The 1970's Heavyweight Division

[HomicideHenry]

I was thinking this over in my mind the other day. Was the 1970's really that superior of an era for heavyweights? Was the 1990's just as good as the 1970's? Etc.

I mean, if you really think about it, and look at the rankings from 1970-1979 outside of the main players that were Ali, Frazier, and Foreman it wasn't really the most impressive of eras, at least in my mind. Here's a collective who's who of men who were contenders per year (1970-1979) according to RING magazine:

1970 (Collectively):

Oscar Bonavena
Jerry Quarry
Mac Foster
Henry Cooper
George Chuvalo
Sonny Liston
Jose Ibar Urtain
Jose Luis Garcia

1971 (Collectively):

Jerry Quarry
Oscar Bonavena
Mac Foster
Jimmy Ellis
Floyd Patterson
Jose Luis Garcia
Jack Boddell
Joe Bugner

1972 (Collectively):

Jimmy Ellis
Ron Lyle
Floyd Patterson
Ernie Terrell
Jose Roman
Joe Bugner
Ken Norton
Jose Luis Garcia

1973 (Collectively):

Ken Norton
Jerry Quarry
Ron Lyle
Earnie Shavers
Oscar Bonavena
Joe Bugner
Jimmy Ellis
Chuck Wepner


1974 (Collectively):

Ron Lyle
Oscar Bonavena
Joe Bugner
Ken Norton
Jerry Quarry
Chuck Wepner
Henry Clark
Larry Middleton

1975 (Collectively):

Ken Norton
Jimmy Young
Ron Lyle
Earnie Shavers
Duane Bobick
Joe Bugner
Chuck Wepner
Randy Neumann

1976 (Colletively):

Ken Norton
Jimmy Young
Duane Bobick
Ron Lyle
Larry Holmes
Howard Smith
Johnny Boudreaux
Stan Ward
Joe Bugner

1977 (Collectively):

Ken Norton
Jimmy Young
Larry Holmes
Ron Lyle
Duane Bobick
Earnie Shavers
Kallie Knoetze
Alfredo Evangelista
Leon Spinks
Gerrie Coetzee

1978 (Collectively):

Larry Holmes
Ken Norton
Leon SPinks
Ron Lyle
Jimmy Young
Kallie Knoetze
Alfredo Evangelista
Gerrie Coetzee
Ossie Ocasio
Domingo D'Elia

1979 (Collectively):

Larry Holmes
John Tate
Gerrie Coetzee
Mike Weaver
Earnie Shavers
Leroy Jones
Lorenzo Zanon
Alfredo Evangelista
Gerry Cooney
Scott LeDoux



Conclusion?

Overall an odd assortment of contenders, title challengers, etc. that were the same as any other era, save for the main three. I didn't include Norton or Holmes in the mix primarily because Norton wasn't ever a champion (though he was given the WBC belt on a matter of principle) and Holmes was more a product of the 1980's. Compare the 1970's with the 1990's heavyweight rankings (RING) and I think you will find that the 1990's in some aspects edges out the 1970's in term of overall talent and ability.

1990:

Evander Holyfield
Mike Tyson
Razor Ruddock
James Douglas
Tim Witherspoon
Carl Williams
Francesco Damiani
Riddick Bowe
Ray Mercer
George Foreman


1991:

Evander Holyfield
Mike Tyson
Riddick Bowe
Razor Ruddock
Ray Mercer
George Foreman
Tim Witherspoon
Tony Tucker
Lennox Lewis
Michael Moorer

1992:

Riddick Bowe
Lennox Lewis
Evander Holyfield
Michael Moorer
Tony Tucker
George Foreman
Razor Ruddock
Ray Mercer
Tommy Morrison
Alex Garcia

1993:

Evander Holyfield
Riddick Bowe
Lennox Lewis
Michael Moorer
Michael Bentt
Oliver McCall
Ray Mercer
Phil Jackson
Tommy Morrison
Mike Hunter

1994:

George Foreman
Oliver McCall
Riddick Bowe
Michael Moorer
Lennox Lewis
Herbie Hide
Larry Holmes
Henry Akinwande
Jorge Luis Gonzales
Lionel Butler

1995:

Riddick Bowe
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Michael Moorer
Evander Holyfield
Bruce Seldon
Frank Bruno
George Foreman
Alexander Zolkin
Henry Akinwande

1996:

