1970s Heavyweights

[Ambling Alp]

That is the same train of thought that I and apparently some others have.

After, Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe, and Tyson, who were the best heavyweights of the 1990s? A few guys had a good moment or two, but it would probably have to be Moorer and Mercer.

A way past it Foreman beat Moorer. A way past it Holmes beat Mercer. Those old versions of Holmes and Foreman would be nowhere near the top 10 in the 1970s. Yet they beat the #5 and #6 heavyweights of the 1990s. The 1990s depth does not even compare to the depth of the 1970s.

A real debate would be what would be the #2 decade. You could argue for the 1990s, but you could also argue for the 1910s and the 1960s, or maybe even a couple of other eras.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Well, I guess I do. I see Lyle, Quarry, Young & Norton, to name just a few below the bar set by Ali & Frazier, whipping the likes of 1999 Tyson or 2003 Holyfield (which is a rough comparative measure with those guys being way past their best years, as were Foreman & Holmes when they competed in the 90s).

I would agree with that. But Foreman and Holmes were pretty clearly the greatest over 40 Heavyweights in history. And look where Norton, Quarry & Young were as aged fighters. Calling Foreman and Holmes WAY past it is extreme. They would have been top ten in any era.

Nothing I'm arguing too hard. But the Bruno's & McCall's of the world were better than the guys Dempsey was listing. Then again, sometimes years blend in discussions and I could lump guys that are more in the 2000 decade with what I see to be more depth in the 90's. It's a slippery slope.

[dempseyfire]

Well, I guess I do. I see Lyle, Quarry, Young & Norton, to name just a few below the bar set by Ali & Frazier, whipping the likes of 1999 Tyson or 2003 Holyfield (which is a rough comparative measure with those guys being way past their best years, as were Foreman & Holmes when they competed in the 90s).

But the Bruno's & McCall's of the world were better than the guys Dempsey was listing. .

OK, we are just in different universes then. Someone like Tiger Williams was very similar to McCall in that they were better fighters in training than in actual fights, had iron jaws, and big punches. But Williams was far more skilled than Oliver, a far better counter-puncher . . .comparing those two really actually shows the difference in the two eras fairly well.
Bruno? Mr. body beautiful but zero stamina and stiff as a board? I could see Bruno not getting past a Blue Lewis let alone any of the 70s top 10 (with the exception of Wepner, who should've never gotten NEAR the top 10 and I don't understand why he got ranked so high, his alone 'elite' win was a bogus decision over a past-it Ernie Terrell)

[Brutu]

I think one realized (back then)that the golden era was over when it seemed just about every other heavyweight contender
had a "world heavyweight champion belt" a few years after Leon Spinks was stripped of the title for giving Ali a rematch.
Also back in the mid-1970's,there still was like a ceremony
to honor past fighters in the ring before major heavyweight fights.
The last one I can think of was before the Ali-Lyle fight in 1975.

[Crease]

Even after Ali, Foreman and Frazier, it was still pretty good.
You had Norton, Quarry, Lyle, Young, and Shavers. In the early 1970s you still had Bonavena, Chuvalo, and Ellis. Even Patterson still had something left. There were other good fighters who had trouble just getting in the top 10. Then later in the decade Holmes came along.
It was extremely deep.

If you want to look at it from the: "depth of talent" perspective, then you would efinitely have to include the 1950s & the 1980s in there.

They were probably the best two compeititve eras... People are saying the 1970s here, but frankly Frazier, Foreman and Ali rose above all of them... So it wasn't that competitive between others and the triad.

The 50s (my favourite decade) had loads of good, good fighters: (Not coutn Rocky, Charles or Walcott)
Rex Layne, Lee Savold, Don Cockell, Harry Matthews, Freddie Beshore, Nino Valdes, Jimmy Bivins, Joey Maxim, Floyd Patterson and Ingemar Johansson and people forget Roland LaStarza (who I reckon was underrated & very consistent in his prime).

