Best decade for heavyweigt boxing

[pundit]

In my view, only the 1930s and the 1970s are serious contenders. Btw, every other decade appears to be a good one for heavyweight boxing. So there is light at the end of the tunnel - only 4 years to go...

[ferroz]

wow that is a good observation! I never thought of it like that. This makes me optimistic for the future of heavyweight boxing.

[surf-bat]

the 1890s were pretty outstanding as well:

Jeffries
Fitzsimmons
Corbett
Sharkey
Choynski
Jackson
Maher
Goddard

[Expug]

Im partial to the seventies , but thats because I was fortunate enough to witness all of it. It was a great era for Heavies. The best in my opinion. Ali , Foreman, Frazier, Shavers, Lyle, Norton, Quarry, Young, hell even Neon Leon had folks excited. And of course Holmes ended the decade and ushered in the eighties.

[surf-bat]

Im partial to the seventies , but thats because I was fortunate enough to witness all of it. It was a great era for Heavies. The best in my opinion. Ali , Foreman, Frazier, Shavers, Lyle, Norton, Quarry, Young, hell even Neon Leon had folks excited. And of course Holmes ended the decade and ushered in the eighties.

The 70s. Beautiful boxers- Ali, Holmes, Young, Ellis
and devastating punchers- Foreman, Frazier, Shavers, Lyle, Bonavena, Foster, Norton

Great decade. It had it all

[Expug]

And you could see much of it on regular T.V. although not all of it now that I think about it. The words Closed Circuit are going through my mind as I type this.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

liston should be included in the 1950s heavyweight division, he was at his absolute peak in 1958-59

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

10. 1940s: The worst heavyweight decade of the century. The heavyweight title was inactive for three-and-a-half years, and the rest of the time, Joe Louis was on his Bum-of-the-Month Tour. Billy Conn and Jersey Joe Walcott were the only live competitors Louis saw that decade. He knocked them both out, the way a good champion does. Part of the problem with boxing in the 1940s was its resemblance to professional wrestling of the 1940s. Promoters were more interested in putting the small, handsome "good guy" up against the tall, fat, ugly "bad guy" than in staging competitive matches.

i disagree, u had louis, bivins, ray, walcott, charles, conn those are all great fighters. then u had a very good list of top depth like lem franklin, roscoe toles, harry bobo, buddy baer, arturo godoy, lou nova, turkey thompson, abe simon, tony galento, etc. all these guys are good to very good fighters.

this is defintley not the worst

9. 1910s: This was a very frustrating decade, because for the first half of it, Jack Johnson was on the run from the law, and for the next few years, Jess Willard was sitting on his front porch, making money barnstorming. Jack Dempsey made things interesting at the end of the decade, and there were a few good fighters.

this was much better than 9th,

you had 2 top 10 heavies in dempsey and johnson.....


arnt u forgetting sam langford, harry wills, joe jeanette, sam mcvey. all top 25 heavies at least.

what about some of the other top contenders like

underated billy miske, gunboat smith, luther mccarthy, fred fulton, kid norfolk, big bill tate, battling levinskey, bill brennan, jeff clark, battling jim johnson, etc all these guys are either great white hopes or highly avoided top black fighters of the era.

this was a STRONG ERA

7. 1930s: Now this is an overrated decade. Aside from Joe Louis, its champions were Max Schmeling (a poor man's Evander Holyfield), Jack Sharkey (a poor man's, well... Jack Sharkey), Primo Carnera (a poor man's Hulk Hogan), Max Baer (a poor man's Earnie Shavers), and Jim Braddock (a poor man's Billy Conn). Still, there was a fair amount of depth, and Sharkey, for all his inconsistency, was extremely talented, and didn't mind crossing the color barrier, the way so many 1920s fighters did.

max baer was much better than earnie shavers. ur being way too hard on max schmeling. schmeling was a very talented fighter. the best besides joe louis.

what about some of the top black highly avoided contenders of the 1930s like tiger jack fox, george godfrey, larry gains, jack trammell, leroy haynes, etc.

