The 70s. Beautiful boxers- Ali, Holmes, Young, Ellisexpug wrote:Im partial to the seventies , but thats because I was fortunate enough to witness all of it. It was a great era for Heavies. The best in my opinion. Ali , Foreman, Frazier, Shavers, Lyle, Norton, Quarry, Young, hell even Neon Leon had folks excited. And of course Holmes ended the decade and ushered in the eighties.
10. 1940s: The worst heavyweight decade of the century. The heavyweight title was inactive for three-and-a-half years, and the rest of the time, Joe Louis was on his Bum-of-the-Month Tour. Billy Conn and Jersey Joe Walcott were the only live competitors Louis saw that decade. He knocked them both out, the way a good champion does. Part of the problem with boxing in the 1940s was its resemblance to professional wrestling of the 1940s. Promoters were more interested in putting the small, handsome "good guy" up against the tall, fat, ugly "bad guy" than in staging competitive matches.
this was much better than 9th,9. 1910s: This was a very frustrating decade, because for the first half of it, Jack Johnson was on the run from the law, and for the next few years, Jess Willard was sitting on his front porch, making money barnstorming. Jack Dempsey made things interesting at the end of the decade, and there were a few good fighters.
7. 1930s: Now this is an overrated decade. Aside from Joe Louis, its champions were Max Schmeling (a poor man's Evander Holyfield), Jack Sharkey (a poor man's, well... Jack Sharkey), Primo Carnera (a poor man's Hulk Hogan), Max Baer (a poor man's Earnie Shavers), and Jim Braddock (a poor man's Billy Conn). Still, there was a fair amount of depth, and Sharkey, for all his inconsistency, was extremely talented, and didn't mind crossing the color barrier, the way so many 1920s fighters did.
5. 1950s: This was an incredibly top-heavy decade. There was Ezzard Charles, there was Joe Walcott, there was Rocky Marciano, and then there was a bunch of crap. The 1950s was an era of great fighters in the heavyweight division, but not great natural heavyweights.
Good observation, just to nitpick a little, Evander was a cruiserweight for most of the 80's (although he did fight as a heavy in 1989). 1980's especially early 80's are underrated, talentwise it was good, but falls to the shadow of the even deeper middleweight-welterweight era.Decagon wrote:4. 1980s: Talent-wise, the 1980s ranks right up there with the 1970s. Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson ruled this decade, and Evander Holyfield was coming up through the heavyweight ranks. Unfortunately, fighters like Tim Witherspoon, Gerry Cooney, Trevor Berbick and Buster Douglas could simply become millionaires by showing up to fights, and they rarely did more than that.
I found myself agreeing with alot of what Decagon says. I liked the little summaries of each decade.Decagon wrote:Here's how I'd rank them:
10. 1940s: The worst heavyweight decade of the century. The heavyweight title was inactive for three-and-a-half years, and the rest of the time, Joe Louis was on his Bum-of-the-Month Tour. Billy Conn and Jersey Joe Walcott were the only live competitors Louis saw that decade. He knocked them both out, the way a good champion does. Part of the problem with boxing in the 1940s was its resemblance to professional wrestling of the 1940s. Promoters were more interested in putting the small, handsome "good guy" up against the tall, fat, ugly "bad guy" than in staging competitive matches.
9. 1910s: This was a very frustrating decade, because for the first half of it, Jack Johnson was on the run from the law, and for the next few years, Jess Willard was sitting on his front porch, making money barnstorming. Jack Dempsey made things interesting at the end of the decade, and there were a few good fighters.
8. 1920s: The two best heavyweights in this decade, Dempsey and Tunney, didn't fight a single black man during these 10 years. This was an era where we simply didn't know who the best fighter was because Harry Wills couldn't get a title shot. Sure, most of us think he wouldn't have beaten Dempsey, but it would've been nice if there'd been a match, you know, so we could make sure. Still, this decade had a few excellent fighters, men that we can see on tape. Boxing became the biggest sport in America during this time, so the decade can't be all bad.
7. 1930s: Now this is an overrated decade. Aside from Joe Louis, its champions were Max Schmeling (a poor man's Evander Holyfield), Jack Sharkey (a poor man's, well... Jack Sharkey), Primo Carnera (a poor man's Hulk Hogan), Max Baer (a poor man's Earnie Shavers), and Jim Braddock (a poor man's Billy Conn). Still, there was a fair amount of depth, and Sharkey, for all his inconsistency, was extremely talented, and didn't mind crossing the color barrier, the way so many 1920s fighters did.
