Best Decade for Heavyweights

[Sweet Scientist]

It's been said (by the media some of us utterly despise--as well as respected boxing historians) that the 1970's was the best decade for heavyweight boxing. The fivesome of Holmes, Ali, Frazier, Foreman & Norton...was the best fivesome in any decade. Not to mention other fighters like Quarry, Bonavena & others not quite up to the talent level of the top five.

I can't wait to hear what decade(s) you prefer over the 70's

Don't forget to name the top fighters of your selected decade
I'm sure I won't have to ask your reasons, you'll supply them...

[gensu3k1]

It's been said (by the media some of us utterly despise--as well as respected boxing historians) that the 1970's was the best decade for heavyweight boxing. The fivesome of Holmes, Ali, Frazier, Foreman & Norton...was the best fivesome in any decade. Not to mention other fighters like Quarry, Bonavena & others not quite up to the talent level of the top five.

I can't wait to hear what decade(s) you prefer over the 70's

Don't forget to name the top fighters of your selected decade
I'm sure I won't have to ask your reasons, you'll supply them...

The Heavyweight division has really only had two decades with considerable talent: the 70s and 90s. The 90s had about as much talent as the 70s, but the talent burned out due to inconsistency (Mercer), personal problems/insanity (Ibeabuchi, Tyson, Golota) and food (Tua, Bowe).

[gensu3k1]

knocked out in two rounds like a small boy by Foreman,

So was Frazier, and he was pretty good, don't you think?

[Sweet Scientist]

Terap:

I asked for you to name a decade & list of fighters BETTER than the list above...You, of course, did not...instead lauching another pesonal attack on Ken Norton (a fine fighter), as well as more of your ridiculous name calling of another poster to this forum...

How about looking up your beloved Dempsey and explain some of his early losses & draws...I'm oh-so-sure you'll have a great 'rationalization' for those.

Norton was developing when he lost to a ranked Jose Luis Garcia, later winning the rematch...

MAYBE DEMPSEY WOULD LOSE LIKE A LITTLE BOY TO FOREMAN ALSO, ONE MORE GOOD PUNCH AND HE WOULD HAVE LOST TO FIRPO, OR DO YOU CONVENIENTLY FORGET THAT???

So, everyone who lost to Ali is an 'undesirable' in your book???
You have less and less credibility with every post...and your name calling sucks.

As President Kennedy once said: "Civility is not a sign of weakness."
Think about it.

And, it would be nice to stick to the topic: Name a decade (and list of boxers) better than the 70's...I assume you can't since you prefer to spew more of your venomous tirades against others....

Grow up!

[gensu3k1]

"Norton NEVER BEAT A GOOD FIGHTER."

Have you now reached the point where you will claim that Muhammad Ali was not a good fighter?

"If you remove the three fights with Ali from Norton's record---he is a nobody as a fighter."

If you remove his fights with Willie Pep, Sandy Saddler isn't that great either.

[gensu3k1]

"The Heavyweight division has really only had two decades with considerable talent: the 70s and 90s. "

WONDERFUL example of the myopic view of one who has only a modern news media "education" in the subject.

Name me a decade with more talent.

[gensu3k1]

Did you manage to MISS everything I posted except one tiny fact.

Don't use a "tiny fact" if it can be so easily shot down. A lot of good fighters got KO'd by George Foreman.

[gensu3k1]

"Sandy Saddler (never bigger than a featherweight) "

Saddler weighed in at over 130 many times in his career. It's for this reason that many people rank him as one of the all-time great junior lightweights.

"knocked out three LIGHTWEIGHT champions

JOE BROWN "

Brown was 21 years old at the time, with a record of 7-4-2. He'd been knocked out in 3 rounds by the 6-7-4 Melvin Bartholomew just 2 years before, and lost a decision to him the same year. Brown would go on to become a great fighter, but he wasn't when the vastly more experienced Saddler beat him.

"PADDY DEMARCO"

He also lost two decisions to Demarco, a fighter that Pep didn't have much trouble with. DeMarco wasn't that great.

"LAURA SALAS (twice)"

He of the 83-52-12 record.

