How good were the other boxers from the time of Ali, Frazier and Foreman?

prikoke

Black Belt
@Black
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
5,163
Reaction score
949
I remember people saying that top ten fighters from that era could become champions in earlier or later times. So how good do you think were they? How would Norton, Quarry, Shavers, Chuvalo, Lyle, Liston etc. do against say recent or present day heavyweights?

I guess that a pretty long list to analyze in detail, feel free to focus on one or two boxers if you like.

Thanks
 
The guys from that era could take tons of punishment and deliver a lot of punishment as well. I think the Klitschko's give everyone problems due to their physical attributes, but guys like Ali, Holmes, and Foreman could/would beat them. Smaller HW's such as Patterson and Frazier had very good power for their size. It's all subjective but the 60's and 70's had tons of tough HW's that won the respect of everyone. Can't say the same of today's HW's. Probably cause most elite ones aren't American
 
prod pretty much said it. They could take tons of punishment and deliver a lot of punishment as well. The fights were very heated and not so one-sided like they are today.

I think Wlad could beat a lot of them, but could he beat one after another like he does today? Probably not.
I imagine he'd get tired after a couple of fights and his record would certainly not be 57-3.
 
Mid- 60's through early 80's

Muhammad Ali
George Foreman
Joe Frazier
Larry Holmes
Sonny Liston
Ken Norton
Earnie Shavers
George Chuvalo
Jerry Quarry
Oscar Bonevena
Jimmy Young

even add Floyd Patterson and Jimmy Ellis

The best era of heavyweight boxing ever

'nuf said
 
hard to say

you have to consider that many things have changed.

better nutritions and training methods. For example compare the body of boxers now and then and you will notice that boxers nowadays are way stronger built.

but I think when you would transfer fighters like Ali or Foreman in our time they would adapt and still be champions.
 
Some will tell you that the Ali days were The Old Days and therefore apt to be romanticized; exaggerated and seen as better than they actually were because they bring the speaker back to his younger, more vigorous days.

But you can
 
a lot of them could've been cruisers in today's time, and probably a few of them goats.

a guy like lyle is too big for cruiser, but a quarry would easily make it. people say his advantage was being a small hw, but fuck no, he was just good. he'd be a perfect cruiser
 
When daily life gets easier, people get softer, and that’s a fact; and adding wrestling, weightlifting, kicks & elbow options to their repertoire, dying their hair pink & blue and spending 5500.00 on cartoonish tattoos doesn’t change that one little bit; it just masks it a little by making incompetency seem fresh.

Lol, send this comment to Dana White's twitter :icon_chee

Aside from that, you didn't mention the era between - Tyson, Holyfield, Ruddock, Bowe, Lewis, Tua.

So it's possible to have a good heavyweight division even today, but I blame the people who run boxing. It's about money, not the sport at all. In the 60/70ies there wasn't that much money involved (I think 5 million for both Ali and Foreman in their fight was the biggest payday then).

And of course, in the 90ies, the lighter divisons were as good as in any other era. Maybe no middleweights like Leonard, Hagler, Heanrs. But De la Hoya, Mosley, Whitaker, Morales, Barrera, etc ...
 
Some will tell you that the Ali days were The Old Days and therefore apt to be romanticized; exaggerated and seen as better than they actually were because they bring the speaker back to his younger, more vigorous days.

But you can’t explain away everything that occurred before August of 2010 that easily, now can you?

So here is the strait story……

One of the necessary ingredients of being great is having other great fighters available to fight against, defeat and rise above.

Ali, Liston, Frazier and Foreman didn’t become great simply by facing each other.
The supporting cast they had around to build themselves against is why they themselves are remembered as superb.

Their legendary clashes with each other were highly celebrated occasions of one proven, superb champion against another; a clash of the titans situation, if you will.

That is something that is simply not possible to stage it this moment in time, today.

The heavyweight division will always be the flagship of the fleet because they are the biggest fighters and head to head, a good big man will usually beat a good small man, so these are your alpha-males; your champion of champions in the heavyweights, and therefore; they matter greatly, even during the periods when they seem uninspiring, such as now.

