lewis from age 15, like Cus did for Tyson, a fight between these guys around 1988 would have been worth watching.
Tyson peaked very early. Do you see a pattern forming here – Lewis peaked late ( after Steward’s involvement), Tyson peaked early, (before Cus’s departure)

The point I was making was that people make excuses for Tyson getting beat when he was past 30, but make no allowance for the fact that he is not the only fighter who has to deal with aging muscles and outside influences etc.
I recon if you asked Andries, Lewis, Braddock, Foreman, Walcott, - they would all say, - “I wish I had the same desire, influence, and opportunity when I was younger as I did when I was older, just think what I might have achieved.”

You say stick around and watch more boxing, well I have seen enough.
I seen boxing reduced to a complete farce with too many weights and too many mediocre champions. I have seen first hand the erosion of the sport I have loved since I was 7 years old.

[dempseyfire]

Pretty much all heavyweights will reach their physical peaks in the 25-30 yr old range. But then the outside factors step in, just as the guvnor stated.

[jsc1973]

The '80s bunch was definitely better. I can see Vitali being a contender in that era, but none of the others. Someone mentioned Gerry Cooney. If Cooney were in his prime today, he would dominate the division. Even the Holmes of 1985 would rule it. Heck, the Holmes of 1988 probably would. In 1994, he was one round from winning the title back...