Which Era was the Strongest?

[cross_trainer]

How do you determine whether one is strong or weak? As a result of some discussions with China_hand_Joe (who, despite his trolling, seems to bring out the best in the Classic forum), I would recommend a three-point program...



1) Skill of the fighters -- This encompasses both the average amount of experience top fighters have (number of bouts + quality of opposition) and how good they look on film.

2) Talent pool -- How many fighters were active? Was the culture supportive of boxing (lots of gyms in various places, well-televised)? Were there good (and frequent) books available to teach novices? Interestingly, poverty is an important indicator as well, since many of the best fighters seem to come from poorer backgrounds (their motives may vary, but their performance was usually pretty good).

3) Training -- How well were the fighters trained, i.e. how "scientific" were their training regimens by modern standards? How hard did most of them work? (Work ethic is often overlooked)





Which era would you consider the strongest, based on this criteria? Also, would you add any other variables?

[OLD FOGEY]

How do you determine whether one is strong or weak? As a result of some discussions with China_hand_Joe (who, despite his trolling, seems to bring out the best in the Classic forum), I would recommend a three-point program...



1) Skill of the fighters -- This encompasses both the average amount of experience top fighters have (number of bouts + quality of opposition) and how good they look on film.

2) Talent pool -- How many fighters were active? Was the culture supportive of boxing (lots of gyms in various places, well-televised)? Were there good (and frequent) books available to teach novices? Interestingly, poverty is an important indicator as well, since many of the best fighters seem to come from poorer backgrounds (their motives may vary, but their performance was usually pretty good).

3) Training -- How well were the fighters trained, i.e. how "scientific" were their training regimens by modern standards? How hard did most of them work? (Work ethic is often overlooked)





Which era would you consider the strongest, based on this criteria? Also, would you add any other variables?

One criteria I might add, although it could be covered obliquely in talent pool and skill level, is did the best fight the best a reasonable amount of the time?

[cross_trainer]

One criteria I might add, although it could be covered obliquely in talent pool and skill level, is did the best fight the best a reasonable amount of the time?

I thought about including that as a variable, but chose not to for the following reason: just because fighters never face each other doesn't mean they're not talented. If Ali and Frazier never fought, they would still be just as talented as ever.

It's only when unwillingness to face opponents prevents you from getting experience that it becomes a problem...for instance, if you spend your whole life fighting tomato cans and never see what it's like to face a good opponent.

[McGrain]

Which era would you consider the strongest, based on this criteria?

None is the "strongest". With almost no exceptions the very best fighters from one era will be a total match for the very best fighters of another era. It's EQUAL because boxing is primarily about what is within, mental, heart. Unique in my opinion.

Human endevour can only reach to certain heights - nobody from the 40's "tried harder" than every fighter from the 90's .

[Bummy Davis]

I think its hard to say in ERA's because the 140lb era was real strong recently with Hatton,Tzsu,Floyd,Castillo,Cotto, Etc. and the Heavys Now are starting to get thick, In the 50's the Heavyweights had some seasoned Vets, the 70's had raw power but beatable, some of the big power punchers were beaten by Jerry Quarry 6" 197LBS, Mac Foster 6"4 220 Shavers,Ron Lyle6"3 220, Buster Mathis 6"3 250,Thad Spencer ETC...IMO the 40's were deep and fought weekly or monthly but I think there is always talent in every era in various divisions

[SgrRyLeonard]

Two of the strongest Welterweight eras were the 40's and the 80's, while for the Heavyweights it was the 70's and probably the 90's as well.

[OLD FOGEY]

My vote would be for the 1800 to 1810 era. Jem Belcher, Henry Pearce, John Gully, Bill Richmond, Tom Molyneaux, and the great Tom Cribb.

[box03]

70s and 90s were the strongest for Heavywieghts, while the 2000s and the 40s were probably the weakest in Heavywieght history.

[McGrain]

A lot of people are posting about WW, HW, whatever, that isn't what this thread is about (although any given weight class might serve as a good example). I think it's more concerned with the "overall" sense of the era in relation to technique, coverage, popularity, depth etc etc etc.

[Dempsey1238]

The 90's are over rated imo. in regards to heavyweights.

In the 1900's we had Jeff, Corbett, Sharkey, Fitz, Johnson, MCVey, Langford ete.

The 20's were a downer, good thing Dempsey was a big star.

The 30's had Baer, Sharkey, Schemling, Louis, Carnea and Braddock.

The 40's had Louis, Walcott, Charles, and perhaps Conn.

The 50's had Marciano, Walcott, Charles, Liston, Patterson and Ingo.

The 60's had Ali, Liston and Patterson. Joe Fraizer came late.

The 70's had Ali, Foreman, Holmes and Fraizer. No I dont count Norton, Shavers or the Spinks "Great".

The 80's had Holmes, Tyson, M Spinks, and a bunch of druggies.

The 90's had past prime Tyson, Holyfiled, Bowe and Lewis. You can thown in old Foreman if you like.

[Street Lethal]

How do you determine whether one is strong or weak? As a result of some discussions with China_hand_Joe (who, despite his trolling, seems to bring out the best in the Classic forum), I would recommend a three-point program...



1) Skill of the fighters -- This encompasses both the average amount of experience top fighters have (number of bouts + quality of opposition) and how good they look on film.

2) Talent pool -- How many fighters were active? Was the culture supportive of boxing (lots of gyms in various places, well-televised)? Were there good (and frequent) books available to teach novices? Interestingly, poverty is an important indicator as well, since many of the best fighters seem to come from poorer backgrounds (their motives may vary, but their performance was usually pretty good).

