BoxRec

Why don't you ever seem to see things that everyone else does?
You are playing games with the thing about describing a particular fighter a "1950s fighter" or a "1970s fighter." Floyd Patterson wasn't just a 1950s fighter. Jimmy Ellis wasn't just a "1970s fighter". Really, it a stretch to rate Ellis in the top 10 for just what he did the 1970s anyway.

You are also playing games with rating fighters for the decade. You could easily have Patterson at #3 for the 1950s and not have Ellis rated at all for the 1970s.

I have asked before why Charles gets to be considered a "1950s fighter"? His best was in the 1940s. Shouldn't it be an embarrassment that a "1940s" fighters did as well as he did against "1950s fighters"? You keep ignoring this.

Valdez, Baker, and Henry would not have been serious contenders in the 1970s. They may have cracked the bottom of the Top 10 for a short period of time. Thats it. Compare their decent wins vs their losses. Not really that impressive.

We compared the top 10 of the 1950s vs the top of the 1970s. The 1970s wins hands down. Give it a rest.

He's a troll from cs, that created an alias to play in here from time to time. He will NEVER acknowledge any facts or opinions from anyone else.

There seems to be a trend of people rating their own eras highly. For example people born in the 1940s and 1950s seem to rate the 70s heavyweights highly whereas boxing fans born from the 1970s onwards seem far more skeptical of their abilities and would be more likely to pick against them in fights.

Just because one generation feels an era is great doesn't make it objectively true. People born in the 1920s probably felt Louis's era was the best and people born in the 1970s probably feel the Holyfield/Lewis/Tyson era is the greatest. People born in the 1990s probably believe the Wladimir Klitschko era is the greatest in history.

Long after Louis retired there were boxing historians who continued to rank Dempsey as the greatest heavyweight ever whereas these days nobody ranks Dempsey ahead of Louis.

Ali lost to Frazier and Norton in the 70s. Do you feel both these guys were better than Marciano and if not why are you confident Ali would win?

Patterson vs Foreman seems like a mismatch but virtually all the other fights look like matches the 50s fighters could easily win.

Frazier was better than Marciano, Norton was not. Everyone is confident that Ali would because overall career was a lot better than Marciano's. You left out the part where the judges had to bail Marciano out against Ted Lowrey and Roland LaStarza.

As for "Patterson vs Foreman seems like a mismatch but virtually all the other fights look like matches the 50s fighters could easily win." Absolutely not.

Cojimar 1946 wrote:There seems to be a trend of people rating their own eras highly. For example people born in the 1940s and 1950s seem to rate the 70s heavyweights highly whereas boxing fans born from the 1970s onwards seem far more skeptical of their abilities and would be more likely to pick against them in fights.

Just because one generation feels an era is great doesn't make it objectively true. People born in the 1920s probably felt Louis's era was the best and people born in the 1970s probably feel the Holyfield/Lewis/Tyson era is the greatest. People born in the 1990s probably believe the Wladimir Klitschko era is the greatest in history.

Long after Louis retired there were boxing historians who continued to rank Dempsey as the greatest heavyweight ever whereas these days nobody ranks Dempsey ahead of Louis.

It is true that many people tend to overrate fighters (or any athletes for that matter) from the time when first were interested in the sport. Yes you will find people who don't know much about the sport thing the current heavyweights are the best.

Many of us here (though certainly not all of us) try to resist that urge and don't do it.
The 1970s heavyweight division is regarded as the best because it was. It was not the best in many other weight classes; which is why you don't hear people saying it was.

It seems pretty clear to me based on my observations that the view of the 70s heavyweights being the best only predominates among people of a certain age group. Younger boxing fans by and large tend to view their abilities with much more skepticism. This is not an opinion of mine just something I have observed.

For example most boxing fans born after 1970 would pick Tyson to beat Frazier by kayo in the early rounds.