5. 1950s: This was an incredibly top-heavy decade. There was Ezzard Charles, there was Joe Walcott, there was Rocky Marciano, and then there was a bunch of crap. The 1950s was an era of great fighters in the heavyweight division, but not great natural heavyweights.

i agree, although u did not mentioned floyd patterson, archie moore, ingemar johannsen, and last but not least sonny liston. liston was at his absolute peak in 1958-59 so he should count in this era.

add top contenders HOF hugely underated clarence henry, cleveland williams, old joe louis, roland lastarza, eddie machen, zora folley, harold johnson, nino valdes, bob baker, rex layne, etc and u got ur self a DAMM FINE decade for heavies


as for great natural heavies u had joe louis, jersey joe walcott, sonny liston, cleveland williams, ingo johannsen, eddie machen, zora folley, nino valdes, bob baker. all these guys were over 195lb

the best 210lb + heavys of the 1950s were sonny liston, cleveland williams, old joe louis, bob baker, nino valdes

[generic screen name]

4. 1980s: Talent-wise, the 1980s ranks right up there with the 1970s. Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson ruled this decade, and Evander Holyfield was coming up through the heavyweight ranks. Unfortunately, fighters like Tim Witherspoon, Gerry Cooney, Trevor Berbick and Buster Douglas could simply become millionaires by showing up to fights, and they rarely did more than that.

Good observation, just to nitpick a little, Evander was a cruiserweight for most of the 80's (although he did fight as a heavy in 1989). 1980's especially early 80's are underrated, talentwise it was good, but falls to the shadow of the even deeper middleweight-welterweight era.

[pundit]

I vote for the 1930s. As I wrote elswhere, never has heavyweight boxing been as exciting and produced as many stories as during and right after the great depression. There was Joe Louis, the kid with the devine talent and the embarassing skin color (for mainstream America). There was Max Schmeling, the envoy from Nazi Germany, who actually was the anti-thesis to the thugs running his country. There was Max Baer, the tremendously talented semi-Jewish-American dandy. There was cinderella man James Braddock. There was the giant Italian Primo Carnera. There was the brawler Jack Sharkey. And they all fougth each other.

Of course only one of these fighters was truly outstanding - Joe Louis - but in the end this applies for any decade. Even 70 years later though ordinary folks know about Louis-Schmeling; and every boxing fan will also know about Braddock-Baer, Baer-Schmeling, Schmeling-Sharkey, Carnera-Sharkey, Baer-Carnera, Louis-Carnera, Louis-Baer, Louis-Braddock - and associate a story with it.

P

[Expug]

A juxtaposition of Hendrix and Schulberg?All along the Waterfront?

[Expug]

Your right, but Hendrix version has a way of makin some people forget Dylans original. I wonder if Dave Mason will be pissed when he reads this.

[Ambling Alp]

Here's how I'd rank them:

10. 1940s: The worst heavyweight decade of the century. The heavyweight title was inactive for three-and-a-half years, and the rest of the time, Joe Louis was on his Bum-of-the-Month Tour. Billy Conn and Jersey Joe Walcott were the only live competitors Louis saw that decade. He knocked them both out, the way a good champion does. Part of the problem with boxing in the 1940s was its resemblance to professional wrestling of the 1940s. Promoters were more interested in putting the small, handsome "good guy" up against the tall, fat, ugly "bad guy" than in staging competitive matches.

9. 1910s: This was a very frustrating decade, because for the first half of it, Jack Johnson was on the run from the law, and for the next few years, Jess Willard was sitting on his front porch, making money barnstorming. Jack Dempsey made things interesting at the end of the decade, and there were a few good fighters.

8. 1920s: The two best heavyweights in this decade, Dempsey and Tunney, didn't fight a single black man during these 10 years. This was an era where we simply didn't know who the best fighter was because Harry Wills couldn't get a title shot. Sure, most of us think he wouldn't have beaten Dempsey, but it would've been nice if there'd been a match, you know, so we could make sure. Still, this decade had a few excellent fighters, men that we can see on tape. Boxing became the biggest sport in America during this time, so the decade can't be all bad.

