50's Heavyweights vs 80's Heavyweights vs 00's Heavyweights

XThe GreatestX

Gold Belt
@Gold
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
17,154
Reaction score
6,018
Ok. So when we go through boxing history these are the decades of heavyweights that are generally considered the weakest. SO LETS RANK THEM.

Ok so the fighters in the 50's

STANDOUTS 50's
older Ezzard Charles
older Jersey Joe
Rocky Marciano
Floyd Patterson
Ingemar Johnansson
an old Joe Louis
young Sonny Liston
Archie Moore

OTHER GOOD FIGHTERS
Zora Folley
Nino Valdez
Lee Savold
Roland LaStarza
Rex Layne
Hurricane Jackson
Eddie Machen
young Henry Cooper


STANDOUTS 80's
Larry Holmes
Mike Tyson
Comeback Foreman
Mike Spinks
Evander Holyfield

OTHER GOOD FIGHTERS

Pinklon Thomas
Tim Witherspoon
Trevor Berbick
Gerry Cooney
Michael Dokes
Greg Page
Trevor Berbick
Bonecrusher Smith
Razor Ruddock
Tony Tucker


STANDOUTS 00's
Wlad Klits
Vitali Klits
David Haye?
Older Lennox Lewis ( for a few years)

OTHER GOOD FIGHTERS
Shot Mike Tyson
Older James Toney
John Ruiz
Hasim Rahman
Chris Byrd
David Tua
Lamon Brewster
Tony Thompson
Shannon Briggs
Oleg Maskaev
Samuel Peter
Sugar Valuev


I don't know which one is worse honestly.
 
Last edited:
80s looks worse than it was because of how great Tyson was in his prime.
 
The post-Dempsey, pre-Louis era of the 30's.
 
80s would be the best of those three by a fair bit. The 00s wouldn't be so bad if Wlad and Vitali had fought (not saying they should have been expected to, just that it would make the era seem less shitty if they did). It's close between the 00s and the 50s. Maybe a slight edge to the 00s.
 
80s would be the best of those three by a fair bit. The 00s wouldn't be so bad if Wlad and Vitali had fought (not saying they should have been expected to, just that it would make the era seem less shitty if they did). It's close between the 00s and the 50s. Maybe a slight edge to the 00s.
I think the 80's is the worst. I think guys like Rahman, Tua, Peter, Thompson, Byrd, etc would have been fine in the 80's.

I guess vicsa versa for the 80's guys for the decade of the 00's. Theres not much separating them imo.
 
I'm surprised you don't have Foreman listed in the 80s.
 
I think the 80's is the worst. I think guys like Rahman, Tua, Peter, Thompson, Byrd, etc would have been fine in the 80's.

I guess vicsa versa for the 80's guys for the decade of the 00's. Theres not much separating them imo.

I think guys like Witherspoon, Tucker, and even Tubbs would have done a lot of damage if they were at their peak in the 00s post Lewis. There was a fair amount of talent among those HWs, it's just that most were woefully inconsistent. In a post-Lewis era, any of those three could have been the clear number 3 guy to the Klits, and any of those three (and a few others) could have been serious challenges to the Wlad of the 00s before he really settled down under Steward (and perhaps even the one that settled down under Steward).
 
I think guys like Witherspoon, Tucker, and even Tubbs would have done a lot of damage if they were at their peak in the 00s post Lewis. There was a fair amount of talent among those HWs, it's just that most were woefully inconsistent. In a post-Lewis era, any of those three could have been the clear number 3 guy to the Klits, and any of those three (and a few others) could have been serious challenges to the Wlad of the 00s before he really settled down under Steward (and perhaps even the one that settled down under Steward).
conversely though, throw david tua, sam peter, and thompson in the 80's, i see easy top ten guys with maybe tua being a big time title challenger.

Holmes was always in dog fights and I think he would have had some problems going to war with tua and peter.

Rahman's big punch likely keeps him in the top ten.

thompson was tricky enough to be in there

older but still game ( usually) hw James Toney in the 80's would have been interesting.
 
theres not really a decade in there is there?

I can add it though to a fatal four way

There's pretty close to a decade there between Dempsey and when Louis started to gain widespread interest from the public. Probably 8 years at least as Louis' real launch into stardom came in the Baer fight in Sept of 1935. The whole decade of the 30's had very few highlights in the division, though, and plenty of lowlights.
 
It's hard to compare due to size. Some of the guys in the 50s are legends in power weight classes and get lumped into heavyweight because of name recognition and paying no attention to quality of opposition or even their record.

Lennox is the best boxer in any of the lists, but old Lennox would not have enjoyed himself against prime Tyson.

Vitali would've dominated the 50s which has the curse of size disadvantage.

1. 80s
2. 00s
3. 50s
 
Is this thread about some silly fantasy fights or discussing the strength of the division at the time?
 
Is this thread about some silly fantasy fights or discussing the strength of the division at the time?
Sorry I was thinking aloud. It's hard to compare strength of division without at least drifting into the realms of fantasy matchups.

I put them in that order because that's how I see he strength in depth. People see a list like ezzard Charles, jersey joe Walcott, Archie Moore, joe Louis, rocky marciano and recognise the names but probably couldn't tell you what their best weight was or how old they were.
 
Sorry I was thinking aloud. It's hard to compare strength of division without at least drifting into the realms of fantasy matchups.

I put them in that order because that's how I see he strength in depth. People see a list like ezzard Charles, jersey joe Walcott, Archie Moore, joe Louis, rocky marciano and recognise the names but probably couldn't tell you what their best weight was or how old they were.

I think we can measure a division's strength pretty accurately by not going into fantasy matchups myself. You can get an idea of the perceived talent levels in the division at the time in relation to other divisions. We could figure out fan interest in the division and how much it transcended the sport with it's fighters or particular events. You can measure the strength of the division by the prospects it had that were thought of for the future. The quality of the fights that took place during the division at the time. Stuff like that that's judged just against it's own era and then compared to another era judged the same way. We can judge the highs and lows without matching up fighters from different eras.
 
Last edited:
I think we can measure a division's strength pretty accurately by not going into fantasy matchups myself. You can get an idea of the perceived talent levels in the division at the time in relation to other divisions. We could figure out fan interest in the division and how much it transcended the sport with it's fighters or particular events. You can measure the strength of the division by the prospects it had that were thought of for the future. The quality of the fights that took place during the division at the time. Stuff like that that's judged just against it's own era and then compared to another era judged the same way. We can judge the highs and lows without matching up fighters from different eras.
Yeah but I get distracted by thinking about some of the fights that we missed out on by about 5 years. Just the way my mind works. I'm sticking with how I'd rank the eras. But I get what you're saying.
 
Back
Top