Like I said, many views held by boxing historians back in the day would be ridiculed by people today. The difference is these older generations (Marcianos, Louis's) are largely now gone so there is no one left to stand up for them.

Also, as I pointed out views of eras change over time. After Joe Louis retired there were boxing historians who continued to rank him behind Dempsey, Jeffries, etc. Does this mean we simply have to accept this view and are not allowed to challenge it. Rankings are constantly being rewritten and someday Lennox Lewis may be rated ahead of Ali.

I see you ignored my point about weight classes. Nobody is saying that the 1970s bantamweights were the best. The 1950s middleweights were better than the 1970s middleweights.

You might be surprised how many people born after 1970 don't think Frazier would get blown out against Tyson. The ones who are familiar with Frazier often don't think so.

Doubt many people will rate Lewis over Ali, but who knows. People still consider the 1940s a great era for light heavyweights. We are already about 4 decades after the 1970s and most people that know boxing history still rank it the best. Not many people in the 1990s were saying the 1950s heavyweights were the best.

People that really know boxing history (which includes many people who post here) go beyond their childhood. They realize that sometimes the old timers were better and sometimes they weren't. You need to take it on a case by case basis. As for the case of which era was better for heavyweights between the 1970s and the 1950s, the 1970s was clearly better.

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Also, as I pointed out views of eras change over time. After Joe Louis retired there were boxing historians who continued to rank him behind Dempsey, Jeffries, etc. Does this mean we simply have to accept this view and are not allowed to challenge it. Rankings are constantly being rewritten and someday Lennox Lewis may be rated ahead of Ali.

When will someday Lennox Lewis might be rated above The Greatest? Anybody that thinks so is A BLASPHEMY

Bantamweight is not really a division that most fans follow as passionately as the heavyweight division.

One major problem with the 70s heavyweights is lack of versatility and ability to adjust to different styles. Foreman beating guys like Frazier and Norton doesn't show an ability to deal with slick clever boxers like Young or Machen.

I also mentioned middleweights.

Well Machen didn't survive the first round against Johannson. Doesn't look like Machen was that versatile either, so I guess we can just blow off the 1950s heavyweights because of that.

The only people I would expect to see the 50s heavyweights as a great era are people born in the 1920s and perhaps early 1930s (up to 1935 or so lets say). Therefore its not surprising that today the era is not viewed highly or in the 1990s for example. Even by the 90s people of this generation were a small minority of the population and easily outvoted by younger boxing fans who grew up watching Ali, Frazier, Holyfield, Tyson, etc.

Likewise the view on the 70s heavyweights has shifted over time with many boxing fans today deeply skeptical of their ability to compete with heavyweights of later eras.

Who did Frazier face with Tyson's punching power? His speed, explosiveness? I doubt getting whacked by the likes of Ellis, Quarry, or Ali would prepare him for Tyson. What reason is there to think he is durable enough to survive the onslaught in the early rounds? I think you would have to concede that Mike is a much more devastating puncher than anyone Frazier beat. Foreman may have hit harder but he easily beat Frazier so those fights don't really help your case.

Not everybody just goes by the guys they saw growing up and in their 20s. Some of us actually look to see how good someone was, regardless of when they fought. Again. that is why the 1970s heavyweight division is highly regarded while you don't hear people saying the 1970s middleweight division was great.

The view concerning the 1970s has not really shifted much. True there are younger fans who don't really know the sports history. They might embrace the theory that athletes today are better and don't even question it. Or they don't realize how misleading things like win/loss records, WBS title defenses etc. can be. However, not all younger fans are like that.

One thing that helps is film. People can go back an watch old fights. If you really understand boxing, you can tell that the 1970s heavyweights were the best why watching a lot of fights.

As for Frazier and Tyson: Sure you can say that Frazier never fought anyone like Tyson. Would he potentially cause problems for Frazier? sure.