6. 1900s: The rise of Jack Johnon characterized this decade. The Black Foursome were coming into prominence, but mostly fighting each other. This decade is a little like the 1980s, where you had an old hand holding onto the title for the first five years (Larry Holmes/Jim Jeffries), and a phenomonal fighter capturing it in the later years (Mike Tyson/Jack Johnson), and the old hand coming out of retirement to face the phenom. The decade loses points because the Lineal title was idle for half the decade, and there was the embarassing Hart/Burns line.
5. 1950s: This was an incredibly top-heavy decade. There was Ezzard Charles, there was Joe Walcott, there was Rocky Marciano, and then there was a bunch of crap. The 1950s was an era of great fighters in the heavyweight division, but not great natural heavyweights. Edit: Sonny Liston came of age in this decade, and showed a lot of prowess, decimating the heavyweight division in late 1958 and 1959.
4. 1980s: Talent-wise, the 1980s ranks right up there with the 1970s. Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson ruled this decade, and Evander Holyfield was coming up through the heavyweight ranks. Unfortunately, fighters like Tim Witherspoon, Gerry Cooney, Trevor Berbick and Buster Douglas could simply become millionaires by showing up to fights, and they rarely did more than that.
3. 1960s: You have Liston, Clay and Frazier all in their primes, for starters. It's too bad that most people only know about Joe from his fights in the 1970s. I'd argue that he was even better in the 1960s. This decade loses out a little bit because once you get beyond the three best heavyweights, it's an inconsistent lot. The division doesn't have as much depth as the following decade did.
2. 1990s: This was a very exciting decade that featured Riddick Bowe, Evander Holyfield, Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis. The Black Foursome of the 1900s? Forgetaboutit. These guys were deadly. Rounding out the cast were Michael Moorer, David Tua, Hasim Rahman, Chris Byrd, Ike Ibeabuchi, John Ruiz, Ray Mercer and the geriatric duo of Larry Holmes and George Foreman.
1. 1970s: I'd actually argue that Clay and Liston were better at their peak in the 1960s than any fighter in the 1970s, but Ali was still near the top of his game, and Frazier's peak lasted into the 1970s. Then you have Foreman. Then you have Norton. Then you have Holmes. Then you have Quarry, Shavers, Ellis, Lyle and Young..
Looking forward to it.BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:im putting together a top 10 heavies of each decade and i will post a big summary of tomorrow of what i think are the best eras
I would flip- flop the 1900's and the 1950, as I beleive the 1900's had better elite fighters and better depth.Decagon wrote:Here's how I'd rank them:
10. 1940s: The worst heavyweight decade of the century. The heavyweight title was inactive for three-and-a-half years, and the rest of the time, Joe Louis was on his Bum-of-the-Month Tour. Billy Conn and Jersey Joe Walcott were the only live competitors Louis saw that decade. He knocked them both out, the way a good champion does. Part of the problem with boxing in the 1940s was its resemblance to professional wrestling of the 1940s. Promoters were more interested in putting the small, handsome "good guy" up against the tall, fat, ugly "bad guy" than in staging competitive matches.
9. 1910s: This was a very frustrating decade, because for the first half of it, Jack Johnson was on the run from the law, and for the next few years, Jess Willard was sitting on his front porch, making money barnstorming. Jack Dempsey made things interesting at the end of the decade, and there were a few good fighters.
8. 1920s: The two best heavyweights in this decade, Dempsey and Tunney, didn't fight a single black man during these 10 years. This was an era where we simply didn't know who the best fighter was because Harry Wills couldn't get a title shot. Sure, most of us think he wouldn't have beaten Dempsey, but it would've been nice if there'd been a match, you know, so we could make sure. Still, this decade had a few excellent fighters, men that we can see on tape. Boxing became the biggest sport in America during this time, so the decade can't be all bad.
7. 1930s: Now this is an overrated decade. Aside from Joe Louis, its champions were Max Schmeling (a poor man's Evander Holyfield), Jack Sharkey (a poor man's, well... Jack Sharkey), Primo Carnera (a poor man's Hulk Hogan), Max Baer (a poor man's Earnie Shavers), and Jim Braddock (a poor man's Billy Conn). Still, there was a fair amount of depth, and Sharkey, for all his inconsistency, was extremely talented, and didn't mind crossing the color barrier, the way so many 1920s fighters did.