So, yeah the depth of talent is there... I'd love to see a crop of a dozen fighters from the 1950s Heavyweight era to bes sprinkled into todays Heavyweight, Light Heavy, Crusierweight divisions.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Well, I guess I do. I see Lyle, Quarry, Young & Norton, to name just a few below the bar set by Ali & Frazier, whipping the likes of 1999 Tyson or 2003 Holyfield (which is a rough comparative measure with those guys being way past their best years, as were Foreman & Holmes when they competed in the 90s).

But the Bruno's & McCall's of the world were better than the guys Dempsey was listing. .

OK, we are just in different universes then. Someone like Tiger Williams was very similar to McCall in that they were better fighters in training than in actual fights, had iron jaws, and big punches. But Williams was far more skilled than Oliver, a far better counter-puncher . . .comparing those two really actually shows the difference in the two eras fairly well.
Bruno? Mr. body beautiful but zero stamina and stiff as a board? I could see Bruno not getting past a Blue Lewis let alone any of the 70s top 10 (with the exception of Wepner, who should've never gotten NEAR the top 10 and I don't understand why he got ranked so high, his alone 'elite' win was a bogus decision over a past-it Ernie Terrell)

Williams was skilled? Yeah, we are definitely in different universes. His punches were wide and sloppy and he had no defense at all. He was very tough and a hard hitter. But I'd bet large there on McCall.

Bruno would slaughter Lewis in my estimation. Not that Lewis has anything to do with the 70's. You wouldn't classify him in the 60's?

[Ezzard]

An old Holmes, whose prime was the late 70s, completely took to school an undefeated Ray Mercer, who was arguably in the top 5-7 of the decade. An old Foreman became HW champ. That pretty much closes the debate right there. In no other era did guys whose prime had been 15-20 years prior become legit title threats/and or win the title. Look at Hopkins today . .great fighter, testament to great living and conditioning, but in practically any other light hw era the guy would not be sniffing near the 175 lb title, let alone winning and defending it.

I half agree. I just think we have to make the point that these old guys have had things available to them that guys in prebious eras did not. Clean living can only take you so far.

I stand with the 70s guys but the 90s was a very good era too.

[Ambling Alp]

Even after Ali, Foreman and Frazier, it was still pretty good.
You had Norton, Quarry, Lyle, Young, and Shavers. In the early 1970s you still had Bonavena, Chuvalo, and Ellis. Even Patterson still had something left. There were other good fighters who had trouble just getting in the top 10. Then later in the decade Holmes came along.
It was extremely deep.

If you want to look at it from the: "depth of talent" perspective, then you would efinitely have to include the 1950s & the 1980s in there.

They were probably the best two compeititve eras... People are saying the 1970s here, but frankly Frazier, Foreman and Ali rose above all of them... So it wasn't that competitive between others and the triad.

The 50s (my favourite decade) had loads of good, good fighters: (Not coutn Rocky, Charles or Walcott)
Rex Layne, Lee Savold, Don Cockell, Harry Matthews, Freddie Beshore, Nino Valdes, Jimmy Bivins, Joey Maxim, Floyd Patterson and Ingemar Johansson and people forget Roland LaStarza (who I reckon was underrated & very consistent in his prime).

So, yeah the depth of talent is there... I'd love to see a crop of a dozen fighters from the 1950s Heavyweight era to bes sprinkled into todays Heavyweight, Light Heavy, Crusierweight divisions.

Well yes, Ali, Foreman, Frazier, rose above them. However, the next several fighters would have been the #1-#5 fighters best fighters in many other eras. Norton, Young,Quarry, Lyle, Shavers were much better than Layne, Savold, Cockell, Mathews, Beshore, Valdes, and Maxim. Patterson and Johannson were the only ones of those mentioned that would be that could compete with those guys.

Just because a decade is very competitive doesn't mean it is that good. Sometimes there are just a bunch of mediocre guys who are roughly equal.
If you take the #1 heavyweight from the 1950s (or just about any other decade for that matter) the #2 vs the 2, #3 vs #3 all the way to #10, the 1970s goes 10-0.

[yancey]

Even after Ali, Foreman and Frazier, it was still pretty good.
You had Norton, Quarry, Lyle, Young, and Shavers. In the early 1970s you still had Bonavena, Chuvalo, and Ellis. Even Patterson still had something left. There were other good fighters who had trouble just getting in the top 10. Then later in the decade Holmes came along.
It was extremely deep.