However, you have to flip it the other way as well. Tyson never fought anyone like Frazier as well. If Tyson gets stopped by Douglas and a past his prime Holyfield, it really isn't hard to imagine Frazier doing the same.

The 70s heavyweights would be at a HUGE size disadvantage today. I think many younger boxing fans would tell you that the big heavyweights have simply gotten better-faster, greater overall athleticism than ever in the past.

Even in the 90s an era that even old-timers seem to have reluctantly accepted as a great era you see big heavyweights enjoying more success than in any prior era. Douglas (6ft 4-231 lb), Bowe (6ft 4-235 lb), and Lewis (6ft 4 1/2-245 lb) all held the lineal title within 10 years. Something like that had never happened before. This would seem to be evidence that the giants are getting better. Unless you are prepared to argue the 90s sucked it seems you have to accept the giants are getting better.

I never argued that all younger fans are dismissive of the old-timers but it seems clear that overall that they have a much lower opinion of the chances of old-timers in H2H matchups with more modern fighters though they probably feel that the gap is far greater at heavyweight than any other weight.

Ambling Alp II wrote:So what? The heavyweight division has sucked for a long time. It has been shown over and over throughout history that quality heavyweights in the low 200s (or even smaller) can beat bigger heavyweights. They are too big nowadays.

The boys in the low 200's are fighting at Cruiserweight... They can't compete against big, fast, skilled Heavyweights like Anthony Joshua and Luis Ortiz.

Mairis Breidis and Oleksandr Usyk are as fast and skilled as any small Heavyweight from any era -- such as Byrd, Frazier, Moorer, and Young, who fought Heavyweights because they weren't as big, tall, and strong as the Heavyweights are today. They could compete with the Heavyweights of their eras.. If they tried to fight Anthony Joshua or Luis Ortiz they'd get smeared.. They have their own division.

It's like Mike Tyson fighting Lennox Lewis, who was older than him... If you think Mike got killed because of his age, what about Mike getting creamed by Buster Douglas when he was 23? ... I don't see Tyson competing with big, tall, skilled Heavyweights anymore than Michael Spinks could compete with Tyson

Cojimar 1946 wrote:The 70s heavyweights would be at a HUGE size disadvantage today. I think many younger boxing fans would tell you that the big heavyweights have simply gotten better-faster, greater overall athleticism than ever in the past.

Even in the 90s an era that even old-timers seem to have reluctantly accepted as a great era you see big heavyweights enjoying more success than in any prior era. Douglas (6ft 4-231 lb), Bowe (6ft 4-235 lb), and Lewis (6ft 4 1/2-245 lb) all held the lineal title within 10 years. Something like that had never happened before. This would seem to be evidence that the giants are getting better. Unless you are prepared to argue the 90s sucked it seems you have to accept the giants are getting better.

Sure some younger fans would argue that. And they would be wrong.
Faster? Are you frikkin kidding? The heavyweights today have never been slower.
Athleticism? Seriously? Where?

Yes Bowe and Lewis were big. Yes Bowe lost to Holyfield once, and Lewis shouldn't have got the decision in the 2nd fight.
Lewis (and for a shorter time Bowe) are the only really big heavyweights that were great. The giants have been getting worse. They suck.

How about actually watching the fights?
Go back in history. Look what happens when a great smaller heavyweight fights a big heavyweight. We did a thread on this. The smaller guy won almost everytime.

Yes, back in the past there were plenty of cases of smaller heavyweights beating larger heavyweights but times change and it seems clear that from the late 50s/60s onwards we see small heavyweights having less and less success. This strongly suggests that the big heavyweights are improving and that what may have been true in previous eras no longer applies

Wladimir Klitschko in his prime seemed reasonably athletic with pretty good handspeed and good power. He clearly seems better than Carnera and Willard for example.

I would be interested in seeing your top 6 for each decade. For the 70s it seemed like there was a consensus regarding the top 6 but uncertainty who ranked after that. I think you will find the top 6 of the 70s, 80s, and 90s are considerably larger than in any prior decade which seems like pretty strong evidence of a shift towards skilled big men.