"That is stupidest rermark I have ever seen on a boxing site---and that is saying something."

I seem to remember you saying that Ken Norton never beat a good fighter. Didn't you also say Mitch Green had faster hands than Ali? That Ali landed zero clean punches against Young?

And I'm still waiting to hear about the decades that had more talent in the heavyweight division than the 70s and 90s.

[Sweet Scientist]

Don't worry..Terap won't be posting a better decade than the 70's for heavyweights.

There aren't any.

I thought sure he would pick a decade and put his foot in his mouth, though.

Are you sure you don't want to be stubborn and argue about this one, Terap?

[silkov]

The seventies were definately the decade for the heavyweight division, but also for most of the other divisions in boxing at the time... go through the list of champs and contenders and you'll find fighters that could more than hold there own in any era.
Traditionally the heavyweight division has always been the least talent laden in boxing, some might disagree with me but I believe that the lighter weights have always been generally more skilled and filled with more competition. But the 70s was one decade when the heavies were equal in depth of talent to the middleweights and say the feathers.... which were both full of great fighters at this time.
I don't see how Terap can label Norton a mediocre fighter... so he was koed by Foreman and Shavers... no shame in that. Both Shavers and Foreman are amongst the hardest punchers ever in the heavweight division, more than equal to Dempsey (and remember I am a Dempsey fan) ...in fact I'd give both Foreman and Norton a good chance of koing Dempsey if they met. Although with Shavers it would depend on who got who first.
Remember also that Norton gave Holmes and Jimmy Young pretty good fights.... and he didn't do bad against quarry either.
The 80s held a lot of talent in the Heavies too ...such as Dokes, Witherspoon, Tubbs, Thomas, Page, ( and ofcourse Holmes and Tyson) but most of these guys destroyed themselves with drugs.
After the early 80s it's been all down hill really.

[Sweet Scientist]

There you go again...(as Ronald Reagan once said to Jimmy Carter in a debate).

You take what YOU perceive to be "facts" and twist and destort them into your own "opinion"...

How about I take a stab at that same flawed technique concerning your beloved Jack Dempsey...

In 1917, 2 years before ascending to the title, Dempsey was KO'd in the first 30 seconds of the first round by 5'9" Jim Flynn...who ws pushing 40 years old at the time...

In 1918, LESS THAN A YEAR AWAY FROM HIS TITLE SHOT, Dempsey lost to Fat Willie Meehan...MARKING THE 4TH TIME IN 2 YEARS DEMPSEY FAILED TO BEAT THE OLDER MEEHAN, ANOTHER 5'9" BOXER!!!!! Where the hell was that "bone busting" power against Meehan??? Maybe he was too small, Jack couldn't reach down that low, right?

I have seen your post concerning your opinion about Floyd Patterson ducking the best contenders of his time AND concerning Floyd's inactivity while holding the title...

Dempsey ducked Harry Wills like the plague, as well as other black heavies of the era...and was THE LEAST ACTIVE HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION IN HISTORY...

He defended seven times in seven years...two of them were light heavies and didn't even weigh 180 pounds! The only big guY he DEFENDED against (FIRPO) dropped him twice in the first round, AND knocked him clean out of the ring! One more solid punch & Dempsey would have been toast!

When confronted with someone who could box (TUNNEY) Jack lost...that's L-O-S-T !!!

In the rematch, Jack LOST AGAIN! Don't feed me any B.S. about long count...rules are rules...go to the neutral corner or keep your damn mouth shut, Jack!

See how easy it is to use facts to form an opinion???

Don't be telling us that Dempsey was past his prime when he fought Tunney...You sure as hell never mention that Ali was past his prime when he beat Norton 2 out of 3. You never mention that Norton was 37 or 38 when Shavers beat him (The same age as Flynn when he devasted Dempsey in the first round, by the way!).

See how easy this is???

ANYBODY CAN USE FACTS TO CREATE FLAWED LOGIC...
YOU'RE TEACHING ME QUITE A BIT ABOUT THIS TECHNIQUE...
THANK YOU FOR THE LESSON!

[gensu3k1]

''Didn't you also say Mitch Green had faster hands than Ali"

Now the halfwit resorts to making up falsehoods.