Evander Holyfield
Lennox Lewis
Mike Tyson
Michael Moorer
Andrew Golota
Ray Mercer
Henry Akinwande
David Tua
Riddick Bowe
Tim Witherspoon

1997:

Evander Holyfield
Lennox Lewis
Michael Moorer
Ray Mercer
Tim Witherspoon
George Foreman
Shannon Briggs
Ike Ibeabuchi
David Tua
David Izon

1998:

Evander Holyfield
Lennox Lewis
Michael Grant
Michael Moorer
Shannon Briggs
Chris Byrd
Ike Ibeabuchi
David Tua
Andrew Golota
Hasim Rahman

1999:

Lennox Lewis
Evander Holyfield
Michael Grant
Ike Ibeabuchi
David Tua
Mike Tyson
Vitali Klitschko
Andrew Golota
Derrick Jefferson
Oleg Maskaev

[Ambling Alp II]

No. The 1970s were better. The Top 3 were better than the 1990s. You should have included Ali, Frazier, and Foreman on each years list to get a better grasp.
The depth was better was well. The guys at the lower part of the top 10 were usually better in the 1970s than the 1990s.
The end of the 1970s it started to taper off, but overall the 1970s were still better.

[HomicideHenry]

No. The 1970s were better. The Top 3 were better than the 1990s. You should have included Ali, Frazier, and Foreman on each years list to get a better grasp.
The depth was better was well. The guys at the lower part of the top 10 were usually better in the 1970s than the 1990s.
The end of the 1970s it started to taper off, but overall the 1970s were still better.

I dont know. I mean, come on, Ibeabuchi and Byrd and Maskaev and Rahman and Tua and Golota and Klitschko---- arguably the lower half of the 1990's---- would have beaten the likes of Wepner, Tate, Evangelista, Jones, Zanon, LeDoux, Ocasio, Knoetze, Bobick, Boudreaux, Ward, Neumann, Clark, Middleton, Garcia, Roman, etc. Eff, I would favor Damiani and Morrison and some others not even listed in the top ten over those guys.

I'd even wager those guys could beat the older, slower versions of Bonavena and Chuvalo and would also beat Spencer and Terrell without much problem. The only guys who would beat em would have been Ali, Foreman, Norton, Lyle, Young, Frazier and Holmes. And one can argue the elite 90's guys would have split wins with the top 1970's guys. So how can you really say the 1970's were all that much better? The only guy who probably wouldnt of been beaten by any man in the 1990's is Ali, but then again what man from any era could. Outside of that its an even playing field.

[dempseyfire]

How the heck can you exclude Ali, Frazier and Foreman from your 70s lists and then still have Holyfield and Lewis in your 90s lists?

The 70s were by far a deeper and superior division. You'll find lots of guys in the 70s outside the top 10 who were top 15-20 guys who provided the division with a good deal of depth, like Henry Clark, Jeff Merritt, Roy Williams, Al Lewis, and Pedro Lovell. Once you got outside the top 10 in the 90s there was a much steeper drop-off.

[HomicideHenry]

How the heck can you exclude Ali, Frazier and Foreman from your 70s lists and then still have Holyfield and Lewis in your 90s lists?
The 70s were by far a deeper and superior division. You'll find lots of guys in the 70s outside the top 10 who were top 15-20 guys who provided the division with a good deal of depth, like Henry Clark, Jeff Merritt, Roy Williams, Al Lewis, and Pedro Lovell. Once you got outside the top 10 in the 90s there was a much steeper drop-off.

Because on the RING ratings, for one, alot of those years there was no RING magazine champion. Besides that, I said I was only going to include non-title holders on the lists. As I said before Norton's belt was more or less because of politics and Holmes was a product of the 1980's more so than the 1970's.

[Ambling Alp II]

First, Ring Magazine only had the title vacant for one year-1979. From 1970-1972 it was Frazier, 1973 it was Foreman, and 1974-1978 it was Ali.

You are being very deceiving by not putting Ali, Frazier, and Foreman on the lists. (Yes I know you mentioned your bizarre reasoning.)

You mentioned some fighters from the 1970s that you don't think were that good. How about some of the guys from the 1990s? Are you really that impressed with Mike The Bounty Hunter? Jorge Gonzalez, Phil Jackson,Alex Garcia, David Izon, Zolkin, Derrick Jefferson?