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Yes, back in the past there were plenty of cases of smaller heavyweights beating larger heavyweights but times change and it seems clear that from the late 50s/60s onwards we see small heavyweights having less and less success. This strongly suggests that the big heavyweights are improving and that what may have been true in previous eras no longer applies

Wladimir Klitschko in his prime seemed reasonably athletic with pretty good handspeed and good power. He clearly seems better than Carnera and Willard for example.

It doesn't strongly suggest anything. If you are going to say it's a huge advantage to be bigger, than you have to go by what happens when bigger men fight smaller men. Not big men fighting other big men.

Klitschko was not clearly better. He has no chin and little stamina. He got stopped three times by different fighters who were far from great.

Take a look at Wilder. He has been outweighed in his last 16 fights. He is 16-0 with 15 knockouts in those fights. Skill wins fights, not weight.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Yes, back in the past there were plenty of cases of smaller heavyweights beating larger heavyweights but times change and it seems clear that from the late 50s/60s onwards we see small heavyweights having less and less success. This strongly suggests that the big heavyweights are improving and that what may have been true in previous eras no longer applies

Wladimir Klitschko in his prime seemed reasonably athletic with pretty good handspeed and good power. He clearly seems better than Carnera and Willard for example.

It doesn't strongly suggest anything. If you are going to say it's a huge advantage to be bigger, than you have to go by what happens when bigger men fight smaller men. Not big men fighting other big men.

Klitschko was not clearly better. He has no chin and little stamina. He got stopped three times by different fighters who were far from great.

Take a look at Wilder. He has been outweighed in his last 16 fights. He is 16-0 with 15 knockouts in those fights. Skill wins fights, not weight.

Wilder is bigger than the peak Foreman who smashed Joe Frazier in 2 rounds -- and he is taller with a longer reach than ALL of his opponents except Audley Harrison who had a freakishly long reach with no skills and no chin..

And you hate the Klitschko's... Wald Klitschko was clearly better than Carnera and Willard... Carnera and Willard were pitiably slow and unskilled.. Wlad easily beat such skilled small Heavyweights as David Haye and Alexander Povetkin...who were clearly a lot better than Jimmy Young -- who had 5 losses already and lost 4 of his next 5 fights after beating Foreman..

You consistently ignore the fact that athletes are getting bigger, stronger, faster, and better so there's really not many small Heavyweights who can compete anymore... Klitschko was stopped 3 times before he got with Steward, had a chance to learn new skills, and learned how to box correctly... Tyson was stopped 5 times... 3 times in his prime by fighters who were bigger, stronger, more skilled, and older.. From ages 29 to 36, Ali was beaten by Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, and Leon Stinks -- not guys who were great boxers... Anybody who can't box can lose fights.

Holyfield throughout his career demonstrated greater durability than Frazier. He was able to go the distance with big hitters like Bowe and Lewis. I don't think any of the guys Frazier beat had Lewis's power.

Carnera has far more losses in his prime than Klitschko and many to fighters that were far from great. I don't see how bringing up Klitschko's losses helps Carnera given Carnera was so much less consistent.

I don't think Wlad's losses are much worse than Lewis's. Lewis lost to a guy who was ko'd twice by Oleg Maskaev. Losing to a guy who couldn't beat Maskaev (in two tries no less) is pretty bad.

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Holyfield throughout his career demonstrated greater durability than Frazier. He was able to go the distance with big hitters like Bowe and Lewis. I don't think any of the guys Frazier beat had Lewis's power.

Foreman had pretty good size and strength -- and Frazier couldn't make him blink with a shot... Frazier couldn't even budge punching bag Bonavena... Oscar decked Smokin' Joe 2 times and Foreman decked the smoker 8 times -- made a regular yo-yo out of the little fatty... Maybe that's why George is so overrated.