Sorry, it must have been another Ali-hater.

Still waiting to hear the decades that had more heavyweight talent than the 70s and 90s.

[gensu3k1]

"ANY top level heavyweight would KO glass-chinned, weak waisted Norton in a round or two.

The fact that Holmes struggled as he did with Norton shows he is not top level."

LOL! Larry Holmes, a mediocre heavyweight?

"INSTEAD Young moved away like he was the one who had been hurt. Weird."

Young did a lot of weird stuff.

"Young spent much of the fight with his back resting against the ropes ---letting Norton punch away at him.
YOUNG NEVER FOUGHT LIKE THAT."

Young did precisely that in the late rounds against Ali. In fact, Young stuck his head through the ropes and allowed Ali to hammer him to the body (which apparently you don't consider to be clean punches).

"Norton had no chance against a real Young--who had beaten the same Foreman who KO'd Norton easily in 2 rounds, and who had beaten dangerous Ron Lyle TWICE by a wide margin (In their 2nd fight one judge gave Young 11 of the 12 rounds)."

Styles make fights.

"Their only recourse is to claim that Norton is one of the greats---which he sure as hell was not."

Styles make fights. He was a very good heavyweight who had the style to trouble heavyweights with Ali's style. His success against an all-time great in Holmes when far past his prime shows this.

"Ali was unable to knock down the glass-chinned Norton in 39 rounds in three fights."

Holmes couldn't knock him down either. Styles make fights.

STILL waiting to hear about the decades that had more heavyweight talent than the 90s and 70s.

[Sweet Scientist]

It's funny, Terap old pal, that you would pick that particular line to quote as opposed to discussing the 30 second KO at the hands of 5'9" 38 year old Jim Flynn...or the 4 failures to defeat Fat Willie Meehan, also 5'9"...or DUCKING Harry Wills...or the inactivity...

What the hell, it's so much easier to deflect attention and do some more Ali bashing, which seems to be the only thing you excell at...

Your "facts" are certainly unobjective, hand picked lines of B.S.

And don't we all just love how you blame Blinky Palermo for the outcome of the Norton-Young fight in '77...No proof or anything for this statement (that you just pulled out of your ass).

Yeah, NOW THAT'S THE WAY TO FIX A FIGHT...an up-in-the-air split decision.

[wouter]

Late 50's. early 60's was also pretty good, Sonny Liston, Floyd Patterson Bob Baker, Eddie Machen, Zora Folley, Cleveland Williams, Nino Valdez, Hurricane Jackson.... pretty impressive group.

[silkov]

Terap, I ve enjoyed discussing with you some of the great fighters of the past but find you're constant attacks against Ali and many of the fighters that he fought illogical and very closed minded. Anyone is entitled to have their favourite fighters eras etc, but to constantly barrack and insult and try to belittle those that do not share you're opinions is basically a sad reflection upon you. I cannot believe that someone like you who obviously cares about boxing and has studied boxing really believes that the likes of Norton, Ali, Holmes etc were mediocre or deficient fighters.
Like you said earlier... watch the tapes!.... these men were great fighters and fought in some of the best ever fights in heavyweight history.
Dempsey struggled against movers like Tommy Gibbons and ofcourse Tunney, do you really believe he would merely have brushed aside Holmes, Norton, Ali etc???..... personally I'm not even sure that Dempsey would beat Jim Jeffries, or Jack Johnson.... not to mention Louis, Corbett, Walcott, Charles, Marciano etc. I don't say this to denigrate Dempsey but he was a far more beatable and more one dimentional fighter than Ali, Holmes and Norton.... who you don't have a kind word for.

[Sweet Scientist]

Late 50's. early 60's was also pretty good, Sonny Liston, Floyd Patterson Bob Baker, Eddie Machen, Zora Folley, Cleveland Williams, Nino Valdez, Hurricane Jackson.... pretty impressive group.

