Are the 70's HW's overrated?

[SteveO]

Why or why not?

If they are, name a better decade and why that decade is better for heavyweights.

:good

[Sonny's jab]

I would place Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier and George Foreman all in my top 10 all-time heavyweights, but not just for what they did in the 1970s.

Ali was at his best in the 60s, and some of Frazier's best stuff is from the last few years of the 60s. What Foreman did in his '87-'97 stint counts a lot towards his high all-time ranking.

There were a few great heavyweight fights in the 70s, but plenty of duds too.

[mr. magoo]

I think any era can be overrated or underrated truthfully. I do however buy into the notion the 70's were a real golden era for heavyweights. You had at least 3 top 10 all time greats fighting during the same time, and a 4th who came towards the end of the decade. You had at least two or 3 concensus all time great punchers, and maybe 2 all time great boxers. There were a number of great matches and the best men faced each other often. These are some of the principles that define a great era. No, I don't think it was a magical time, but like all other things in life, there are times when something can be better than at others. Good and bad come and go in spurts. The 1970's happened to be a special time for heavyweight boxers in my opinion.

[fists of fury]

I'd say the 90's was equally as good, and possibly even better.

The 70's, without Ali, would have lost much of it's magic. imo. In the 90's, even with the main attraction being in jail, the division was very exciting.

[Sonny's jab]

It was a popular era, the heavyweight boxers were well-marketed, displayed for the first time on colour television, and Muhammad Ali was a phenomenal showman and a GLOBAL star. Ali's status and commercialism accounts for some of it.
The actual ability of the fighters is not necessarily a reason, because at the time many of the old-timers who report sports weren't overly impressed. And I'm not sure they should have been really, they'd seen great fighters before.

The reason I think the 70s deserves to be remembered as a "great heavyweight era" is because the biggest fights (Ali-Frazier 1, Ali-Foreman, Ali-Frazier 3) DID actually live up to - or exceed - the hype. They are classics.

On the other hand, some of the worst heavyweight championship fights I've seen - and some of the lousiest challengers - have been Muhammad Ali fights and his challengers, from the 1970s.

[mr. magoo]

It was a popular era, the heavyweight boxers were well-marketed, displayed for the first time on colour television, and Muhammad Ali was a phenomenal showman and a GLOBAL star. Ali's status and commercialism accounts for some of it.
The actual ability of the fighters is not necessarily a reason, because at the time many of the old-timers who report sports weren't overly impressed. And I'm not sure they should have been really, they'd seen great fighters before.

The reason I think the 70s deserves to be remembered as a "great heavyweight era" is because the biggest fights (Ali-Frazier 1, Ali-Foreman, Ali-Frazier 3) DID actually live up to - or exceed - the hype. They are classics.

On the other hand, some of the worst heavyweight championship fights I've seen - and some of the lousiest challengers - have been Muhammad Ali fights and his challengers, from the 1970s.

I think when we look at the 1970's as a golden era, what we are basically talking about is the time span from 1970 to maybe 1976. By the late 70's, men like Foreman, Frazier, and Quarry were retired. Ali and Norton were past their prime. Holmes was not yet a hot commodity. Some of those lousy fights that you speak of such as Ali vs Coopman, Evangelista, L. Spinks, Young, took place in that latter part of the decade when things were winding down. I generally think that most of the big matchups of the early to mid 70's were very good.

My favorite fight of the 70's as well as all time, was Foreman vs Lyle.

[Sizzle]

I would say no, although there was certainly a "dilution" of the talent towards the end of the decade.

If I had to pinpoint a genuinely strong decade I'd have to say '65-'75.

I rank Liston, Ali, Foreman and Frazier(Comes in and out) in my top10, that's a sizeable amount in a top10 from an era. Someone like Ken Norton would/could be top30, and a number of the other contenders would give stiff challenges to a number of ATG's.

I don't think the 90's was as strong, but very strong nonetheless. Tyson (moreso for what he did in the 80's) and Lewis, are top10 in most lists, Holyfield just misses out on mine but is probably top15. Bowe would be top30, although in reality his resume is paperthin and you wouldn't be faulted for making him top50.

You had some pretty solid contenders, the likes of Mercer, Rahman, but I don't think they were as good as the 70's, Young, Shavers etc.

[zadfrak]

The big thing with the 70's was, by and large, everyone fought everyone.

There were some cases of matchups not being made but nowhere to the degree it has become in recent times. Just look at all those 70's guys who were road warriors and would take on the other fighter and the other promoter. And aside from Lennox Lewis, what guy since the 70's has been willing to do that?

The 70's just had far more competitive matchups and risky fights, but the door to the title went thru Frazier/Foreman/Ali/Holmes & you have to take big chances if you wanted to be champ. That's one of the big problems multiple championship belts caused.