7. 1930s: Now this is an overrated decade. Aside from Joe Louis, its champions were Max Schmeling (a poor man's Evander Holyfield), Jack Sharkey (a poor man's, well... Jack Sharkey), Primo Carnera (a poor man's Hulk Hogan), Max Baer (a poor man's Earnie Shavers), and Jim Braddock (a poor man's Billy Conn). Still, there was a fair amount of depth, and Sharkey, for all his inconsistency, was extremely talented, and didn't mind crossing the color barrier, the way so many 1920s fighters did.

6. 1900s: The rise of Jack Johnon characterized this decade. The Black Foursome were coming into prominence, but mostly fighting each other. This decade is a little like the 1980s, where you had an old hand holding onto the title for the first five years (Larry Holmes/Jim Jeffries), and a phenomonal fighter capturing it in the later years (Mike Tyson/Jack Johnson), and the old hand coming out of retirement to face the phenom. The decade loses points because the Lineal title was idle for half the decade, and there was the embarassing Hart/Burns line.

5. 1950s: This was an incredibly top-heavy decade. There was Ezzard Charles, there was Joe Walcott, there was Rocky Marciano, and then there was a bunch of crap. The 1950s was an era of great fighters in the heavyweight division, but not great natural heavyweights. Edit: Sonny Liston came of age in this decade, and showed a lot of prowess, decimating the heavyweight division in late 1958 and 1959.

4. 1980s: Talent-wise, the 1980s ranks right up there with the 1970s. Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson ruled this decade, and Evander Holyfield was coming up through the heavyweight ranks. Unfortunately, fighters like Tim Witherspoon, Gerry Cooney, Trevor Berbick and Buster Douglas could simply become millionaires by showing up to fights, and they rarely did more than that.

3. 1960s: You have Liston, Clay and Frazier all in their primes, for starters. It's too bad that most people only know about Joe from his fights in the 1970s. I'd argue that he was even better in the 1960s. This decade loses out a little bit because once you get beyond the three best heavyweights, it's an inconsistent lot. The division doesn't have as much depth as the following decade did.

2. 1990s: This was a very exciting decade that featured Riddick Bowe, Evander Holyfield, Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis. The Black Foursome of the 1900s? Forgetaboutit. These guys were deadly. Rounding out the cast were Michael Moorer, David Tua, Hasim Rahman, Chris Byrd, Ike Ibeabuchi, John Ruiz, Ray Mercer and the geriatric duo of Larry Holmes and George Foreman.

1. 1970s: I'd actually argue that Clay and Liston were better at their peak in the 1960s than any fighter in the 1970s, but Ali was still near the top of his game, and Frazier's peak lasted into the 1970s. Then you have Foreman. Then you have Norton. Then you have Holmes. Then you have Quarry, Shavers, Ellis, Lyle and Young..

I found myself agreeing with alot of what Decagon says. I liked the little summaries of each decade.
My biggest difference of opinion would be the 1910's. I would have ranked it a lot higher. It was disappointing that Johnson and Willard didn't defend the title against Langford, McVey, Jeanette, and Wills. Still there were some great battles between the four. They also spradically took on the white hopes and usually (although not always) won. Add Dempsey at the end of the decade and thats a pretty decent decade, certainly better than 10th in my opinion.

I also have the 1990's as #2, but I do have a major reservation. That is that so many great fights didn't happen. It would have been so much better if Tyson-Bowe, Bowe-Lewis would have happened, and if Holyfield-Lewis would have happened about 4 years before it did. Even Mercer-Tyson or Mercer-Bowe would have been interesting.

Atleast there was the Holyfield-Bowe series, Holyfield-Tyson, Holyfield Mercer, Mercer-Lewis, Ibeabuchi-Tua among others.
All in all a great decade in the heavyweight division.

The 1980's is starting to grow on me. I used to think was terrible. I couldn't stand Larry Holmes, and thought that most of his challengers were horrible. Maybe it was because they came after all the great heavyweights of the 1970's. However, I have now reached the conclusion that some of them were decent. The alpha champs would sort of tease you. Occasionally, one of them would look real good,then look very average in his next several fights.
On the plus side of the 1980's you had Holmes and Tyson. Occasionally one of the alpa champions would put on a great performance. On the negative side, they were too far apart in age to have had a rivalry. None of the other guys were consistently great.
Was there really any heavyweight fights in the 1980's which you would call great?