Yeah, Wouter, the late 50's/early 60's were "pretty good". But "pretty good" is not excellent-like the 70's Also, it's part of one decade and part of another...but I suppose that's OK...and also, Liston dominated and beat all the other guys without anybody seriously giving him any trouble, unlike the 70's, when you had 5 different guys hold atleast a piece of the title (6 if you count Spinks...but I'd be a bit embarrassed to mention him). Frankly, I'm surprised nobody argues for the 1930's...Joe Louis alone, carries THAT decade into respectability, just include some of his "bums of the month" and you could challenge the 70's...challenge doesn't mean win though...I'd like to include one of my all time personal favories, Billy Conn, in that group but he wasn't a true heavy, and didn't really make a name for himself until 1940-1941. His fight with Louis in '41 is in MY top ten fights of all time...the classic confrontation between the puncher and the boxer...it doesn't get any better than that...

[gensu3k1]

There are many other eras thick with top heavyweights---

Then step up to the plate and name me a decade with more heavyweight talent than the 70s and 90s.

[silkov]

Also Terap you say that Ali was a dirty fighter but surely you know that Dempsey was no chiorboy himself. He certainly didn't mind punching low and wasn't that good at going into the neutral corners himself.
Dempsey Should have been disqualified against Sharkey.
Rocky Marciano was probably the dirtiest heavyweight champ ever.... I have nothing against him overall but think that the fouls that he got away with against Don Cockell in particular were outrageous.
You are always saying that Ali vs Liston2 was fixed but don't you know that the fight was stopped when Nat Fleischer told referee Walcott that the time keeper had counted Liston out. Does this mean that Fleischer was part of the plot???. Liston was on his feet and ready to carry on when the fight was stopped.... is this the action of someone taking a dive.
Also if the black muslims were fixing all Ali's opponents for him why did they not fix Frazier for the first fight?.... why did they fail to stop Ali getting banned for three and a half years?.
You must even if you do not like the man admit to his courage in his fights with Frazier (1 and 3) and Norton (1 and 2) .....did he fake having his jaw broken and fighting for 9 rounds with it?.
Jimmy Young did not beat Ali, he was too cautious and negative and Ali as the overall aggressor deserved to keep his title.
I am not saying all this because I want a slanging match Terap but you have said so much against Ali and everyone who supports him that I believe you need to hear other points of view.
You do not have to agree with me but much of what I have said is fact.... such as Fleisher being involved in the mess up that was Ali vs Liston 2.
Over the years I have met many 'oldtimers' in boxing who rated Ali the best heavyweight ever, or at least one of the best, so the idea that it is a scheme by 'the modern media' to promote Ali as a godlike figure is quite honestly ludicrous. Especially as there have always been many harsh critics in the press against Ali. They didn't like his big mouth, they didn't like his fighting style, they didn't like his religion etcetcetc.... I have the many magazines and newpapers to prove this.
Papers and mags were full of crowing and cheering when Ali lost to Frazier, Norton, even Spinks and Holmes.
These are facts. You're argument that the whole of the media and especially the 'modern media' are pro Ali is simply untrue.

[tolstoy]

Well, I'll answer the question first. I think the 70s probably wins in terms of depth of quality of fighter, worldwide publicity and interesting match-ups. Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Shavers, Lyle etc.

The early 80s was pretty much dominated by Larry Holmes although there wasn't much to choose between the also-rans like Berbick, Spinks, Snipes, Thomas, Page, Tate, Weaver and Coetzee, for example.

Back to the 60s for a moment to respond to your post, Silkov:

You are always saying that Ali vs Liston2 was fixed but don't you know that the fight was stopped when Nat Fleischer told referee Walcott that the time keeper had counted Liston out. Does this mean that Fleischer was part of the plot???. Liston was on his feet and ready to carry on when the fight was stopped.... is this the action of someone taking a dive.
Also if the black muslims were fixing all Ali's opponents for him why did they not fix Frazier for the first fight?.... why did they fail to stop Ali getting banned for three and a half years?

I don't know for certain that the Nation of Islam was behind the fixing of the Liston fights but I am certain that they were indeed fixed. The fact that Clay didn't declare his Muslim conversion until the day after the fight indicates that they didn't want to be so closely associated with him should he have lost.