[abraq]

The 70's heavyweights overrated? No, not at all.

However, I do agree with most of what Sizzle had to say. Good, thoughtful post.

[Dempsey1238]

I think once you get pass Ali, Foreman and Fraizer, the others tend to get over rated.

Shavers hardest hitter of all time.
Norton all time great.
Jerry could be champ if Ali or Fraizer was not there ete.
Even L Spinks gets over rated a bit imo.

[ripcity]

I have Ali as my #1 all time heavyweight. Frazir and Foremen are in my top 25.
The 1970's provided the heavyweight divison with some of the best compotion it has ever seen.

[Bokaj]

Of course just as Tyson had his best years in the 80's Ali had his best years in the 60's. But I still think most would have Ali of the early 70's somewhere in their top ten, where they probably would have Frazier, Foreman and Holmes as well.

A very valid point also is that the best fighters more or less all fought each other and they often made for very good fights. The pace of those fights is a lot better than the big fights in the 90's for example, while we're still dealing with fighters with a lot of power. Hoylfield-Bowe I is a great fight, but compared to FOTC...

For me I think fighters like especially Frazier and Ali displayed an excellent combination fo pace and power, the same goes to Norton. And Foreman was very exciting in the early rounds. But when you look at the fights from later eras the pace is often low and there's a lot of clinching. The pace is really what's gone missing in the age of the weight-lifting giants.

Well, that's enough rambling for now.

[OLD FOGEY]

There is another way to judge a decade--which decades champions would defeat the champions of other decades year by year.
Comparing the 1970's to the 1980's
70-72 to 80-82--Frazier to Holmes--It is certainly possible Holmes carries these three years.
73 to 83--Foreman to Holmes--Iffy for the seventies considering what happened when Foreman met Ali
74 to 84--Foreman or Ali to Holmes--Holmes' age gives edge to 1970's
75 to 85--Ali to Holmes or M Spinks--I guess Ali gets a slight edge but Spinks seems to me to be even money.
76-77 to 86-87--Ali to Tyson--young Tyson gives 80's edge.
78 to 88--Ali or Leon Spinks to Tyson--70's have no prayer.
79 to 89--Holmes to Tyson--even money

The 1980's could win all ten and must be favored in 7 or 8 years.

Interestingly, in the 1980's the reigning champion carried a perfect record throughout the decade.

[Russell]

Maybe the 70's shined better because of the fighters in its relation to Ali, Foreman, and other larger than life figures.

[Bill1234]

Well, I think the 60's, 70's, and early 80's were all the greatest era. In the 60's you had great fighters like Clay (Ali), Liston, Frazier, and Patterson. In the 70's you had Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, and Norton. In the early 80's it started winding down, but there was still tough competition. There was still Jimmy Young, Leon Spinks, Larry Holmes was still in his prime, Gerry Cooney, Mike Weaver, and a ton of prospects. The co-stars and gate keepers of the golden age were still very tough. Earnie Shavers, George Chuvalo, Jimmy Young, Jerry Quarry, Jimmy Ellis, Ron Lyle and Oscar Bonavena were all still very hard competition.

The 90's was the next best era IMO, but it was short lived. You had Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis, Tyson, and Moorer. But a lot of them were inconsistant, much like the people from the 80's. You never knew which Tyson or Holyfield would show up, and Bowe dabbled in and out of shape. Lewis IMO was the most consistant. The gate keepers and co-stars were still pretty good too. There were guys like Rahman, Mercer, old Holmes and Foreman, Cooper, and Briggs.

[Seamus]

Yes, they are.

Not more than three of them could compete against today's top ten.

Small, out of shape sluggers. Except Jimmy Young.

[KobeIsGod]

Yes, they are.

Not more than three of them could compete against today's top ten.

Small, out of shape sluggers. Except Jimmy Young.

i agree with this. The top 3: Ali, Foreman, Frazier were great and would be in any era but after that there is a huge dropoff. norton never even won the title in the ring. i consider holmes part of the 80s. People say a guy like Quarry or Young would dominate today :-(

Wlad would destroy anyone outside the top 3 including norton. wlad-frazier is a 50-50 fight imo. foreman smokes wlad. ali should win a decision but wlad is a live underdog with (1970-174 ali). anytime after that, wlad beats ali. although a 60s ali toys with wlad

[Seamus]

And let's face fact, Ali was largely rubbish through the 1970's. Outside of his beating of Foreman (give credit) he struggled with little, motivated Joe Frazier- who was on the slide after 71, limited and vastly over-rated Norton, and lost to cocaine great, Spinks. Not to mention a string of less-than-optimal challengers after Foreman. That Ali couldn't sniff the top-10 today.

[janitor]

Yes they vastly are overrated but-

I think people will agree that I dont favour fighters from the 70s over other eras and would be more than willing to acept that those from another era were better if the case was there.