3) Training -- How well were the fighters trained, i.e. how "scientific" were their training regimens by modern standards? How hard did most of them work? (Work ethic is often overlooked)





Which era would you consider the strongest, based on this criteria? Also, would you add any other variables?
Sounds good. First, how do we know how many active fighters there are in a given year? Second, should we just add numbers. Suppose that a country begins to develop boxing, and although there are more boxers added, they may not be as good as the boxers from other countries. That sounds like too difficult a problem.

[cross_trainer]

Sounds good. First, how do we know how many active fighters there are in a given year? Second, should we just add numbers. Suppose that a country begins to develop boxing, and although there are more boxers added, they may not be as good as the boxers from other countries. That sounds like too difficult a problem.

If they just started boxing, their talent pool wouldn't be as good because the infrastructure that supports them (coaches, competition, etc.) would be inexperienced.

[The Kurgan]

The 1980s. The perfect era, especially for heavyweights- Mike Tyson, Larry Holmes, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield and Greg Page all boxing in the same freakin' decade!

[cross_trainer]

The 1980s. The perfect era, especially for heavyweights- Mike Tyson, Larry Holmes, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield and Greg Page all boxing in the same freakin' decade!

:lol: :good

[Street Lethal]

If they just started boxing, their talent pool wouldn't be as good because the infrastructure that supports them (coaches, competition, etc.) would be inexperienced.
Right. So you would have to have some sort of quantity/quality calculation.

[cross_trainer]

Right. So you would have to have some sort of quantity/quality calculation.

Yes, you would need to figure out both.

[JohnThomas1]

The 1980s. The perfect era, especially for heavyweights- Mike Tyson, Larry Holmes, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield and Greg Page all boxing in the same freakin' decade!
You just blossomed from being a mere top shelf ESB poster to an absolute Boxing Banter Icon. God like!




:bowdown:bowdown:bowdown:bowdown:bowdown

[mr. magoo]

The 1980s. The perfect era, especially for heavyweights- Mike Tyson, Larry Holmes, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield and Greg Page all boxing in the same freakin' decade!

Let's not forget Ken Norton, Earnie Shavers, Jimmy Young and Neon Leon. :good

[mcvey]

The first coming to my mind are the 40s/50s and perhaps the 60s as well. there were plenty of great fighters but mainly at the lower weights for hw it may be the 70s and 90s. But i haven´t really thought about it just mentioned what came up first when i read your post.
I think the war disrupted a lot of fighters careers so I wouldnt say the 40s was the best,the 20s were hard to beat imo.You had champions like Jack Dempsey,Jack Dillon,Harry Greb,Mickey Walker,Benny Leonard,Tony Canzoneri,Pete Herman ,and Jimmy Wilde.Quite a list! Boxing was in its Golden Age,there was less competition from other sports Basketball wasnt big ,apart from Baseball and American Football,and of course Horse Racing , Boxing had few rivals in the states,Tv which eventually killed boxings small arenas ,wasnt invented,big gates were the norm.Yes the 20s for me.

[The Kurgan]

Let's not forget Ken Norton, Earnie Shavers, Jimmy Young and Neon Leon. :good

Don't be silly- Jimmy Young wasn't a good boxer.

[Little_Mac]

[quote=Dempsey1238] The 30's had Baer, Sharkey, Schemling, Louis, Carnea and Braddock.

Carnera's one of the 30's greats? Puh-lease...:roll:

Other than that I agree with you.

[Luigi1985]

[quote=Dempsey1238] The 30's had Baer, Sharkey, Schemling, Louis, Carnea and Braddock.

Carnera's one of the 30's greats? Puh-lease...:roll:

Other than that I agree with you.




:patsch

[frankwornank]

:yikes The very top 2 or three fighters in their respective divisions are as good now as in any era. The real difference is that in past era's for example, the 50's, you had divisions where they were 10 deep with talent. Just look at the top ten middleweights of the 50's. They were all outstanding.

[McGrain]

:yikes The very top 2 or three fighters in their respective divisions are as good now as in any era.

Broadly speaking, this is my position.

The real difference is that in past era's for example, the 50's, you had divisions where they were 10 deep with talent. Just look at the top ten middleweights of the 50's. They were all outstanding.

Of course, these fighters are now spread over three divisions - 154, 160, 168. The individual divisions may be the weaker for it, but in terms of great fighters, I see no real differnce between the 2000's and the 1940's.

[cross_trainer]

:yikes The very top 2 or three fighters in their respective divisions are as good now as in any era. The real difference is that in past era's for example, the 50's, you had divisions where they were 10 deep with talent. Just look at the top ten middleweights of the 50's. They were all outstanding.

Interesting. What you're saying is that there's a maximum quality that any era is capable of producing--that the guys on the upper end of the bell curve are pretty much the same in every talent pool, regardless of the pool's size (after a certain point).

Thus:

Society A

100 people produce 10 "super athletes"

Society B

1,000 people produce 100 "super athletes"




But the "super athletes" in society A and society B are both equally good. The only limit is that you need at least 10 people to produce a "super-athlete", which is why boxing in very small countries improved as population expanded.

[McGrain]

Interesting. What you're saying is that there's a maximum quality that any era is capable of producing--that the guys on the upper end of the bell curve are pretty much the same in every talent pool

For me i'd leave the numbers alone, as it's obviously not the case - but as far as our sport goes, this outlines my position beautifully.