BoxRec

What Do You Guys Got

There is a lot of over-lap such as Late 1940's and early 1950's
and late 1970's and early 1980's.

Overall, the 1950s and 1960s were much better than the 1970s and 1980s. There was much more depth and many more great fights. there were no down times in the 1950s or the 1960s. In the late 1970s, you Vito Antuofermo and Alan Minter world champions. Even when Hagler became champion, he didn't have any serious challengers until guys from lower weight classes moved up.

In the 1950s and 1960s, there were tons of great fighters, (Robinson, Turpin, Basilio, Fuller, Tiger, Griffith, Benvenuti, Monzon etc.) as well as many very good ones. In the 1970s, the depth gradually declined.

Very interesting question and excellent responses. I agree with Ambling Alp but I also think some 1960's champions- Downes, Pender and Tiger- would have been beaten by Michael Nunn- not to mention Hagler and Hearns.

I don't think fighters like Dewitt, Robbie Sims, Scypion and Tony Sibson-just to name a few- would have gotten near a title shot in the 1950's. Same thing for several of the guys who got shots against Monzon.

What advantages and disadvantages does the 1950 and 1960 or 1970 and 1980 that they both have

The 1950s and 60s era of middleweights were the best. Too much talent: Gene Fullmer, Ellsworth "Spider" Webb, Joey Giardello, Paul Pendergrass, Carmen Basilio, Sugar Ray Robinson, Dick Tiger, Emile Griffith, Niño Benvenutti, George Benton, Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, Carl "Bobo" Olson, Randy Turpin, Ralph "Tiger" Jones, Denny Moyer, and many others. Too many contenders and champions.

This era was probably the best era in middleweight history.

I'd take the 1940's as #1 decade.

goose 5 wrote: ↑09 Mar 2025, 12:40 Very interesting question and excellent responses. I agree with Ambling Alp but I also think some 1960's champions- Downes, Pender and Tiger- would have been beaten by Michael Nunn- not to mention Hagler and Hearns.

I don't think fighters like Dewitt, Robbie Sims, Scypion and Tony Sibson-just to name a few- would have gotten near a title shot in the 1950's. Same thing for several of the guys who got shots against Monzon.

There were certainly specific fighters in the 1970s and 1980s that were better than some guys from the 1950 and 1960s.
Obviously not everyone from the 1950s and 1960s was great and not everyone from the 1970s and 1980s sucked.
Hagler and Monzon would have been great anytime.

But yeah, overall it's not even close. There were tons of great middleweight fights in the 1950 and 1960s. There were very few in the 1970s and 1980s.

Why did era seems to get weaker once we progressed to future over years and years

In the 50s and 60s, the talent pool in the middleweight and welterweight division was as deep as never seen before. I can't see another era circa 1952-68 as better or equal to that one. It was tough to be undefeated in that talent pool. Too many outstanding, excellent and great boxers. Some of them would have been champions in another era, for example Gil Turner, George Benton and Ellsworth "Spider" Webb. They were some terrific boxers

If you are interested in why the division got weaker, read "The Arc of Boxing: The Rise and Fall of the Sweet Science"

Tho could the 80s fighter actually beat 50s one tho or bring up a tough fight