BoxRec

Guys who were big fans in the 70s...

Did you know then that it was a golden era? Is that how it was considered at the time?

I was too young and I've always been enamored with history. But I definitely knew it was a Golden Age in the 90's.

I thought the early 1980s, 15 rounds and two/three belts would go on forever. I guess everyone thinks like that when they first come to any era in sport.

Ezzard wrote:Guys who were big fans in the 70s...

Did you know then that it was a golden era? Is that how it was considered at the time?

Ezz, I don't know if I thought it was a "golden era," but I knew we had a number of very good fighters in the sport. Probably not the answer you were looking for, but I really don't ever remember thinking, "We are in a golden era!" My thought was that most of the divisions - excepting, perhaps, the light heavyweights - were deep.

Ezzard wrote:I thought the early 1980s, 15 rounds and two/three belts would go on forever. I guess everyone thinks like that when they first come to any era in sport.

Yeah, I still feel gypped when today's title fights end after 12 rounds.

Ezzard wrote:Guys who were big fans in the 70s...

Did you know then that it was a golden era? Is that how it was considered at the time?

Yes and Yes.

raylawpc wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I thought the early 1980s, 15 rounds and two/three belts would go on forever. I guess everyone thinks like that when they first come to any era in sport.

Yeah, I still feel gypped when today's title fights end after 12 rounds.

Agree.

12 just doesn't seem right.

Very competitive era with lot's of big names. In fairness though, I'd say in the second half of the 70's the quality went downhill a bit.

That golden era ran from about '66-'75, in my mind.

After Manila, Ali was running on fumes and Frazier was shot. They both should have retired.

Don't forget the '60s. Probably had more significant heavyweight activity in the '60s than '70s, though it all reached a peak in '71.

Seamus wrote:Very competitive era with lot's of big names. In fairness though, I'd say in the second half of the 70's the quality went downhill a bit.

Agree.

Ezzard wrote:Guys who were big fans in the 70s...

Did you know then that it was a golden era? Is that how it was considered at the time?

I think once Foreman beat Frazier and Norton I started to think that the division was possibly as good as it had ever been. It wasn't just Ali, Frazier and Foreman, but the next tier really wasn't much of a drop off with Young, Lyle, Norton and then there was also a strong group below that as well.

I think it was a much deeper talent pool than the 90's.

raylawpc wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Guys who were big fans in the 70s...

Did you know then that it was a golden era? Is that how it was considered at the time?

Ezz, I don't know if I thought it was a "golden era," but I knew we had a number of very good fighters in the sport. Probably not the answer you were looking for, but I really don't ever remember thinking, "We are in a golden era!" My thought was that most of the divisions - excepting, perhaps, the light heavyweights - were deep.

In a way you never know what you've got until you don't have it anymore.

The Great John L wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Guys who were big fans in the 70s...

Did you know then that it was a golden era? Is that how it was considered at the time?

I think it was a much deeper talent pool than the 90's.

I think it was greater at the top, the 90's was deeper to me.

Ezzard wrote:Guys who were big fans in the 70s...

Did you know then that it was a golden era? Is that how it was considered at the time?

I was in my 20's at that time and, historically, thought great heavyweights were a US tradition. I thought the picture would always be compelling and dominant world-wide. And it was a golden era for light heavyweight division as well. All good things come to an end.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Guys who were big fans in the 70s...

Did you know then that it was a golden era? Is that how it was considered at the time?

I think it was a much deeper talent pool than the 90's.

I think it was greater at the top, the 90's was deeper to me.

In an era when Brian Nielson was a legitimate threat? You must be joking. Give me the top 20 guys of the 70s anyday of the week (Jeff Merritt, Henry Clarke, Roy Williams, Pedro Lovell, Howard Smith) over the lower top 10 of the 90s anyday (Bert Cooper, Bruce Seldon, Tommy Moorison,Henry Akinwande) anyday of the week.

dempseyfire wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

The Great John L wrote:
I think it was a much deeper talent pool than the 90's.

