Thoughts on the 1980s Heavyweights

[dempseyfire]

So thanks to the ever-reliable Youtube, I've been rewatching a bunch of HW fights from the 1980s, including Greg Page-James Tillis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iQLUcd1Nj8) Greg Page-Tony Tubbs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeUyUxDigD0), Trevor Berbick-Renaldo Snipes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZySWMs3PaA) and others.

A few thoughts:

1) This era was 10 times better than the current HW era (or really the entire HW scene since the late 1990s). I remember people recalling how Tubbs-Page was one of the worst title fights of all time between two fat blobs, but looking at it today they are in better shape than 95% of the heavyweights today plus show 3 times the amount of boxing ability. It really helps reiterate my viewpoint that the Klitschkos are mainly so dominant b/c of the utter mediocrity of their era . . .I do not see them dominating the 1980s 2nd tier HWs (I'm not even counting Holmes and Tyson), let alone other deeper eras.

2) They were certainly a 'lost generation' in that inconsistency ruled the day and the fighters by and large didn't reach their potential. Greg Page of course is the classic example. If he'd had a true love for the sport and stayed in top shape, he could have been a legitimate great fighter. He had all of the boxing/countering skills of James Toney but was actually a naturally big man with legitimate punching power. Tillis and Coatzee looked like a million bucks in the first 3-4 rounds of many of their fights but succumbed to stamina issues. Other fighters like Dokes fell prey to the 1980s party scene and cocaine. But there were a lot of talented fighters, and although the wide majority never developed the comprehensive skillset to match their talent, they still were more skilled than the likes of Chisora, Pulev, Povetkin etc.

3) None of the guys Holmes reportedly 'ducked' (Page, Coatzee, Thomas) would've ever had a chance vs a pre-1985 Holmes. Larry was just a much more complete fighter than those guys and importantly had the ability to stay strong over the distance. As previously noted, Coatzee could look like a great fighter for 3 rounds but then his tank would run empty. Holmes would've just bided his time and then stopped Coatzee late. Ditto with Page, who may have lasted the distance but would;ve ultimately suffered a beating.

[Syntax Error]

The 1980s could & should have been another heavyweight golden, possibly greater than the 70s!

There were so many talented fighters who either snorted, drank, neglected or ate away (or a combination of all 4) their talents.

The talent pool was much more vast than it is today & I bet the protagonists are looking back on that era with great regret & embarrassment; at least I hope they are.

[Goodnight, Irene]

People get carried away, IMO, with just how much was lost during the 80's. The above comment (opening line) from Syntax is a classic example of the hyperbole inspired, in part, by how much worse todays division is.

The fact remains, that while quite a lot of collective talent was in fact squandered, realities are nobody was good enough in that crop to unlock Holmes or halt Tyson (at those mens best).

As for the remark it couldve equalled the 70's, LOL. All the good camps and clean living in the world wouldnt save someone like Dokes from death against the likes of Foreman, Frazier, Ali and company.

[Like a Boss]

The 1980s could & should have been another heavyweight golden, possibly greater than the 70s!

There were so many talented fighters who either snorted, drank, neglected or ate away (or a combination of all 4) their talents.

The talent pool was much more vast than it is today & I bet the protagonists are looking back on that era with great regret & embarrassment; at least I hope they are.

You make a valid point

[Counter-puncher]

There were so many talented fighters who either snorted, drank, neglected or ate away (or a combination of all 4) their talents.
.

ha, that for me was the outstanding feature of the 80s heavyweights- the astonishing profusion of ways in which they managed to fvck up their own career. like a crack problem isn't enough, on its own....

[dempseyfire]

People get carried away, IMO, with just how much was lost during the 80's. The above comment (opening line) from Syntax is a classic example of the hyperbole inspired, in part, by how much worse todays division is.

The fact remains, that while quite a lot of collective talent was in fact squandered, realities are nobody was good enough in that crop to unlock Holmes or halt Tyson (at those mens best).

As for the remark it couldve equalled the 70's, LOL. All the good camps and clean living in the world wouldnt save someone like Dokes from death against the likes of Foreman, Frazier, Ali and company.

I don't agree it would've ever equalled the previous decade, but I do think it correlates with how boxing was simply much stronger in terms of depth and talent and has declined by and large with each subsequent decade. You don't have to just look at the HW division . .look at the middles, welters, feathers of the 1980s and compare to today.

Many times this is cited as contankerous musings from people who always view "their" era better, but the numbers of how participation rates have fallen, which correlate with drops in talent and skills (less trainers, less knowledge, less fights to develop a fighter) don't lie. And the idea that this is only in the US and that "the rest of the world has caught up" is also a myth. Boxing has also vastly declined in Europe . . no-one has been spared. Eastern Europe . . .ask anyone in the former Soviet states if boxing is big . . the kids there want to play soccer and basketball, not boxing. MMA is also getting more and more popular in Russia (which already has a strong martial arts tradition) and their numbers overseas have been exploding.