I have approached the question criticaly over the years and have had to conceed against my will that this was the greatest concentration of heavyweight talent.

Take Joe Frazier for example. If he had come allong under the reign of Jeffries, Dempsey, Louis or whoever he would have totaly set himself apart from the other contenders whether he beat the champion or not.

[kenmore]

Yes, they are.

Not more than three of them could compete against today's top ten.

Small, out of shape sluggers. Except Jimmy Young.

I totally disagree with you.

Aside from Foreman, Ali and Frazier, there were several '70s heavies who could be top contenders or beltholders today. This list includes Lyle, Shavers, Bugner, Quarry, and Young. Easily.

[Seamus]

I totally disagree with you.

Aside from Foreman, Ali and Frazier, there were several '70s heavies who could be top contenders or beltholders today. This list includes Lyle, Shavers, Bugner, Quarry, and Young. Easily.

I would not pick any of those to beat Chagaev, Valuev, Peter or Klitchko.

[kenmore]

I would not pick any of those to beat Chagaev, Valuev, Peter or Klitchko.

I would pick them in close fights over everyone you mention except Klitschko.

[RoccoMarciano]

I think the HW division was, probably, the best.

[Bill1234]

I would not pick any of those to beat Chagaev, Valuev, Peter or Klitchko.


:huh

[Bummy Davis]

Yes, but so are all the other eras , to think that Frazier had 26 fights going into the 1st Ali fight but both men were great that night but could have tough fight with guys from the 40's and 50's. Foreman had so many flaws in his style (power was not one of them) but even smaller men like Charles and Walcott could have exposed his flaws like Ali did Peralta showed us they were there and he was no Charles. Jimmy Young had great defensive skills but were they better than Billy Conn on the night he 1st fought Louis. The olympic Champs Ali, Frazier,Foreman were great talent and it goes for today too, Vlad,Lewis,Jones,Chagaev,Sultan,Povetkin,Charles all had great to good amatuer careers and proved there pedigree but there really is no school of hard knocks anymore unless it is coming out of Russia...but my answer to the question is the 70's are overated by some but are equal to the other eras and not inferior, just the same

[Bokaj]

Yes, they are.

Not more than three of them could compete against today's top ten.


Well, wether this is true or not it doesn't mean much. The sport has evolved, like all sports, during the last 30 years, so that kind of comparisons doesn't hold much water. Athletes like Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Connors, Bjorn Borg, Jack Nicklaus probably wouldn't be very competitive if you moved them with a time-machine directly from the 70's to compete with today's elite, but that doesn't mean they weren't great.

A more reasonable comparison is how entertaing fights from different eras are and how long the memmory of them will last, and here the 70's stand out. It definitely outclass the dismal state of today's division. Which of the fights today will be fondly remembered in 30 years time? Not that many, I wager.

[mr. magoo]

I would pick them in close fights over everyone you mention except Klitschko.

I don't know if I'd pick Quarry to beat Valuev. Sure, he was a much better fighter on a pound for pound basis, but he'd have a hell of lot of size to contend with. I certainly couldn't see a knockout win for Quarry, and he'd have to be on his toes all night to squeak out a decision. I haven't seen enough of Chagaev to draw a comparison between him and anyone else.

[janitor]

I would not pick any of those to beat Chagaev, Valuev, Peter or Klitchko.

Jimmy Young would beat anybody today apart from Klitchko. I would put money on it.

Ron Lyle probably would as well.

Frankly I would could imagine the older version of Patterson crucifying these overweight slobs that we call beltholders today.

Quarry would give us some exciting fights at cruiserweight then step up.

I see no reason why even sombody like Joe Bugner couldnt pick up a belt. It would only take a bit of clever managment.

[Ted Spoon]

Ali put his opponents into the spot light - he had a habit of making each one of his fights have a theme.

Much of what Ali said, when he was on top of the world, was taken as gospel because of his 'larger than life' personality - for example; in his second interview with Michael Parkinson, he made a point to explain how much of a better boxer Bugner was than Foreman.

They were definitely a good group of fighters; bigger than the bunch in the prior decade, but better?

Ted Spoon would conclude that, generally, the exposure that these men got due to television and Ali has helped their pedigree ten fold - past contenders/alphabet champs like Billy Miske, Tommy Farr, Rex Layne and Tim Witherspoon were no lesser than any from the 70's crop.

They were not part of the ‘merry-go-round’ that was the 1970’s heavyweight scene - these men were beaten in any fashion and then effectively flushed out, unable to stamp down some distinction.

[Seamus]

The problem with rating any decade during said decade is that the estimation always grows rosier with time. I remember in the 1990's how the scribes were bemoaning the heavyweights- and particularly Lennox Lewis- in comparison to the Tyson era. Well, most agree now that the 1990's was a far better era than the mid to late 1980's.