As far as rating decades, I suppose it's what you look for. Do you like it when one guy is way better than everyone else? Or when there is so much parity that no one can hold onto the title for long? I guess I like it sort of in between. I like it when there a few guys on top and few more just behind them.

Anyway, great post Decagon.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

im putting together a top 10 heavies of each decade and i will post a big summary of tomorrow of what i think are the best eras

[pundit]

im putting together a top 10 heavies of each decade and i will post a big summary of tomorrow of what i think are the best eras

Looking forward to it.

[pound per pound]

Here's how I'd rank them:

10. 1940s: The worst heavyweight decade of the century. The heavyweight title was inactive for three-and-a-half years, and the rest of the time, Joe Louis was on his Bum-of-the-Month Tour. Billy Conn and Jersey Joe Walcott were the only live competitors Louis saw that decade. He knocked them both out, the way a good champion does. Part of the problem with boxing in the 1940s was its resemblance to professional wrestling of the 1940s. Promoters were more interested in putting the small, handsome "good guy" up against the tall, fat, ugly "bad guy" than in staging competitive matches.

9. 1910s: This was a very frustrating decade, because for the first half of it, Jack Johnson was on the run from the law, and for the next few years, Jess Willard was sitting on his front porch, making money barnstorming. Jack Dempsey made things interesting at the end of the decade, and there were a few good fighters.

8. 1920s: The two best heavyweights in this decade, Dempsey and Tunney, didn't fight a single black man during these 10 years. This was an era where we simply didn't know who the best fighter was because Harry Wills couldn't get a title shot. Sure, most of us think he wouldn't have beaten Dempsey, but it would've been nice if there'd been a match, you know, so we could make sure. Still, this decade had a few excellent fighters, men that we can see on tape. Boxing became the biggest sport in America during this time, so the decade can't be all bad.

7. 1930s: Now this is an overrated decade. Aside from Joe Louis, its champions were Max Schmeling (a poor man's Evander Holyfield), Jack Sharkey (a poor man's, well... Jack Sharkey), Primo Carnera (a poor man's Hulk Hogan), Max Baer (a poor man's Earnie Shavers), and Jim Braddock (a poor man's Billy Conn). Still, there was a fair amount of depth, and Sharkey, for all his inconsistency, was extremely talented, and didn't mind crossing the color barrier, the way so many 1920s fighters did.

6. 1900s: The rise of Jack Johnon characterized this decade. The Black Foursome were coming into prominence, but mostly fighting each other. This decade is a little like the 1980s, where you had an old hand holding onto the title for the first five years (Larry Holmes/Jim Jeffries), and a phenomonal fighter capturing it in the later years (Mike Tyson/Jack Johnson), and the old hand coming out of retirement to face the phenom. The decade loses points because the Lineal title was idle for half the decade, and there was the embarassing Hart/Burns line.

5. 1950s: This was an incredibly top-heavy decade. There was Ezzard Charles, there was Joe Walcott, there was Rocky Marciano, and then there was a bunch of crap. The 1950s was an era of great fighters in the heavyweight division, but not great natural heavyweights. Edit: Sonny Liston came of age in this decade, and showed a lot of prowess, decimating the heavyweight division in late 1958 and 1959.

4. 1980s: Talent-wise, the 1980s ranks right up there with the 1970s. Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson ruled this decade, and Evander Holyfield was coming up through the heavyweight ranks. Unfortunately, fighters like Tim Witherspoon, Gerry Cooney, Trevor Berbick and Buster Douglas could simply become millionaires by showing up to fights, and they rarely did more than that.

3. 1960s: You have Liston, Clay and Frazier all in their primes, for starters. It's too bad that most people only know about Joe from his fights in the 1970s. I'd argue that he was even better in the 1960s. This decade loses out a little bit because once you get beyond the three best heavyweights, it's an inconsistent lot. The division doesn't have as much depth as the following decade did.

2. 1990s: This was a very exciting decade that featured Riddick Bowe, Evander Holyfield, Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis. The Black Foursome of the 1900s? Forgetaboutit. These guys were deadly. Rounding out the cast were Michael Moorer, David Tua, Hasim Rahman, Chris Byrd, Ike Ibeabuchi, John Ruiz, Ray Mercer and the geriatric duo of Larry Holmes and George Foreman.