If you want to look at it from the: "depth of talent" perspective, then you would efinitely have to include the 1950s & the 1980s in there.

They were probably the best two compeititve eras... People are saying the 1970s here, but frankly Frazier, Foreman and Ali rose above all of them... So it wasn't that competitive between others and the triad.

The 50s (my favourite decade) had loads of good, good fighters: (Not coutn Rocky, Charles or Walcott)
Rex Layne, Lee Savold, Don Cockell, Harry Matthews, Freddie Beshore, Nino Valdes, Jimmy Bivins, Joey Maxim, Floyd Patterson and Ingemar Johansson and people forget Roland LaStarza (who I reckon was underrated & very consistent in his prime).

So, yeah the depth of talent is there... I'd love to see a crop of a dozen fighters from the 1950s Heavyweight era to bes sprinkled into todays Heavyweight, Light Heavy, Crusierweight divisions.

MOST of those guys you mentioned would have gotten slaughtered in the '60s and '70s.

The '50s was by and large a weak era.

With all due respect to Don Cockell, can anyone IMAGINE what '73 Foreman would have done to him?

That wouldn't have been safe for the women, children, and most grown men to have watched. Lord have Mercy.

[dempseyfire]

Even after Ali, Foreman and Frazier, it was still pretty good.
You had Norton, Quarry, Lyle, Young, and Shavers. In the early 1970s you still had Bonavena, Chuvalo, and Ellis. Even Patterson still had something left. There were other good fighters who had trouble just getting in the top 10. Then later in the decade Holmes came along.
It was extremely deep.

If you want to look at it from the: "depth of talent" perspective, then you would efinitely have to include the 1950s & the 1980s in there.

They were probably the best two compeititve eras... People are saying the 1970s here, but frankly Frazier, Foreman and Ali rose above all of them... So it wasn't that competitive between others and the triad.

The 50s (my favourite decade) had loads of good, good fighters: (Not coutn Rocky, Charles or Walcott)
Rex Layne, Lee Savold, Don Cockell, Harry Matthews, Freddie Beshore, Nino Valdes, Jimmy Bivins, Joey Maxim, Floyd Patterson and Ingemar Johansson and people forget Roland LaStarza (who I reckon was underrated & very consistent in his prime).

So, yeah the depth of talent is there... I'd love to see a crop of a dozen fighters from the 1950s Heavyweight era to bes sprinkled into todays Heavyweight, Light Heavy, Crusierweight divisions.

Well yes, Ali, Foreman, Frazier, rose above them. However, the next several fighters would have been the #1-#5 fighters best fighters in many other eras. Norton, Young,Quarry, Lyle, Shavers were much better than Layne, Savold, Cockell, Mathews, Beshore, Valdes, and Maxim. Patterson and Johannson were the only ones of those mentioned that would be that could compete with those guys.

Just because a decade is very competitive doesn't mean it is that good. Sometimes there are just a bunch of mediocre guys who are roughly equal.
If you take the #1 heavyweight from the 1950s (or just about any other decade for that matter) the #2 vs the 2, #3 vs #3 all the way to #10, the 1970s goes 10-0.

Well, a lot of those guys I wouldn't even classify as among the elite HWs of the 1950s. Cockell was a light HW with glandular issues who had a very brief prime, Bivins and Savold were already well past their prime in the 50s. Matthews and Beshore were never even top HWs, Beshore was just a journeyman.

Substiute in Bob Baker, Clarence Henry, Johnny Summerlin, Sonny Liston, Eddie Machen, Zora Folley (whose primes were the late 50s/early 60s), old but still dangerous Charles and Walcott, Harold Johnson, and Archie Moore and all of those guys compete with the HWs of the 70s and 90s.

[Ambling Alp]

I would agree that this group is much better. And of course there was also Marciano, It gets tricky with Charles and Walcott since they were only top fighters in the early part of the decade. La Starza and Layne were also in the early part. Liston, Folley and Machen were only in the latter part.