You also have to consider that Boxing Rating are very fluid. Often a promising fighter will get ranked for a short period of time who really is not that good. He gets exposed and is not ranked again. Some of these guys were certainly not really among the top 10 heavyweights in the world.

[Senya13]

The only guys who would beat em would have been ..., Norton, ...

Who does Norton beat of top 1990s heavyweights? The division was stacked with punchers. He'd have a lot of KO losses on his record even against lesser known opponents if he fought in the 90s.

[HomicideHenry]

The only guys who would beat em would have been ..., Norton, ...

Who does Norton beat of top 1990s heavyweights? The division was stacked with punchers. He'd have a lot of KO losses on his record even against lesser known opponents if he fought in the 90s.

I was being generous in adding Norton to that. Like I said alot of the 1970's heavyweights would have lost to the 1990's guys, including the big three or five of Frazier, Ali, Foreman, Norton, and Holmes.

[dempseyfire]

The only guys who would beat em would have been ..., Norton, ...

Who does Norton beat of top 1990s heavyweights? The division was stacked with punchers. He'd have a lot of KO losses on his record even against lesser known opponents if he fought in the 90s.

Ah yes. because Norton always lost to anyone who could punch . . .yawn

[BoxBuzz]

I think the early-1970's was a very good time for 'high-quality' Heavyweights.

I don't think though, that it is fair to compare what the 1970's Group would
do against the 1990's Group.

The European's and South American's put together some decent, and entertaining
Heavyweights back then too.

Including my man,,,,,,the exciting.........Guiseppe 'Bepi' Ros, ............

From 1970 thru 1975......'Bepi' bopped his way through Europe by going 22-4-2 {12 KO's},
and was in line for a Heavyweight Championship with Muhammad Ali, who avoided the
Rock of Piave.

You have revealed to the world that Ali fought EVERY fight he ever fought, SOLELY for the strategic purpose of NOT having to fight EVERY OTHER contender in the roster.....at any given time.

This means at each and every moment he found himself facing ONE contender, he was simultaneously avoiding THOUSANDS of others all across the world.

This is the most clever strategy ever devised by a HW management team. And it obviously shaped his overly positive image as a fighter.

Foreman attempted to "expose" this tactic by his Toronto Five exhibition, but the bias media sold us all a bill of goods by having us believe that this was a simple circus side show.

The "Truth" is out there.

[loaded_gloves]

The key thing is the 70s all the major fights happened. Men would fight.

You can list all these glorious marquee names from the 1990s but they all played it safe, hid behind fractured title belts or TV-friendly undefeated records and didn't fight. They are hard to rank because they generall yonly fought one or two of the other names.

I loved the 1990s by the way, but the 70s saw them fight each other.

[BoxBuzz]

He knew some attention was being paid to this event.....so he grabbed some of his own.

Just the nature of the fella.....he sure wasn't going to sit it out while camera's were clickin' away.

He was inspired by a pro wrestler....you probably remember his name....

You may say he was a clown....no argument, he made a lot of people laugh....but he was quite the

"Battling Bozo" if you will. Being as how he was, and is, in a majority of peoples opinion,

the greatest HW of all time.

However...I noticed you did not point out one relevant fact that would be appropriate for this thread.

(Hmm I'll need to check my english on that last sentence...but I'll assume you know what I mean.)


If Ali came back in the 90's I'm afraid he would have been ranked very very low.

I doubt he could have made it more than a round or two with any of the 90's fighters. I'd put money that just about everyone rated in the top ten during the 90's could have KO'd him with relative ease.
This is important, and we should not be allowed to forget this fact.

You can safely say this "Ali could not have stood up to ANY of the top ten HW's in the 90's."

[evrenb]

He knew some attention was being paid to this event.....so he grabbed some of his own.

Just the nature of the fella.....he sure wasn't going to sit it out while camera's were clickin' away.

He was inspired by a pro wrestler....you probably remember his name....

You may say he was a clown....no argument, he made a lot of people laugh....but he was quite the

"Battling Bozo" if you will. Being as how he was, and is, in a majority of peoples opinion,

the greatest HW of all time.

However...I noticed you did not point out one relevant fact that would be appropriate for this thread.

(Hmm I'll need to check my english on that last sentence...but I'll assume you know what I mean.)


If Ali came back in the 90's I'm afraid he would have been ranked very very low.

I doubt he could have made it more than a round or two with any of the 90's fighters. I'd put money that just about everyone rated in the top ten during the 90's could have KO'd him with relative ease.
This is important, and we should not be allowed to forget this fact.

