Agree or disagree; 1970's heavweight division?

Question

A two part question. Was the heavyweight division in the 1970's the golden era of the heavyweights? Think of the depth/talent that division had before answering. Do you believe boxing benefited because of how deep the talent was in the heavyweight division in the 1970's? I am of the opinion that boxing fed off the momentum/interest those men generated well into the 80's. In my opinion boxing was never better than it was during the 70's and 80's.The heavyweight division captures the interest of the casual fan and boxing feeds off that momentum.

Answer 1

Most certainly agree. Most of the big names in the heavyweight division during the 70's are now Hall of Famers. We've had champions like Ali, of course, Frazier, Foreman, and just before the decade ended, Larry Holmes. Then there were the strong and talented contenders like Ken Norton, who was also named champion, Jerry Quarry, George Chuvalo, Earnie Shavers, Ron Lyle, etc. And when all these guys left the scene, Larry Holmes single-handedly carried the torch, which just proves, as you've said, that the interest in the division fed off into the 80's. Holmes didn't have too many good opponents except for Gerry Cooney and Michael Spinks, who ended his 7-year reign, but the world watched him because of his reputation as an old-school fighter and former sparring partner of the great Muhammad Ali. And when Holmes finally faded, then came Iron Mike Tyson, who was a phenomenon and the toast of boxing in the late 80's and the early 90's. Surely, the "golden era" in the heavyweight division in the modern era began in the 70's and extended well into the 80's up to the early 90's, and there's no doubt that Ali and his contemporaries revived that interest during the 70's. Good observation.

Answer 2

Late 60's and 70's, yes. The 80's was only second to now in terms of how dismal the division was then.
How golden was the 70's? That era was still a factor in the 90's when George Foreman recaptured the heavyweight title from Michael Moorer.

Answer 3

Brent this is a good question sir! This was a great era for boxing without a doubt and not just in the heavyweight division but overall as well with great fighters and entertaining fights throughout the sport. Yes boxing definetly fed off the momentum from that era well into the 80's as you said Brent. I look back on the great fights and fighters of that era with great admiration. We very well may never see an era as great as it as far as boxing is concerned.

Answer 4

Yes and No. I think that boxing did a great job in the 70's of getting the word out about the heavyweights. Having Gold Medal winners in Ali and Foreman really helped to sell the heavy's. Not to mention that all of these guys are US born.

The thing that really made the 70's was availability on free TV. With a pair of rabbit ears, you were good to go. Because of the free TV, we got to see all of these guys go toe to toe. I remember a time when boxing was on TV weekly as a headliner. As big as baseball, football and basketball. Does anyone remember The Wide World of Sports? Good times.

The 80's brought PPV / HBO / Showtime and the downfall of boxing as a prime time sport. It went from a Saturday / Sunday sport to Tuesday / Friday nights.

I think that the presence of Ali and the fact that we ALL know the names of even the journeymen from the 70's makes us believe that the 70's class of heavyweights is the best. I think it's debatable.

Answer 5

I would agree with you overall. The 70's and 80's were definitely the golden age in boxing. When you factor in the emergence of PPV into the equation as well it adds to the momentum you speak off. But lets give the 80's its just due as well I mean the Heavyweights weren't quite as great as the 70's but the lower weight classes were great. Just think of Marvin Hagler, Leonard, and Hearns. Granted part of what helped them had to be the 70's class as well as PPV. But your right boxing needs great heavyweights for the casual fan as well as momentum for the entire sport so people will want to see the great lower weight class bouts.

Answer 6

Was the seventies the golden era of boxing? Absolutely. Was it the best the heavyweight division produced? Absolutely not.

The seventies boxing was defined by the Muhammad Ali era. Had Ali not made a comeback, and brought the attention to the heavyweights that he did...I dont think names like George Foreman or Joe Frazier would have gone down in immortal history. Please keep in mind...Foreman didnt have the belt long when he lost it to Ali...thats not exactly immortal.

The most competitive age of the heavyweights were the nineties. More wars were fought in the nineties than in any other era of boxing. Although there was Mike Tyson always looming in the back, there was also:

*The return of George Foreman.
*Evander Holyfield
*Riddick Bowe
*Razor Ruddock
*David Tua
*Michael Moore
*Lennox Lewis
*James Buster Douglas
*Tommy Morrison

Any and all of which at some point were waging wars with each other. Threepeats of all kinds. Belts being taken away...fought thru...drama of all types.

