Thoughts on the 1980s Heavyweights

[SaadOffTheDeck]

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.

Donaire is the most overrated fighter in the world. Odd to see a nice nostalgic post end with a guy who ducks the best fights more than any fighter in the world and is elevated by people for no reason at all.

People don't like him, but Dawson has a HOF resume at this point. Best Light Heavyweight ledger since Spinks.

[Goodnight, Irene]

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.

Yes, Im hurting. LOL.

Thank God I have 4,300-odd retarded posts from you to distract everyone.

Its a dumbass marathon at the moment.

[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.

Yes, Im hurting. LOL.

Thank God I have 4,300-odd retarded posts from you to distract everyone.

Its a dumbass marathon at the moment.

Simple answer. Just put me on ignore and you won't have to bother with me any more. I dare you, I double dare you mother f**ker.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I find your earnest stupidity amusing, though. You're (one of) our resident court jesters, Keith.

More interesting is why you dont have me on Ignore.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

That would certainly be a remedy to his problem.

[keithmoonhangover]

I find your earnest stupidity amusing, though. You're (one of) our resident court jesters, Keith.

More interesting is why you dont have me on Ignore.

I am a man of my word, unlike you. So if I say you're on my ignore list, you're on my ignore list. And now, you are.

Goodbye you steriod filled, short arse, can't get a girlfriend, liar. Enjoy your bitterness, bullying and childish posts.

[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.

Donaire is the most overrated fighter in the world. Odd to see a nice nostalgic post end with a guy who ducks the best fights more than any fighter in the world and is elevated by people for no reason at all.

People don't like him, but Dawson has a HOF resume at this point. Best Light Heavyweight ledger since Spinks.

HOF resume? He has some quality names (Tarver, Johnson, Hopkins) but all of those guys were in their 40s when he beat them . . in Bernard's case late 40s. If his resume is HOF so is Denis Lebedev's. To say he has a better 175 lb resume than Roy Jones Jr did is preposterous.
Other than that and his loss to Pascal (plus the first Johnson fight could've gone either way) you have his victory over Adamek, but the draining clearly had an effect on the guy (who subsequently shot up to 200 lbs with lots of success . .he was certainly better at cruiser than he was at 175, where he had two life and death struggles with Paul Briggs)

Your Donaire hatred is a little irrational, but as I said, only Ward has gotten started on acquiring what I would call a great resume, especially if he beats your beloved Dawson, which I believe he will. If Donaire beats the top guys at 122 and 126, he'll be on his way too.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

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.

Donaire is the most overrated fighter in the world. Odd to see a nice nostalgic post end with a guy who ducks the best fights more than any fighter in the world and is elevated by people for no reason at all.

People don't like him, but Dawson has a HOF resume at this point. Best Light Heavyweight ledger since Spinks.

HOF resume? He has some quality names (Tarver, Johnson, Hopkins) but all of those guys were in their 40s when he beat them . . in Bernard's case late 40s. If his resume is HOF so is Denis Lebedev's. To say he has a better 175 lb resume than Roy Jones Jr did is preposterous.
Other than that and his loss to Pascal (plus the first Johnson fight could've gone either way) you have his victory over Adamek, but the draining clearly had an effect on the guy (who subsequently shot up to 200 lbs with lots of success . .he was certainly better at cruiser than he was at 175, where he had two life and death struggles with Paul Briggs)

Old fighters that were still the best in his division and they proved it with subsequent performances. He isn't even 30 years old. Diacanu & Harding are worth listing when I'm talking to a guy who lists Luis Maldanado as top opposition for your boy Donaire. LOL, definitely a better resume at 75 than Roy. Though Jones probably would have beat him.

There are no maybe's with Dawson. While his style isn't the most pleasing, he is old school in his match making. He takes on the best available opposition every time he fights. The only other guy like that near the top of the sport is Froch.

[kaiserbill]

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.

Coetzee was a skillful, hardhitting heavyweight who had 2 problems.

He had hand problems, which are well known and documented.

He was also an asthmatic, which contributed to his stamina problems. In fact, as a kid, his doctor suggested he get into boxing as a way of combatting his asthma.

James "Quick" Tillis was actually a very fine fighter. If only he'd packed a decent punch, he would have been much more successful IMHO.

[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.

Coetzee was a skillful, hardhitting heavyweight who had 2 problems.

He had hand problems, which are well known and documented.

He was also an asthmatic, which contributed to his stamina problems. In fact, as a kid, his doctor suggested he get into boxing as a way of combatting his asthma.

James "Quick" Tillis was actually a very fine fighter. If only he'd packed a decent punch, he would have been much more successful IMHO.

?Tillis was a big puncher . . his problem was one of stamina, not punching power.

Someone needs to tell Shannon Briggs that he's not the first asthmatic HW champion . .

[dempseyfire]

Donaire is the most overrated fighter in the world. Odd to see a nice nostalgic post end with a guy who ducks the best fights more than any fighter in the world and is elevated by people for no reason at all.

People don't like him, but Dawson has a HOF resume at this point. Best Light Heavyweight ledger since Spinks.

