Best Decades were best for heavyweights ?

[Ambling Alp II]

Thought this would be fun.
Which Decades (besides the 1970s)were the best in heavyweight boxing in the 20th Century?
Criteria being the ability of the best, depth, and great fights.
You can vote for two.

[oogiebe]

Any reason why you left off the seventies?

[Tony1244]

Any reason why you left off the seventies?

Thank You.

[Ambling Alp II]

Because it was are clearly the best. It's not worth discussing. However, I thought it would be interesting to talk about the other eras. I think you could make some sort of case for many of them. Wanted to see what people had to say about them.
It might be interesting to see debates between say the 1930s and the 1980s or the 1990s and the 1960s etc.

[DrDuke]

The 90s are the best in the list without any doubts. Actually, it's quite debatable, if the 70s were better than the 90s. Those two were the strongest, the most competetive and exciting eras ever. I'd even favor the 90s over the 70s, if the 70s were in the list.

[Onamastus]

The 90s were incredibly exciting and action-packed, and it was a fun era to live through.

[DrDuke]

For the moment there're 6 votes, 5 logically for the 90s and the only remaining is for the 40s. I wonder, who picked the least. Probably some big Joe Louis fan. Btw, it's arguable, what era was better for Louis, the 30s or the 40s.

[margaret thatcher]

Because it was are clearly the best. It's not worth discussing. However, I thought it would be interesting to talk about the other eras. I think you could make some sort of case for many of them. Wanted to see what people had to say about them.
It might be interesting to see debates between say the 1930s and the 1980s or the 1990s and the 1960s etc.

90s are clearly the best in this list, make the dream fight bruh, it will be more competitive than this list. 70s vs 90s, the battle of the century

[DrDuke]

Because it was are clearly the best. It's not worth discussing. However, I thought it would be interesting to talk about the other eras. I think you could make some sort of case for many of them. Wanted to see what people had to say about them.
It might be interesting to see debates between say the 1930s and the 1980s or the 1990s and the 1960s etc.

90s are clearly the best in this list, make the dream fight bruh, it will be more competitive than this list. 70s vs 90s, the battle of the century

I made it: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=240477

[Ambling Alp II]

1990s have a great amount of talent, one of the best of any decade.
Their were some very good heavyweights and the top 4 was excellent: holyfield, Lewis, Bowe, and Tyson. Potentially there could have 6 different matchups between these guys. We as fans got 2 of them.
We got Holyfield-Bowe and Holyfield-Tyson.

In the 1990s, we missed out on:
No Bowe-Lewis
No Lewis-Bowe
No Lewis Tyson
No Holyfield-Lewis

As fans, we got cheated. It was frustrating at the time. there were some other fighters with good fighters, which helped some.
Which is a huge reason it doesn't compare to the 1970s. (doesn't help that senior citizens from the 1970s like Holmes and Foreman did so well)
Take a closer look and other decades are comparable:

1960s - Ali, Liston, Patterson, Frazier later on. several other solid fighters.

1950s -Marciano, Walcott, Charles early on. Then later Patterson, Johansson, Liston. several other good heavyweights during the decade.

1930s was underrated Early on Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer. Tough contenders like Loughran, Risko, Schaaf Uzudun. Obviously Louis later in the decade.

The top guys did not always fight each other in the other decades. But they a lot more often. What could have been a great decade was really just good.

[DrDuke]

Here it is, the 90s are leading confidently. The poll would have been much more competetive without both the 70s and the 90s. As I said, I picked the 90s here without any doubts, so for me it's more interesting to pick the 2nd place.

Well, the most clear candidates for the 2nd place are the 30s, the 50s, the 60s and the 80s.

The 30s had good scraps featuring Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer, Carnera, despite some were missing, the inspiring blowout of Braddock and the emerge of Joe Louis.

The 50s had great fights of Charles, Walcott and Marciano, some of which were a part of the great Marciano reign. Then there were the emerge of Patterson and the breakthrough of Johansson. I'd say, this decade was better than the 30s, because it had more intense rivalries.