6. 1900s: The rise of Jack Johnon characterized this decade. The Black Foursome were coming into prominence, but mostly fighting each other. This decade is a little like the 1980s, where you had an old hand holding onto the title for the first five years (Larry Holmes/Jim Jeffries), and a phenomonal fighter capturing it in the later years (Mike Tyson/Jack Johnson), and the old hand coming out of retirement to face the phenom. The decade loses points because the Lineal title was idle for half the decade, and there was the embarassing Hart/Burns line.
5. 1950s: This was an incredibly top-heavy decade. There was Ezzard Charles, there was Joe Walcott, there was Rocky Marciano, and then there was a bunch of crap. The 1950s was an era of great fighters in the heavyweight division, but not great natural heavyweights. Edit: Sonny Liston came of age in this decade, and showed a lot of prowess, decimating the heavyweight division in late 1958 and 1959.
4. 1980s: Talent-wise, the 1980s ranks right up there with the 1970s. Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson ruled this decade, and Evander Holyfield was coming up through the heavyweight ranks. Unfortunately, fighters like Tim Witherspoon, Gerry Cooney, Trevor Berbick and Buster Douglas could simply become millionaires by showing up to fights, and they rarely did more than that.
3. 1960s: You have Liston, Clay and Frazier all in their primes, for starters. It's too bad that most people only know about Joe from his fights in the 1970s. I'd argue that he was even better in the 1960s. This decade loses out a little bit because once you get beyond the three best heavyweights, it's an inconsistent lot. The division doesn't have as much depth as the following decade did.
2. 1990s: This was a very exciting decade that featured Riddick Bowe, Evander Holyfield, Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis. The Black Foursome of the 1900s? Forgetaboutit. These guys were deadly. Rounding out the cast were Michael Moorer, David Tua, Hasim Rahman, Chris Byrd, Ike Ibeabuchi, John Ruiz, Ray Mercer and the geriatric duo of Larry Holmes and George Foreman.
1. 1970s: I'd actually argue that Clay and Liston were better at their peak in the 1960s than any fighter in the 1970s, but Ali was still near the top of his game, and Frazier's peak lasted into the 1970s. Then you have Foreman. Then you have Norton. Then you have Holmes. Then you have Quarry, Shavers, Ellis, Lyle and Young..
The 1940s had some HW depth-Lou Nova, Godoy, Walcott, Charles, Ray, Bivins etc. The War only kept some good matches from being made but that's not the fighter's fault.Decagon wrote:Here's how I'd rank them:
10. 1940s: The worst heavyweight decade of the century. The heavyweight title was inactive for three-and-a-half years, and the rest of the time, Joe Louis was on his Bum-of-the-Month Tour. Billy Conn and Jersey Joe Walcott were the only live competitors Louis saw that decade. He knocked them both out, the way a good champion does. Part of the problem with boxing in the 1940s was its resemblance to professional wrestling of the 1940s. Promoters were more interested in putting the small, handsome "good guy" up against the tall, fat, ugly "bad guy" than in staging competitive matches.
9. 1910s: This was a very frustrating decade, because for the first half of it, Jack Johnson was on the run from the law, and for the next few years, Jess Willard was sitting on his front porch, making money barnstorming. Jack Dempsey made things interesting at the end of the decade, and there were a few good fighters.
8. 1920s: The two best heavyweights in this decade, Dempsey and Tunney, didn't fight a single black man during these 10 years. This was an era where we simply didn't know who the best fighter was because Harry Wills couldn't get a title shot. Sure, most of us think he wouldn't have beaten Dempsey, but it would've been nice if there'd been a match, you know, so we could make sure. Still, this decade had a few excellent fighters, men that we can see on tape. Boxing became the biggest sport in America during this time, so the decade can't be all bad.
7. 1930s: Now this is an overrated decade. Aside from Joe Louis, its champions were Max Schmeling (a poor man's Evander Holyfield), Jack Sharkey (a poor man's, well... Jack Sharkey), Primo Carnera (a poor man's Hulk Hogan), Max Baer (a poor man's Earnie Shavers), and Jim Braddock (a poor man's Billy Conn). Still, there was a fair amount of depth, and Sharkey, for all his inconsistency, was extremely talented, and didn't mind crossing the color barrier, the way so many 1920s fighters did.