You can safely say this "Ali could not have stood up to ANY of the top ten HW's in the 90's."

Do you mean at the age he was in the 1990's??

[Ambling Alp II]

The only guys who would beat em would have been ..., Norton, ...

Who does Norton beat of top 1990s heavyweights? The division was stacked with punchers. He'd have a lot of KO losses on his record even against lesser known opponents if he fought in the 90s.

I was being generous in adding Norton to that. Like I said alot of the 1970's heavyweights would have lost to the 1990's guys, including the big three or five of Frazier, Ali, Foreman, Norton, and Holmes.

How about comparing apples to apples, which you have not being doing?

Top 4 - Ali, Frazier,Foreman and Holmes were better than Holyfield, Lewis, Tyson, and Bowe.
Norton was better than whoever you want to say was # 5 of the 1990s. (Michael Moorer or somebody.)

Next tier - Quarry, Shavers, Lyle, Young were better than than guys like Mercer, old Foreman, Bruno, Ruddock

Next tier after that - 1960s veterans Patterson, Bonavena, Chuvalo still had something left in the early 1970s. Tate, Coetzee, Weaver came along in the late 1970s. Bugner was a solid fighter in the early-mid 1970s. As a group, they were better than 1980s veterans and guys like McCall, Seldon, Tua etc.

The 1990s were a good decade for heavyweights. (as someone else mentioned, it would have better much more interesting if there were more matchups between the top guys.) However, it simply was not as good as the 1970s, which was the best decade for heavyweights.

Is the 1990s #2? I would go with the 1910-1919 decade, but that is a more interesting debate.

[HomicideHenry]

How about comparing apples to apples, which you have not being doing?

Top 4 - Ali, Frazier,Foreman and Holmes were better than Holyfield, Lewis, Tyson, and Bowe.
Norton was better than whoever you want to say was # 5 of the 1990s. (Michael Moorer or somebody.)

Next tier - Quarry, Shavers, Lyle, Young were better than than guys like Mercer, old Foreman, Bruno, Ruddock

Next tier after that - 1960s veterans Patterson, Bonavena, Chuvalo still had something left in the early 1970s. Tate, Coetzee, Weaver came along in the late 1970s. Bugner was a solid fighter in the early-mid 1970s. As a group, they were better than 1980s veterans and guys like McCall, Seldon, Tua etc.

The 1990s were a good decade for heavyweights. (as someone else mentioned, it would have better much more interesting if there were more matchups between the top guys.) However, it simply was not as good as the 1970s, which was the best decade for heavyweights.

Is the 1990s #2? I would go with the 1910-1919 decade, but that is a more interesting debate.

Talking about apples and oranges, how can you compare an era in which men wore essentially 3-5 oz gloves where 20 round bouts were common place, where no neutral corner rule existed and some championships were scheduled for 45 rounds and the referees weren't squeamish at all?

However, I tend to agree with you that 1900-1919 as a whole was far more competitive and superior to the 1990's and most other eras, possibly including the 1970's. And I only say that because, if the rules and perameters were the same for everybody---- I cant see Ali being the high volume puncher that he was in his own time, wearing 3oz gloves and he certainly isnt gonna be dancing no damn twenty or forty rounds.

[Ambling Alp II]

The apples to apples comment was in reference to you trying exclude the the top heavyweights from the 1970s and not the top heavyweights from the 1990s.
I noticed that you didn't even try to refute my comparisons, Though again you went off on one of your anti-Ali rants. When you make fair comparisons the 1970s look better.

Of course you can compare the 1990s to the 1910-1919 decade.
Fights scheduled for 45 were not common. It was even more rare for a fight to actually last past 20 rounds. It was much more common for a fight to be scheduled for 10 rounds.
There are always differences between eras. In the 1970s, unlike the 1990s, many fights were still scored by the rounds system and not by points. Championship fights were scheduled for 15 rounds in the 1970s and only 12 rounds in the 1990s. Fights were generally stopped sooner in the 1990s than in the 1970s. Contenders still routinely fought each other in the 1970s and did not in the 1990s.

Even in the same era rules vary a little depending on where the fight is fought, if there was a governing body involved etc. (How long is the fight scheduled for, is there a standing 8 count, size of the ring etc.)
The basic rules are still the same and fighters adjust to differences.
You can tell if a fighter was poor, mediocre, good or great regardless of the era that he fought in.