The 60s had the comeback of Patterson, including the 2nd and the 3rd parts of his massacre-like trilogy vs Johansson, then the short, but intense rise of Liston, the great reign of Ali #1 and the spectacular emerge of Frazier. Clearly better, than the two mentioned decades.

The 80s had the reign of Holmes, which was very dominant and impressive, while it contained some highly entertaining and competetive fights. Then there was the emerge and the reign of Tyson, which was obviously spectacular. Plus Holyfield was breaking through the ranks at the end of the decade. While the second-tier horde was ecpecially impressive there, it provided many super competetive and entertaining fights.

So, for me the 80 is #2 after the 90s.

[oogiebe]

I struggle with the 80's because of the chaotic beginning of the decade with so many HW champs.

John Tate
Mike Weaver
MIke Dokes
Gerrie Coetzee
Greg Page
Tony Tubbs
Tim Witherspoon
Bonecrusher Smith

All while Holmes reigned the WBC and finally cleaned up by Tyson.

[gilgamesh]

The 90's and the 1940's would've probably been 2nd best. Though I suppose you could argue for the 50's as well with Liston coming into the scene at the tail end of 'em.

[Onamastus]

I struggle with the 80's because of the chaotic beginning of the decade with so many HW champs.

John Tate
Mike Weaver
MIke Dokes
Gerrie Coetzee
Greg Page
Tony Tubbs
Tim Witherspoon
Bonecrusher Smith

All while Holmes reigned the WBC and finally cleaned up by Tyson.

Holmes was only WBC champ for the first four names on that list. He contributed to the chaos by refusing to fight Page or rematch Spoon and vacating the belt in favour of Scott Frank and Marvis.

[oogiebe]

I struggle with the 80's because of the chaotic beginning of the decade with so many HW champs.

John Tate
Mike Weaver
MIke Dokes
Gerrie Coetzee
Greg Page
Tony Tubbs
Tim Witherspoon
Bonecrusher Smith

All while Holmes reigned the WBC and finally cleaned up by Tyson.

Holmes was only WBC champ for the first four names on that list. He contributed to the chaos by refusing to fight Page or rematch Spoon and vacating the belt in favour of Scott Frank and Marvis.

That's fine. POint is look at the list of names that were WBA champs during the 80's. Hardly breathtaking. Hated the early to mid 80's.

[DrDuke]

Those "minor" title fights of the early 80s could be overblown to the title status, cause everyone was seeing Holmes as a true champ, but still those were good scraps. The bouts featuring Dokes, Coetzee, Weaver were good, as well as Witherspoon-Bruno and Witherspoon-Thomas, Thomas-Weaver, Thomas-Berbick for WBC.

[Onetimeonly]

Weaver/coetzee is an underrated fight. Bruising war.

[AntonioMartin]

I struggle with the 80's because of the chaotic beginning of the decade with so many HW champs.

John Tate
Mike Weaver
MIke Dokes
Gerrie Coetzee
Greg Page
Tony Tubbs
Tim Witherspoon
Bonecrusher Smith

All while Holmes reigned the WBC and finally cleaned up by Tyson.

The 80s were good! But not great...

Also the 80s was a let down compared to the 70s, thats why people dont appreciate the 80s as much, just like Larry Holmes coming after Muhammad Ali...

[oogiebe]

I struggle with the 80's because of the chaotic beginning of the decade with so many HW champs.

John Tate
Mike Weaver
MIke Dokes
Gerrie Coetzee
Greg Page
Tony Tubbs
Tim Witherspoon
Bonecrusher Smith

All while Holmes reigned the WBC and finally cleaned up by Tyson.

The 80s were good! But not great...

Also the 80s was a let down compared to the 70s, thats why people dont appreciate the 80s as much, just like Larry Holmes coming after Muhammad Ali...

I think had the title not splintered, the decade would've been better. Holmes would've been fighting most of those names above. Those names listed had some good fights but are no one's all time list. Half the 80's sucked, the other half was pretty good, but not great. The late 80's was a good setup to the great 90's. Nothing to do with a let down for me.