The pool of talent is always in a state of flux, based both on the sheer participation numbers (normally there are between 870 and 1950 active heavyweights on the scene at any given moment) as well as the number of extraordinary talents fighting; men who’s natural aptitude represents a spike beyond the norm so significant that they make it look….phenomenal.

Today the Klitschko brothers are so far above the rest of the lot that they make it look easy, and too often, they make it look boring as well.
But this has almost as much to do with their combined strengths as it has to do with the incompetency of their available adversaries.

Even so, they are really the only two ‘phenomenal’ talents active today, whereas during Ali’s time there were half a dozen besides him or more, and the fact that the only two excellent heavyweights around today happen to be brothers & won’t fight each other are facts that are keeping widespread fan interest in the division on ice.

The Klitschko’s (I can never tell them apart) are defending the title (or some of the titles, I can never keep track of how many there are or who owns them) against someone who’s pudgy and Slavic looking and who’s name a cannot pronounce”

That’s not just the talk of the peripheral fan of the would-be fan; that’s the talk of the average Boxing fan, at least here in North America, and that’s something that the heavyweight division hasn’t had to deal with to this extent in 300 years; Fan apathy.

Although better known outside of the U.S. than almost all that stars of the NBA, NFL or MLB, not being American, the Brothers Klitschko face an uphill battle securing the love and support of the fickle, landlocked U.S. fan base who see Boxing more and more as a “global sport”, and American sports fans, the most fanatic in the world, hate “global sports”, witnessed by their collective yawn at this year’s world cup of Soccer in spite of our media’s best efforts to shove it down our throats.

The other problem that the Klitschkos have in practical terms is that they both are composed of great strengths and glaring weaknesses, both of which have been put on vivid display for critique.

Much of that the harsh kind of critique.

It seems to many observers that there two brothers are two halves of a whole; that Vitali has the stamina, resolve, tenacity, resiliency, but lacks in inspiration, creativity, speed, maneuverability and grace. Conversely, Wladimir has the speed, creativity, maneuverability and ring generalship but seems lacking in stamina, resolve, tenacity, and resiliency.

Between Muhammad Ali and his brother Rudy Clay, who was also a heavyweight fighter, Muhammad got everything and Rudy got shit.

If it had worked out that way for the Klitschko brothers, the recipient of all the good boxing traits would certainly rank as one of the greatest champions of all time, given their modern size and old fashioned discipline, while the other brother would be a full time politician in the Ukraine, famous due to the exploits of his athlete sibling.

The easement of personal freedoms bestowed upon citizens of the so-called “Eastern Bloc” nations has filled the ranks of professional boxing with that rare bird of balance; people with both bad local employment conditions and access to great boxing programs, which is, as immigrant and depression era America taught us, is the perfect climate for boxers to thrive, and these days that is what you have in much of eastern Europe/Western Asia.

The shift the government tolerance for individual enterprise & hanging out your own business shingle which began in the early 90’s has provided boxing with a new avenue to generate fighters, but instead of adding to the already bountiful pot that housed Ali. Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Quarry, Lyle, Shavers, Bugner, etc., a simultaneous turn of events in the West made these Eastern additions into replacements instead.

In the West and most prominently in the U.S., increasingly plentiful opportunities for education, vocational training and financial reward across an easier path lead fewer minorities and other downtrodden cluster groups to put their health on the line for cash in prizefighting.

Today, while MMA draws white, suburban high school (and sometimes college) graduates to the cage as a low paying, part time hobby pursuit, the more committed professional grade fighter has taken up residence in 9 to 5 jobs.

For those would-be candidates who are more “Athlete” than “Fighter”, teams sports had finally caught up to boxing in pay scale during the last quarter century since the Ali’s, Leonard’s, Hearns’ and Hagler’s hung up their gloves, making the decision to fight for a living seem that much more far fetched when you live in the land of plenty.

While the Eastern European Heavyweights are surely the best around today, therefore, they are not at all better than the Western heavyweights who filled the top slots 30, 40 or 50 years ago. They’re merely the last ones to stick around and be punished in a fight sport where quitting mid fight is considered cowardly.