I think it was greater at the top, the 90's was deeper to me.

In an era when Brian Nielson was a legitimate threat? You must be joking. Give me the top 20 guys of the 70s anyday of the week (Jeff Merritt, Henry Clarke, Roy Williams, Pedro Lovell, Howard Smith) over the lower top 10 of the 90s anyday (Bert Cooper, Bruce Seldon, Tommy Moorison,Henry Akinwande) anyday of the week.

dempseyfire wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

The Great John L wrote:
I think it was a much deeper talent pool than the 90's.

I think it was greater at the top, the 90's was deeper to me.

In an era when Brian Nielson was a legitimate threat? You must be joking. Give me the top 20 guys of the 70s anyday of the week (Jeff Merritt, Henry Clarke, Roy Williams, Pedro Lovell, Howard Smith) over the lower top 10 of the 90s anyday (Bert Cooper, Bruce Seldon, Tommy Moorison,Henry Akinwande) anyday of the week.

I never considered Nielsen anything. I would take that 90's crew you listed over the 70's clan. Merritt & Williams vs Morrison or Cooper would rule.

It really depends on how you look at it. If you look at it from the top down... The best 3 in the Heavyweight division of tha decade are unqestionably:
Muhammad Ali
George Foreman
Joe Frazier

So if you want to access it from "the cream of the crop" as it were. No other era in history as a threeman which could stand up to that triad.


The late 40s come close:
Joe Louis
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott

The 90s aint bad either:
Mike Tyson
Lennox Lewis
Evander Holyfield

Even after Ali, Foreman and Frazier, it was still pretty good.
You had Norton, Quarry, Lyle, Young, and Shavers. In the early 1970s you still had Bonavena, Chuvalo, and Ellis. Even Patterson still had something left. There were other good fighters who had trouble just getting in the top 10. Then later in the decade Holmes came along.
It was extremely deep.

The 1990s had arguably the 2nd best talent, at least at the top with Holyfield,Lewis, Bowe and Tyson. (After those 4, it was not that impressive)
However, it was not as good of an era as it could have been. The best guys didn't fight each other enough, when they were close their primes.

An old Holmes, whose prime was the late 70s, completely took to school an undefeated Ray Mercer, who was arguably in the top 5-7 of the decade. An old Foreman became HW champ. That pretty much closes the debate right there. In no other era did guys whose prime had been 15-20 years prior become legit title threats/and or win the title. Look at Hopkins today . .great fighter, testament to great living and conditioning, but in practically any other light hw era the guy would not be sniffing near the 175 lb title, let alone winning and defending it.

dempseyfire wrote:An old Holmes, whose prime was the late 70s, completely took to school an undefeated Ray Mercer, who was arguably in the top 5-7 of the decade. An old Foreman became HW champ. That pretty much closes the debate right there. In no other era did guys whose prime had been 15-20 years prior become legit title threats/and or win the title. Look at Hopkins today . .great fighter, testament to great living and conditioning, but in practically any other light hw era the guy would not be sniffing near the 175 lb title, let alone winning and defending it.

An excellent point . . .

Those old greats are part of what made the era so deep.

They are, but Dempsey does have a point.

Theres just no way old versions of Bowe, Holyfield & Tyson could dent the 70s. Lewis, we never saw old, as he retired at least near to his prime, in spite of being a lot older than most peak/near-peak fighters.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:They are, but Dempsey does have a point.

Theres just no way old versions of Bowe, Holyfield & Tyson could dent the 70s. Lewis, we never saw old, as he retired at least near to his prime, in spite of being a lot older than most peak/near-peak fighters.

That's because the top of the 70's was greater. No doubt about it. An old Ali or Frazier would have been cannon fodder in any era. I just don't see how that is relative to depth.

Well, I guess I do. I see Lyle, Quarry, Young & Norton, to name just a few below the bar set by Ali & Frazier, whipping the likes of 1999 Tyson or 2003 Holyfield (which is a rough comparative measure with those guys being way past their best years, as were Foreman & Holmes when they competed in the 90s).