Finally, one can just watch the film objectively. If one can't see that the fact that a Tyson Fury is a top 10 contender reflects a drastic decline in the quality of prizefighting, I don't know what can.

There are still a handful of legitimate great fighters, but they are all in their 30s and 40s. Hopkins, Mayweather, Marquez, Pacquao are all guys who could've competed in any era, but they are in their final stretch. Of younger fighters, only Donaire and Ward have shown the potential of greatness, and IMO only Ward thanks to the Super 6 format and the relative depth at 168 beaten consistent world class challenges.

[man]

I don't agree it would've ever equalled the previous decade, but I do think it correlates with how boxing was simply much stronger in terms of depth and talent and has declined by and large with each subsequent decade. You don't have to just look at the HW division . .look at the middles, welters, feathers of the 1980s and compare to today.

legends build up over time. that's why great parts of the
past look greater and greater with every year passing by.
i love the heavy weights of the sixites and seventies like
every other guy, but i guess we have come to overrate
them as a whole to the extent that each top ten player then
would have dominated any other consequent era of heavy
weight boxing. which in my opinion is plain wrong.

i do think as well that certain fighters are overrated in their
all time status. to me joe frazier is such fighter and to an
extent george foreman I. frazier lacked the physique, foreman
defense, tactics and footwork.

but what really differentiates this era from the consequent
ones is worth ethics. boxers just worked hard, you didn't
have to wonder if they would show up in shape. boxing was
a job, while today it is a way of life ... if that makes any
sense.

i completely disagree with other weight classes. i think welter
and middle have been very, very strong in recent years.

[loaded_gloves]

Don King had these men in slave contracts and if anyone acted up they were blackballed and removed from contention. It is no wonder whatsoever these great talents could not deliver, knowing that they wouldn't get paid.

Despite that there were many entertaining heavyweight characters and fights and it was a rich era. The level of skills that were present in the 80s and continued in the 90s have all but vanished in the last decade.

[Expug]

The heaves from the eighties used to get alot of the same criticism that the heavies of today get. They were compared to other eras and thought to be underachievers, etc by some.
Truth is,there were many good heavies around who in my opinion were truly better than the guys nowadays who are amazingly uninspiring.
I fought on a couple of James Quick Tillis' undercards. I think he would be kicking major as. nowadays.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Don King had these men in slave contracts and if anyone acted up they were blackballed and removed from contention. It is no wonder whatsoever these great talents could not deliver, knowing that they wouldn't get paid.

Despite that there were many entertaining heavyweight characters and fights and it was a rich era. The level of skills that were present in the 80s and continued in the 90s have all but vanished in the last decade.

It was anything but a rich era.

[Syntax Error]

People get carried away, IMO, with just how much was lost during the 80's. The above comment (opening line) from Syntax is a classic example of the hyperbole inspired, in part, by how much worse todays division is.

The fact remains, that while quite a lot of collective talent was in fact squandered, realities are nobody was good enough in that crop to unlock Holmes or halt Tyson (at those mens best).

As for the remark it couldve equalled the 70's, LOL. All the good camps and clean living in the world wouldnt save someone like Dokes from death against the likes of Foreman, Frazier, Ali and company.

One day you might grasp the concept of the fact that some people have different opinions to you.

By all means disagree, but do you constantly have to resort to patronising jibes to make your points?

Nobody knows the real truth, it's simply subjective.

I could deride your views too & put LOLs all over the place, but it's not really appropriate.

Dokes may or may not have been able to put up a decent fight against the 70s legends Ali Frazier & Foreman, but, it isn't them I was talking about. Are you telling me that some of the other 80s guys wouldn't have been able to give a decent account of themselves, or beaten to lesser fighters of the era like Norton, Shavers, Lyle & Quarry et al; the 70s fighters that I was actually alluding to when I made my point?

[Goodnight, Irene]

I am saying that if you believe the 80's could've equalled or surpassed the 70's if the guys laid off the coke and burgers, you deserve all the LOL's you get

[Syntax Error]

I am saying that if you believe the 80's could've equalled or surpassed the 70's if the guys laid off the coke and burgers, you deserve all the LOL's you get

Yes, I am saying that, so keep laughing. LOL! (see, I can do it as well; it's really easy!

[Goodnight, Irene]

When you give me a credible argument (and there is none for this contention), I will treat it credibly.

[Syntax Error]

When you give me a credible argument (and there is none for this contention), I will treat it credibly.

Are you gunning for the title of the World's Most Arrogant Person?

I don't care if you consider my opinions to be credible or not, because I don't exist to agree with everything you say.

I don't agree with your opinion either, but I don't think I'm superior to you.

Unlike you, I can see other peoples points of view & respect them, even if I fundamentally disagree with them.