That was the nature of my comments regarding the current beltholders versus their 70's counterparts. We simply do not know. One group is an unfinished entity; the other is canonized-perhaps mythologized- property.

My instinct tells me the heavies today are very under-rated. But we must see them in more fights, and over the arc of their careers, to properly assess.

[Addie]

And let's face fact, Ali was largely rubbish through the 1970's. Outside of his beating of Foreman (give credit) he struggled with little, motivated Joe Frazier- who was on the slide after 71, limited and vastly over-rated Norton, and lost to cocaine great, Spinks. Not to mention a string of less-than-optimal challengers after Foreman. That Ali couldn't sniff the top-10 today.

70's Ali would beat everybody around today. You said 70s Ali was rubbish? He put a fabolous performance against peak Frazier, even despite coming off a 3 year lay off. Likewise, he embarassed Jerry Quarry on two occasions in the 70s, a man who was considered a top heavyweight contender. Not to mention he was the first man to beat and stop George Foreman, who has just demolished Norton and Frazier himself, and went on win a title in the 90s! That puts it in perspective for me.

You're not giving Ali his credit. Because he got the nod against Norton in the third fight does not discredit everything he achieved prior to that.

[Unforgiven]

The 1970s heavyweights are definitely overrated.

1. Muhammad Ali almost dominated the whole decade, and he was no way near his best for most of it. In fact, he spent most of his fights carrying on like a big phoney wrestler against very over-matched opponents, and it started to look very pathetic very often. (Unlike when he did it as Cassius Clay). Often lacking the power and stamina to get his opponent out of there with a vintage flurry, he opted to mug for the TV cameras.

2. Joe Frazier had 3 big wins between Feb 1970 and March 1971, and then was mostly in decline the whole decade. He produced a classic with Ali again in 1975, but both men were badly faded at that juncture.

3. Foreman had two big impressive KO wins that built his reputation, in 1973 and 1974. He suffered a soul-crushing defeat to Ali. An embarrassing defeat to Jimmy Young. And his fight with Ron Lyle was reasonably seen as a confirmation that he was overrated and lacking in fundamental skills, an entertaining but horribly reckless brawl.

^ It's these three men who are the flag bearers of the division in the 1970s. They are the superior HWs.
One was past his prime and going through the motions almost the whole decade.
Another was ending his brief prime within 18 months of the start of the decade, and was destroyed by the third, who was exposed as just a puncher/destroyer who was ordinary after a few rounds with a skilled fighter.

I love the FOTC and the Jungle Rumble and the Thrilla in Manila as much as the next man, but the idea that the heavyweight division was brimming with quality performers or even that the top 3 were firing on all cylinders for more than two or three fights is just a FALLACY.

And, joking aside, guys like Ron Lyle and Jimmy Young weren't "unlucky to have been fighting in the era" (ie. "would have been champions in other eras") .... they were probably LUCKY to have fought in such an over-glorified era.

[Kalasinn]

@Unforgiven: You musta forgot, Earnie Shavers beat 10 Holyfields! :admin

His words, not mine. :lol::lol:

[Unforgiven]

@Unforgiven: You musta forgot, Earnie Shavers beat 10 Holyfields! :admin

His words, not mine. :lol::lol:


I love Earnie Shavers but that statement of his is so off base that I'm flummoxed to find an appropriate answer to it.


........ Ok, I give up. I'm off to boxrec to find these 10 Holyfields ! :lol:

[Stevie G]

Why or why not?

If they are, name a better decade and why that decade is better for heavyweights.

:good
Definitely NOT overrated ! As has been mentioned.there were three all time greats in the mix between 1970-77,plus a couple of very good NEAR greats (Norton and Young) as well as a few very useful fighters. And at the end of the decade yet another great emerged.


The golden age itself was between 1970-76.

They all believed in fighting each other in those halcyon days. It was a pleasure growing up with this as a backdrop.

[TheGreatA]

Possibly although in recent times they seem to have been put into their proper place.

If you look at the IBHOF, there are quite a few old time heavyweight contenders that have made it in, such as Tom Sharkey, George Godfrey, Joe Jeannette and Sam McVea but no Ellis, Quarry, Shavers or Lyle who you would think were inducted if they were that highly rated in the general view.

[he grant]

An era is usually twenty years ... I'd say 62 - 82 had exceptionally heavyweights and terrific contenders ... again, the point made of exposure through TV was huge .. people got to see these fighters often. Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes (half of the top ten right there) ... Patterson still around, Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena, Terrell, Bugner, Shavers, Lyle, Young, Norton were all very tough and capable of terrific match ups based on styles ..

I do think 88 - 98 with prime Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis was exceptional as well ..