6. 1900s: The rise of Jack Johnon characterized this decade. The Black Foursome were coming into prominence, but mostly fighting each other. This decade is a little like the 1980s, where you had an old hand holding onto the title for the first five years (Larry Holmes/Jim Jeffries), and a phenomonal fighter capturing it in the later years (Mike Tyson/Jack Johnson), and the old hand coming out of retirement to face the phenom. The decade loses points because the Lineal title was idle for half the decade, and there was the embarassing Hart/Burns line.
5. 1950s: This was an incredibly top-heavy decade. There was Ezzard Charles, there was Joe Walcott, there was Rocky Marciano, and then there was a bunch of crap. The 1950s was an era of great fighters in the heavyweight division, but not great natural heavyweights. Edit: Sonny Liston came of age in this decade, and showed a lot of prowess, decimating the heavyweight division in late 1958 and 1959.
4. 1980s: Talent-wise, the 1980s ranks right up there with the 1970s. Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson ruled this decade, and Evander Holyfield was coming up through the heavyweight ranks. Unfortunately, fighters like Tim Witherspoon, Gerry Cooney, Trevor Berbick and Buster Douglas could simply become millionaires by showing up to fights, and they rarely did more than that.
3. 1960s: You have Liston, Clay and Frazier all in their primes, for starters. It's too bad that most people only know about Joe from his fights in the 1970s. I'd argue that he was even better in the 1960s. This decade loses out a little bit because once you get beyond the three best heavyweights, it's an inconsistent lot. The division doesn't have as much depth as the following decade did.
2. 1990s: This was a very exciting decade that featured Riddick Bowe, Evander Holyfield, Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis. The Black Foursome of the 1900s? Forgetaboutit. These guys were deadly. Rounding out the cast were Michael Moorer, David Tua, Hasim Rahman, Chris Byrd, Ike Ibeabuchi, John Ruiz, Ray Mercer and the geriatric duo of Larry Holmes and George Foreman.
1. 1970s: I'd actually argue that Clay and Liston were better at their peak in the 1960s than any fighter in the 1970s, but Ali was still near the top of his game, and Frazier's peak lasted into the 1970s. Then you have Foreman. Then you have Norton. Then you have Holmes. Then you have Quarry, Shavers, Ellis, Lyle and Young..
A thread on the top ten from each decade would take some time to compile. Let's see if Brockton can deliver a knockout.pundit wrote:Still waiting for your analysis, Brockton.
its tougher than i thought. im close to finishing, it will be ready soon. sorry for the delay.pound per pound wrote:A thread on the top ten from each decade would take some time to compile. Let's see if Brockton can deliver a knockout.pundit wrote:Still waiting for your analysis, Brockton.
It's ok mate, just wanted to make sure that you're still on it - because, as ever, I expect to learn from it. So as long as you will post this here eventually please take the time you need.BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:its tougher than i thought. im close to finishing, it will be ready soon. sorry for the delay.pound per pound wrote:A thread on the top ten from each decade would take some time to compile. Let's see if Brockton can deliver a knockout.pundit wrote:Still waiting for your analysis, Brockton.
Decagon wrote:I once ranked the top 15 fighters of the 1930s:
1. Joe Louis
2. Jack Sharkey
3. Max Baer
4. Max Schmelling
5. Jim Braddock
6. Buddy Baer
7. Primo Carnera
8. Bob Pastor
9. John Henry Lewis
10. Lou Nova
11. Abe Simon
12. Tiger Jack Fox
13. Tommy Farr
14. Tony Galento
15. Lee Savold
Sharkey shouldn't be above Schmeling. He clearly lost the one legit fight they had, even though the jduges gave it to Sharlkey.Decagon wrote:Excellent points. Here's version 2.0
1. Joe Louis
2. Jack Sharkey
3. Max Baer
4. Max Schmelling
5. Jim Braddock
6. Buddy Baer
7. Primo Carnera
8. Bob Pastor
9. George Godfrey
10. John Henry Lewis
11. Lou Nova
12. Larry Gains
13. Abe Simon
14. Tiger Jack Fox
15. Jersey Joe Walcott
I think the same way, but differentDecagon wrote:I really think Sharkey's underrated, so I always overrate him.