[Goodnight, Irene]

When you give me a credible argument (and there is none for this contention), I will treat it credibly.

Are you gunning for the title of the World's Most Arrogant Person?

I don't care if you consider my opinions to be credible or not, because I don't exist to agree with everything you say.

I don't agree with your opinion either, but I don't think I'm superior to you.

Unlike you, I can see other peoples points of view & respect them, even if I fundamentally disagree with them.

What is it with the self-absorption of some people on this forum!? I had this exact argument with resident dullards Keith and Gabi. You lot see how I treat your absurdly uneducated views, and brand me as treating everyone that way. Take note...the world does not end with you.

Why dont you point out the last time I laughed at any of these members...

DempseyFire
SaadOffTheDeck
Jaclem
Ezzard

...and various others. Why arent they ridiculed? Could it be that they dont place their foot in their mouth with regularity?

If you offer a laughable notion, I will laugh. Who is to blame for that? Your claim that the 80's couldve wound up a superior decade to the 70's at HW is comedy gold.

[Syntax Error]

When you give me a credible argument (and there is none for this contention), I will treat it credibly.

Are you gunning for the title of the World's Most Arrogant Person?

I don't care if you consider my opinions to be credible or not, because I don't exist to agree with everything you say.

I don't agree with your opinion either, but I don't think I'm superior to you.

Unlike you, I can see other peoples points of view & respect them, even if I fundamentally disagree with them.

What is it with the self-absorption of some people on this forum!? I had this exact argument with resident dullards Keith and Gabi. You lot see how I treat your absurdly uneducated views, and brand me as treating everyone that way. Take note...the world does not end with you.

Why dont you point out the last time I laughed at any of these members...

DempseyFire
SaadOffTheDeck
Jaclem
Ezzard

...and various others. Why arent they ridiculed? Could it be that they dont place their foot in their mouth with regularity?

If you offer a laughable notion, I will laugh. Who is to blame for that? Your claim that the 80's couldve wound up a superior decade to the 70's at HW is comedy gold.

Self absorption & dullard?

How can you accuse someone else of those things?

Do you have any self awareness whatsoever?

In your haste to ridicule me, you simply haven't taken on board what I have said.

This thread (& my point) wasn't about the upper tier HWs of the relevant decades (ie Ali, Foreman, Frazier - 70s & Holmes, Tyson - 80s), it is about the guys just below them.

I believe that the likes of Dokes, Thomas, Tillis, Tate, Witherspoon etc would, had their realised their potential, have been a match for the likes of Quarry, Lyle, Shavers, Bugner etc.

It is for that reason, when you combine the relevant fistic prowess of all the main protagonists of each decade; that leads me to think that the 80s combined had enough might to equal maybe (note the word 'MAYBE') surpass the 70s.

If you think that is laughable, then you're entitled to your opinion, but I beg to differ.

[Goodnight, Irene]

You should be begging to learn, not differ. My knowledge (hell, the knowledge of anyone with a passing understanding of the 70's-80's scene) cnuld save you future embarrassment.

You neatly side-stepped my question, too. Why, when I disagree with the above members, are they treated differently to you here?

[keithmoonhangover]

Fighters from any era who get into drugs and can't be arsed to train properly always come undone. There were just more of them in the 80's than anywhere else. If you remove the names Holmes and Tyson from the 80's then it would be a different situation. But, Thomas, Witherspoon and Tubbs had there shot at 'the man' and lost.

[Ezzard]

1) No, not 10 times better... Better, yes. The Klits would have smashed their way through most of them. They'd have lost some but they'd have also have come out of that era with more respect...

2) If they are a lost generation in The Hemingway sense then why? They couldn't be bothered to train...but why not? I think they got what they deserved.

3) Holmes was the best of the 1980s. Once he became IBF champ though the quality dropped off fast. I think Page, Goetzee, Dokes, Thomas etc... would have had a great chance against the Holmes who fought Bey, Bonecrusher, Williams, etc...

[Syntax Error]

You should be begging to learn, not differ. My knowledge (hell, the knowledge of anyone with a passing understanding of the 70's-80's scene) cnuld save you future embarrassment.

You neatly side-stepped my question, too. Why, when I disagree with the above members, are they treated differently to you here?

I side stepped your question because I am self absorbed; remember?

I don't care who you are pally with on here; that's your business, not mine.

If my having a different opinion to you heaps embarassment upon me, then I look forward to more embarassing moments in the future.

[Goodnight, Irene]

[keithmoonhangover]

You bring shame on the whole forum.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Try a little hair of the dog, Keith.

Who knows what you're capable of posting sober

[keithmoonhangover]

Try a little hair of the dog, Keith.

Who knows what you're capable of posting sober

I was just testing to see if you had me on ignore, like you said you would. Just proved yourself as a liar. How embarrassing for you.