When daily life gets easier, people get softer, and that’s a fact; and adding wrestling, weightlifting, kicks & elbow options to their repertoire, dying their hair pink & blue and spending 5500.00 on cartoonish tattoos doesn’t change that one little bit; it just masks it a little by making incompetency seem fresh.



For some method of measure, I’ll assign a subjective numerical value to today’s top dozen-plus and do the same with 25 of the top heavyweight fighters from Ali’s era, which people can either confront or spit in the wind.


Ali Era Heavyweights:

1. Muhammad Ali (1967) 100
2. George Foreman (1973) 96
3. Joe Frazier (1970) 93
4. Sonny Liston (1961) 93
5. Jerry Quarry (1969) 88
6. Cleveland Williams (1959) 86
7. Ken Norton (1976) 85
8. Ron Lyle (1975) 84
9. Zora Folley (1960) 83
10. Ernie Shavers (1977) 82
11. Floyd Patterson (1960) 80
12. Eddie Machen (1959) 80
13. Jimmy Ellis (1969) 78
14. Eirnie Terrell (1966) 77
15. George Chuvalo (1966) 75
16. Joe Bugner (1975) 73
17. Henry Cooper (1962) 72
18. Oscar Bonavena (1968) 71
19. Jimmy Young (1976) 70
20. Karl Mildenberger (1966) 68
21. Buster Mathis (1968) 67
22. Thad Spencer (1967) 65
23. Duane Bobick (1977) 64
24. Mac Foster (1971) 62
25. Leotis Martin (1970) 62




2010 Heavyweights:

1. Wladimir Klitschko 89
2. Vitali Klitschko 85
3. David Haye 72
4. Tomasz Adamek 67
5. Alexander Povetkin 66
6. Chris Arreola 65
7. Nikolai Valuev 64
8. Ruslan Chagaev 62
9. Denis Boytsov 60
10. Sam Peter 60
11. Eddie Chambers 59
12. Odlanier Solis 59
13. Alexander Dimitrenko 57
14. Kevin Johnson 54
15. Kali Meehan 51

This. And the ratings you gave are damn good, Kid McCoy.
 
Some will tell you that the Ali days were The Old Days and therefore apt to be romanticized; exaggerated and seen as better than they actually were because they bring the speaker back to his younger, more vigorous days.

But you can
 
Why is a period of apx 15 years being compared to one single year, Kid?

Not exactly fair, is it?

Unless you're trying to hide the fact that the Wepners, Urtains, Romans, Blins, etc. of the world were all rated as top 10 contenders when Ali, Frazier and Foreman were all still around and sitting atop the division.
 
Ali era heavyweights were the densest of any era, that's the consensus. People were still tough as hell but the skills were there too. You take the main names out of the era and have the rest fighting today and I think they'd make everyone look like fools, that's how deep the talent was. Ali said quite aptly once in his bio about the older crop in his first era "on a good night any one of them could beat me". Well rounded fighters, many with horrible breaks in the sport and having the misfortune to come around at a time when Patterson was avoiding worthy contenders, or a tank like Liston or a superstar like Ali who was at his absolute peak and would never be better. That's the 60's talent that Ali, Frazier, Quarry had to beat into retirement after they were already shells of themselves. Then the 70's, my theory has always been, that when we have a trailblazer or real shaker upper, everyone gets better, they did in the 90's after Tyson shook the division and they did after Ali's first reign. Having a great fighter inspires the legions and they all say "I want that". You had Norton, Shavers, Lyle, Forman, Jimmy Young, Joe Bugner, Al Blue Lewis on and on. All good fighters that Ali, Frazier and Foreman had to show up ready for. You don't have that today. I believe Chuvalo when he says "Frazier would run through the Klitchkos like a paper bag".
 
Some will tell you that the Ali days were The Old Days and therefore apt to be romanticized; exaggerated and seen as better than they actually were because they bring the speaker back to his younger, more vigorous days.

........