After the fight it came to light that in 1963 Inter-Continental Promotions, partly owned by Liston, had bought the promotional rights to Clay's next fight after he fought Liston. The sum involved was $50,000 which was unheard of at the time for a single fight. Only a world title fight would generate enought cash to cover that sort of outlay. If Clay had lost to Liston there is no way they could recoup that from his next fight.

That indicates to me that the outcome of the fight was never in doubt. I don't think the NoI was involved but I think Liston's mob connections were responsible. Ali, I'm sure, had no inkling prior to either fight that they were fixed.

Liston's death was also shrouded in some secrecy and rumours abound about him being the victim of a mob hit. Supposedly he injected a lethal amount of drugs into his system but most who knew him testified that he was terrified of needles and never would've injected anything into himself.

I don't suppose we'll ever uncover the real truth about the Clay/Ali - Liston fights or how the man who lies in a modest grave in a Las Vegas cemetery actually died.

[Sweet Scientist]

Way too much conspiracy theory here, I just don't buy it...Liston, in the first fight, sure as hell looked like he was trying to win to me! If the substance that made it into Clay's eyes was intentional (as many insist), that doesn't indicate taking a dive, on the contrary, it indicates Liston's corner trying to cheat to insure victory, especially after realizing things weren't going their way after the 1st three rounds...and Sonny went after Clay BIG TIME when Clay started blinking with his burning eyes watering and on fire! At the time, most people figured Liston quit out of frustration after the 6th, he couldn't catch the faster Clay, he was cut up, winded, frustrated, pissed off, and quit...figuring tomorrow is another day.
You have to think back, go back in time to get a feel for this...Liston was UNBEATABLE going into that fight. The media was saying he could give Joe Louis a good fight, calling Liston one of the greatest! He was a 7 or 8 to 1 favorite. Cassius Clay was given NO CHANCE TO WIN BY ANYONE! 43 of 46 so called experts picked Liston and the majority picked a KO in 3 rounds or less...many picked a first round KO! One of the guys who picked Clay, openly admitted that he picked him only because if he won, the guy would look brilliant, picking the upset! Liston had just demolished Patterson twice and Clay had just come off a fight with Henry Cooper where he got dropped by a terrific left hook, coming as close to losing as he ever would before winning the title. Liston KNEW he would win and he didn't train for a 15 round fight. Why the hell should he? He was only fighting some loud mouthed, blown up light heavyweight kid with 19 fights, none of them against anybody Liston couldn't destroy. All this mob fix stuff is rubbish! There are dirty little deals about promotional rights all the time in this sport, you ever heard of Don King? The rematch clause may well have had a lot to do with it, ever consider that? AND...Liston was of much greater value to his mob connections AS THE CHAMPION!!!

I never liked the outcome of the rematch...but I always felt that if the fix was in they (the fixers) would insist it LOOKED REAL, NOT LIKE A FIX! That fight was a f---ing fiasco. Jersey Joe Walcott did the ABSOLUTE WORST JOB OF REFEREEING IN THE SPORT'S HISTORY. Nat Fleisher (as much as I liked him) had no authority what so ever, and I wish he had just kept his mouth shut, and wrote an article about it in The Ring magazine...his interference ended the fight. If Clay didn't follow the rules and go to a neutral corner, then Liston gets extra time down...just like Gene Tunney did...and Walcott COULD have let them continue...as he probably should have...too many people forget all this stuff and just think about the short right hand punch and the quick ending, the Ali-bashers screaming "fix" should have screamed: "Stay out of it, Nat...let them fight!"

[gensu3k1]

Gensu--

Are you a RACIST?

I notice you constantly downgrade white fighters:

"surely you know that Dempsey was no chiorboy himself. He certainly didn't mind punching low and wasn't that good at going into the neutral corners himself.
Dempsey Should have been disqualified against Sharkey.
Rocky Marciano was probably the dirtiest heavyweight champ ever.... "

I didn't write that, it was silkov. And I do not constantly downgrade white fighters. I consider Rocky Marciano the greatest 190 pound fighter of all time, Jimmy Wilde the first or second greatest fighter at any weight of all time, Pep the best featherweight etc.

Still waiting to hear about the decades that had more heavyweight talent than the 70s and 90s.