1. 1970s: I'd actually argue that Clay and Liston were better at their peak in the 1960s than any fighter in the 1970s, but Ali was still near the top of his game, and Frazier's peak lasted into the 1970s. Then you have Foreman. Then you have Norton. Then you have Holmes. Then you have Quarry, Shavers, Ellis, Lyle and Young..

I would flip- flop the 1900's and the 1950, as I beleive the 1900's had better elite fighters and better depth.

The 1960's are under rated! Liston and Patterson add depth, plus Quarry wasn't chump change in the 60's either.

Well done.

[dempseyfire]

Here's how I'd rank them:

10. 1940s: The worst heavyweight decade of the century. The heavyweight title was inactive for three-and-a-half years, and the rest of the time, Joe Louis was on his Bum-of-the-Month Tour. Billy Conn and Jersey Joe Walcott were the only live competitors Louis saw that decade. He knocked them both out, the way a good champion does. Part of the problem with boxing in the 1940s was its resemblance to professional wrestling of the 1940s. Promoters were more interested in putting the small, handsome "good guy" up against the tall, fat, ugly "bad guy" than in staging competitive matches.

9. 1910s: This was a very frustrating decade, because for the first half of it, Jack Johnson was on the run from the law, and for the next few years, Jess Willard was sitting on his front porch, making money barnstorming. Jack Dempsey made things interesting at the end of the decade, and there were a few good fighters.

8. 1920s: The two best heavyweights in this decade, Dempsey and Tunney, didn't fight a single black man during these 10 years. This was an era where we simply didn't know who the best fighter was because Harry Wills couldn't get a title shot. Sure, most of us think he wouldn't have beaten Dempsey, but it would've been nice if there'd been a match, you know, so we could make sure. Still, this decade had a few excellent fighters, men that we can see on tape. Boxing became the biggest sport in America during this time, so the decade can't be all bad.

7. 1930s: Now this is an overrated decade. Aside from Joe Louis, its champions were Max Schmeling (a poor man's Evander Holyfield), Jack Sharkey (a poor man's, well... Jack Sharkey), Primo Carnera (a poor man's Hulk Hogan), Max Baer (a poor man's Earnie Shavers), and Jim Braddock (a poor man's Billy Conn). Still, there was a fair amount of depth, and Sharkey, for all his inconsistency, was extremely talented, and didn't mind crossing the color barrier, the way so many 1920s fighters did.

6. 1900s: The rise of Jack Johnon characterized this decade. The Black Foursome were coming into prominence, but mostly fighting each other. This decade is a little like the 1980s, where you had an old hand holding onto the title for the first five years (Larry Holmes/Jim Jeffries), and a phenomonal fighter capturing it in the later years (Mike Tyson/Jack Johnson), and the old hand coming out of retirement to face the phenom. The decade loses points because the Lineal title was idle for half the decade, and there was the embarassing Hart/Burns line.

5. 1950s: This was an incredibly top-heavy decade. There was Ezzard Charles, there was Joe Walcott, there was Rocky Marciano, and then there was a bunch of crap. The 1950s was an era of great fighters in the heavyweight division, but not great natural heavyweights. Edit: Sonny Liston came of age in this decade, and showed a lot of prowess, decimating the heavyweight division in late 1958 and 1959.

4. 1980s: Talent-wise, the 1980s ranks right up there with the 1970s. Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson ruled this decade, and Evander Holyfield was coming up through the heavyweight ranks. Unfortunately, fighters like Tim Witherspoon, Gerry Cooney, Trevor Berbick and Buster Douglas could simply become millionaires by showing up to fights, and they rarely did more than that.

3. 1960s: You have Liston, Clay and Frazier all in their primes, for starters. It's too bad that most people only know about Joe from his fights in the 1970s. I'd argue that he was even better in the 1960s. This decade loses out a little bit because once you get beyond the three best heavyweights, it's an inconsistent lot. The division doesn't have as much depth as the following decade did.