Kid, your views on MMA are highly colored by your boxing bias, but I do appreciate the boxing knowledge.

I just am a little sad at the thought of this knowledge floating around in cyber-limbo.

You MUST save your posts, paste them all in MS Word or something, so that someday you can enlighten the wider world.
 
Why is a period of apx 15 years being compared to one single year, Kid?

Not exactly fair, is it?

Unless you're trying to hide the fact that the Wepners, Urtains, Romans, Blins, etc. of the world were all rated as top 10 contenders when Ali, Frazier and Foreman were all still around and sitting atop the division.

This explains it. :icon_twis:icon_twis

Some will tell you that the Ali days were The Old Days and therefore apt to be romanticized; exaggerated and seen as better than they actually were because they bring the speaker back to his younger, more vigorous days.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just am a little sad at the thought of this knowledge floating around in cyber-limbo.

You MUST save your posts, paste them all in MS Word or something, so that someday you can enlighten the wider world.

I keep telling Kid he should write a book, how about "the complete history of combat sports"? Or "Why modern heavyweights couldn't carry Jerry Quarry's jock strap" :icon_chee
 
Mid- 60's through early 80's

Muhammad Ali
George Foreman
Joe Frazier
Larry Holmes
Sonny Liston
Ken Norton
Earnie Shavers
George Chuvalo
Jerry Quarry
Oscar Bonevena
Jimmy Young

even add Floyd Patterson and Jimmy Ellis

The best era of heavyweight boxing ever

'nuf said


Crazy to think Ali beat all of them except for Holmes, the guy truly was a stud
 
Why is a period of apx 15 years being compared to one single year, Kid?

Not exactly fair, is it?

Unless you're trying to hide the fact that the Wepners, Urtains, Romans, Blins, etc. of the world were all rated as top 10 contenders when Ali, Frazier and Foreman were all still around and sitting atop the division.

If you compare the heavyweights from the last 15 years with those of that 15 year period, suddenly the disparity in talent is not so pronounced. Sure, the old guys are still better, but when you add to the modern mix the likes of Holyfield, Lewis, Moorer, Bowe, post-prison Tyson, Ruddick, fat James Toney, etc. the comparison is a little more fair.

Kid, with the amount of time you spend crafting your boxing forum posts and trolling the Heavies, I'm willing to bet my bank account that you've revisited this thread to see what the reaction to your post was. Let's hear your thoughts, stop hiding.
 
Some will tell you that the Ali days were The Old Days and therefore apt to be romanticized; exaggerated and seen as better than they actually were because they bring the speaker back to his younger, more vigorous days.

But you can
 
Thanks a lot, very informative post especially the list at the end.

I'm curious why you considered Ali in 1967 to be better than in 1974. IMO he was much better from the physical perspective, but had not yet found the style that allowed him to beat Frazier and Foreman. Even though his dancing style was far more elegant and did not let him absorb so much damage, IMO it would not have worked well against the two fighters mentioned. Feel free to disagree, i'm unsure about that myself but that's what i'm inclined to think.

Of course, if the 1967 Ali would have combined his later style with his dancing, we would have seen a much better fighter than Ali was in 1974.

the Ali of the 60's was phenomenal, not only could he move continuously but he could fight nonstop for 15 round like a welterweight. You add on to that the fact that he was the greatest defensive heavyweight ever and you have a candidate for not only greatest heavyweight but greatest P4p of all time. He had underrated power, he had the fire (rightly or wrongly) of his religious convictions, he trained as hard as a champion should. The 70's version was a sloppy version of the sixties, one with dulled reflexes, heavier legs and less passion or work ethic. He could still win some big fights but compared to the sixties version he wasn't nearly the same.
 
And as far as todays crop you can take even second tier talent of the 70's and 80's (like Bugner,Lyle,Pinklon Thomas,Michael Dokes) on a good night could beat anyone around today in my opinion.
 
As usual, somebody takes this argument too far.

Joe Bugner, Ron Lyle, Pinklon Thomas and Michael Dokes take out the brothers?

No chance.
 
Back
Top