And the emergence of one of the most dominant heavyweights of any era *I wretch when I say this*...Lennox Lewis.

Im sorry...THAT was the best period heavyweight boxing ever knew. It will never have it that good again.

Answer 7

Your point is correct, the sport of boxing IS AT IT'S BEST when you can define the heavyweight champion. The 70's(yes, a great era) was the best for boxing fans (talent depth made for great battles), but the 80's was best for boxing. Mike Tyson had no competition, but he excited people with his highlight KO reels. So the casual fan watched Mike Tyson. But I think the 80's generally had great fighters in the lower weight classes, who fought on regular TV. Sugar Ray Leonard progressed on ABC TV, right in front of our eyes. That's whats missing. The casual fan doesn't watch because it's not accessible!!!! Heck I'm not a basketball fan but I know who's in the finals because it's on TV, not pay-per-view.
Anyway, in general I agree with you, sorry about the rant...

Keep Your Hands Up!!!

Big Nate Dog

Answer 8

I have never heard the era described as "the golden era of the heavyweights", but the description fits as good as any given the talent level compared to the division historically. Media coverage, free TV and the obvious talent level combined with a healthy American economy all came together at the right time to create immense interest in the sport of boxing. Central to it all was the personality and influence of Muhammad Ali, love him or hate him he generated as much interest as any single figure of his time frame, quite possibly in all of sports history. He was the focal point of public interest in heavyweight boxing until he retired. I am comfortable with the time frame spanning Ali's career being labeled "the Golden era of heavyweight boxing", from the Rome through Liston, the political turmoil of Ali's political views reflected in the social turmoil of those times, in his suspension from boxing, the subsequent legal action and reinstatement of his boxing license, the Frazier showdown, on past the Forman fight, and the twilight of Spinks and the sad end in with Holmes & Berbick can be described as "the Golden Era of the Heavyweights". But is all revolved around Ali.

Frazier, Norton, Forman, Holmes, Spinks, Lyle, Shavers, LIston, Moore, Patterson, and even personalitys like Howard Cosell and Angelo Dundee all were spokes on a wheel whose central hub was Muhammad Ali. Without him, the era still would have been the most talented in heavyweight history, but Ali was it's best and brightest. HIs contribution to boxing was greater than that of Michael Jordan to basketball or Tiger Woods to golf, only the cold war political drama of Bobby Fisher vs the Russians in chess comes close to the political malstorm Ali lived in as any sports comparison, but somehow, even that falls short. The political atmosphere outside the ring surrounding Ali made it stand out historically.

Your question was deeper than boxing, but even so, the blogbaba agreess that the talent level in the heavyweight division was never before or since equal to the 70's. I respect pedritorodd's disagreement, his list of talent is formidable, but I don't feel the Holyfield dominated era was equal to the Ali dominated era in talent. I still gave him a thumbs up, I liked his arguement even though I disagree with him, Jimmy Young would have destroyed Byrd.

Answer 9

The 80s were dreadful for the heavyweights until Tyson came along. Holmes didn't fight much and the up and comers were fat, out of shape guys(Witherspoon, Page, Tubbs, Broad, etc.).

I must agree that the 70s and 80s were overall good for boxing. The 90s weren't bad, either.

Answer 10

Disagree. Aside from Larry Holmes, none of those heavyweights were very dominant and it wasn't because of the competition. It was because of their inconsistency. Ali lost to Spinks only to regain the belt a few months later, John Tate, Joe Frazier, George Foreman (his reign didnt last even two years!), Ken Norton, Jerry Quarry....I would take the 90s bunch in a second over those guys, a still capable Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, Mercer, Bowe, Tua, Ibeabuchi, Byrd, McCall, Morrison, even a young Ruiz and Klitschko. I have watched over and over again taped footage of those guys in the 70s and I ask myself what was the big deal? Jimmy Young? Gimme a break, Chris Byrd would have spanked him. Wish they could computer simulate a tournament to see what it would have been like. Interesting.