2. 1990s: This was a very exciting decade that featured Riddick Bowe, Evander Holyfield, Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis. The Black Foursome of the 1900s? Forgetaboutit. These guys were deadly. Rounding out the cast were Michael Moorer, David Tua, Hasim Rahman, Chris Byrd, Ike Ibeabuchi, John Ruiz, Ray Mercer and the geriatric duo of Larry Holmes and George Foreman.

1. 1970s: I'd actually argue that Clay and Liston were better at their peak in the 1960s than any fighter in the 1970s, but Ali was still near the top of his game, and Frazier's peak lasted into the 1970s. Then you have Foreman. Then you have Norton. Then you have Holmes. Then you have Quarry, Shavers, Ellis, Lyle and Young..

The 1940s had some HW depth-Lou Nova, Godoy, Walcott, Charles, Ray, Bivins etc. The War only kept some good matches from being made but that's not the fighter's fault.

The 1990s are extremely over-rated here. John Ruiz and Hasim Rahman? Tyson in the 90s was a sideshow. Bowe had his Holyfield trilogy but that pretty much sums up his career highlights.

You say the 1960s beyond those 3 are inconsistant-what about Morrison, Mercer, Moorer, Tua etc. Talk about inconsistency. I'll take Quarry, Bonavena, Cleveland Williams before he got shot, Eddie Machen, Zora Folley, Mathis Sr., and Ellis over that lot anyday.

[pundit]

Still waiting for your analysis, Brockton.

[pound per pound]

Still waiting for your analysis, Brockton.

A thread on the top ten from each decade would take some time to compile. Let's see if Brockton can deliver a knockout.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Still waiting for your analysis, Brockton.

A thread on the top ten from each decade would take some time to compile. Let's see if Brockton can deliver a knockout.

its tougher than i thought. im close to finishing, it will be ready soon. sorry for the delay.

[pundit]

Still waiting for your analysis, Brockton.

A thread on the top ten from each decade would take some time to compile. Let's see if Brockton can deliver a knockout.

its tougher than i thought. im close to finishing, it will be ready soon. sorry for the delay.

It's ok mate, just wanted to make sure that you're still on it - because, as ever, I expect to learn from it. So as long as you will post this here eventually please take the time you need.

Cheers, P

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

I once ranked the top 15 fighters of the 1930s:

1. Joe Louis
2. Jack Sharkey
3. Max Baer
4. Max Schmelling
5. Jim Braddock
6. Buddy Baer
7. Primo Carnera
8. Bob Pastor
9. John Henry Lewis
10. Lou Nova
11. Abe Simon
12. Tiger Jack Fox
13. Tommy Farr
14. Tony Galento
15. Lee Savold

mine is defintley somewut different. you added way too much heavyweights who were better fighters in the 1940s.


funny how george godfrey isnt on there, evne though he BEAT tiger jack fox. godfrey was still plenty dangerous in early 1930s. funny how u have no larry gains who beat primo easily and was a dangerous fighter in the early 1930s.

good effort and fair list, but IMO you many flaws in ur list


* u left off many of the top unavoided black contenders of the 1930s who were better than some of the guys on ur list


* i dont like the way u have sharkey and baer over schmeling



of course dec, this is all my opinion. my list isnt any better than urs, its all opinion.

Boxrec, u guys are really gonna like what i did. i am close to finsining. i have done the top 15 from each decade and plan on adding a pic to go along with there name. it will be enjoyable.

[pundit]

Excellent points. Here's version 2.0

1. Joe Louis
2. Jack Sharkey
3. Max Baer
4. Max Schmelling
5. Jim Braddock
6. Buddy Baer
7. Primo Carnera
8. Bob Pastor
9. George Godfrey
10. John Henry Lewis
11. Lou Nova
12. Larry Gains
13. Abe Simon
14. Tiger Jack Fox
15. Jersey Joe Walcott

Sharkey shouldn't be above Schmeling. He clearly lost the one legit fight they had, even though the jduges gave it to Sharlkey.

Baer above Schmeling can be argued; it all depends on whether you believe that Schmeling went through a bad spell when he lost to Baer (shortly thereafter he lost to Hamas but hammered Hamas in the refight), or whether Baer had indeed Schmeling's number.

[generic screen name]

I really think Sharkey's underrated, so I always overrate him.

I think the same way, but different