HOF resume? He has some quality names (Tarver, Johnson, Hopkins) but all of those guys were in their 40s when he beat them . . in Bernard's case late 40s. If his resume is HOF so is Denis Lebedev's. To say he has a better 175 lb resume than Roy Jones Jr did is preposterous.
Other than that and his loss to Pascal (plus the first Johnson fight could've gone either way) you have his victory over Adamek, but the draining clearly had an effect on the guy (who subsequently shot up to 200 lbs with lots of success . .he was certainly better at cruiser than he was at 175, where he had two life and death struggles with Paul Briggs)

Old fighters that were still the best in his division and they proved it with subsequent performances. He isn't even 30 years old. Diacanu & Harding are worth listing when I'm talking to a guy who lists Luis Maldanado as top opposition for your boy Donaire. LOL, definitely a better resume at 75 than Roy. Though Jones probably would have beat him.

There are no maybe's with Dawson. While his style isn't the most pleasing, he is old school in his match making. He takes on the best available opposition every time he fights. The only other guy like that near the top of the sport is Froch.

How did Tarver prove he was the best subsequently at 175? He went into retirement . . and then moved up to heavyweight/cruiser. And he's getting way too much mileage out of beating frikkin' Danny Green at cruiser, whose prime was years ago at 168. Even pre-Dawson fights he'd looked unimpressive vs Muriqi and Woods.

He caught Johnson and Hopkins at the right time. Johnson's legs were shot in the Dawson rematch and looked shot in his subsequent fights (Cloud just walked right to him and I don't think the Froch fight was nearly as close as some had it). Hopkins has been vulnerable to guys with Dawson's type of style for years (see Calzaghe and Taylor fights)

You're bringing up Harding? Roy beat Harding in Harding's prime . . .also beat Tarver in Tarver's prime (1st fight, a legitimate Roy victory)! Then add Virgil Hill, Montell Griffith, Mike McCallum, Merqui Sosa (as good as Diacanou), Reggie Johnson, Julio Gonzales, and Clinton Woods. Dawson has not equalled that at all. I'm glad the Ward fight is coming up as that will show the difference between a true A class fighter in Ward vs an A class talent with B class ring smarts and mentality.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I had Johnson/Cloud a draw. Walked right through him? That's insane.

Mike Mccallum? He wasn't old? Virgil Hill was in his prime? LMAO, you ever consider trying to be consistent?

[dempseyfire]

I said walked right "to" him . . meaning he fought the perfect fight for an older Johnson with shot legs to look good against.

No, McCallum wasn't in his prime, but neither were Hopkins, Tarver or Johnson. Hill was certainly near his prime when he fought Roy. I'd rate the victory over a near peak Hill over a 47 year old Hopkins.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I never said any of them were in their prime, none of them were shot either. You just rattled off the other names without mentioning a thing.

Dawson beat Johnson, tarver and Hopkins with a but...

Mccallum is just listed as a Jones conquest. You're a funny guy.

I'd rate the second johnson, the first Tarver, Adamek & Hopkins all over that Hill win. Certainly no worse than even. Sosa was better than Diacanu, but he was another guy past his best days. Of course you only mention that when it benefits your argument. Hill wasn't near his peak either, but whatever floats your boat.

[Giancarlo]

I find your earnest stupidity amusing, though. You're (one of) our resident court jesters, Keith.

More interesting is why you dont have me on Ignore.

I am a man of my word, unlike you. So if I say you're on my ignore list, you're on my ignore list. And now, you are.

Goodbye you steriod filled, short arse, can't get a girlfriend, liar. Enjoy your bitterness, bullying and childish posts.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I think I hurt his feelings

[Bricks]

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.

I think those are views shared by many other people.
A tap which once flowed so freely (that is tough, talented in shape black american HWs) is now only spouting fat worthless sludge.

The absolute lack of any one good is shocking but a similar thing happened with West Indian cricket. From 1975 to 1995 or so there was an absolute non stop supply of lethally fast and skilled fast bowlers and powerful batsmen...than it all ended all of a sudden and there has been almost no one worthy in the last 17 years.

Likewise scottish football once produced talent after talent than suddenly in the early 90s that all stopped and we still have not seen a scot with the talent of a dalglish,jordan,souness, hansen, law or archibald.

[Bricks]

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.

Have to agree with it all. To me Tyson Fury, Chris Arreola, Audley Harrison, Nicolai Valuev, Tomaz Adamek, Tony Thompson, etc etc, are all men who in the fairly distant past a 37 year old comebacking Joe Bugner might have taught a boxing lesson to on his way to some underserving top ten rating in 1987.

[Ambling Alp]

I guess that is pretty much how I see it as well. The sport (and the heavyweight division in particular) has been in a decline for a long time. The 1980s could have been a better decade in the heavyweight division, but it was never going to be as good as the 1970s. It still was better than what we have had for atleast the last 10 years.

[Giancarlo]

I find your earnest stupidity amusing, though. You're (one of) our resident court jesters, Keith.

More interesting is why you dont have me on Ignore.

I am a man of my word, unlike you. So if I say you're on my ignore list, you're on my ignore list. And now, you are.

Goodbye you steriod filled, short arse, can't get a girlfriend, liar. Enjoy your bitterness, bullying and childish posts.

[Goodnight, Irene]

WBA. That is all D

[Giancarlo]

WBA. That is all D

Formed in 1962 as all knowledgable fans know.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Except the WBA themselves. According to their own website D

It still makes me laugh

[Giancarlo]

Except the WBA themselves. According to their own website D

It still makes me laugh

A simple lad whose job entails standing on a door checking tickets would not think that the WBA might just be trying to enhance their very shaky legitimacy.

[Goodnight, Irene]

They changed their name to stave off shaky credibility?

Where have we seen that before? D