What decade had the most depth in the hw division

[New England]

I really can't see how the 60s can be in the discussion. It was a bunch of average fighters in my opinion, incl Floyd Patterson.

Of course, it was spearheaded by Liston first, then Clay and then Frazier.

But, maybe aside from Ali-Liston II, there weren't many big big fights happening as Ali wasn't there when Frazier dominated, Patterson ducked Liston for three years before getting sparked out like everyone knew he would.

A strong division should have multiple fighters who can make interesting fights with each other. I'm not sure I can say that for the 60s.

70s and 90s were both awesome though. Real good stuff.

there were plenty of very solid contenders in the 60's. many of the guys in the 70's were coming into their own by the end of the 60's. you also had the primes of ali and frazier [even if they had their most meaningful fights in the 70's, they were prime by the end of the 60's,] and rise and fall of liston. that's depth, certainly depth beyond the 2000's, 2010's, 20's, joe louis' 40's, the 30's.

[young_robbed]

90s is still better overall in terms of depth and talent. But yes since everybody fought eachother in the 70s and had a TON of legendary fights because of it, it is the golden era.

Well I don't agree. The 90s had bigger punchers, yes, but you won't see me agreeing with you about the talent. No way. If that was the case, why were two old guys from the 70s (Foreman and Holmes) able to hang with a lot of the younger guys from the 90s?? Foreman and Holmes were able to COMPETE and WIN ROUNDS against a prime Evander Holyfield for gods sake! Holmes decisively beat Ray Mercer and Foreman KO'd Moore, and beat Shannon Briggs!

Lets compare the top 4 from each era. The top fighters from the 90s would be Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, and Bowe. In the 70s it would be Ali, Foreman, Frazier, and Holmes/Norton. Yeah, I'll go with the 70s.

[Fighting fungus]

70's
90's
60's

[soul_survivor]

Well I don't agree. The 90s had bigger punchers, yes, but you won't see me agreeing with you about the talent. No way. If that was the case, why were two old guys from the 70s (Foreman and Holmes) able to hang with a lot of the younger guys from the 90s?? Foreman and Holmes were able to COMPETE and WIN ROUNDS against a prime Evander Holyfield for gods sake! Holmes decisively beat Ray Mercer and Foreman KO'd Moore, and beat Shannon Briggs!

Lets compare the top 4 from each era. The top fighters from the 90s would be Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, and Bowe. In the 70s it would be Ali, Foreman, Frazier, and Holmes/Norton. Yeah, I'll go with the 70s.

This should end the whole 70s v 90s BS. 70s win!

[BKM-2010]

Well I don't agree. The 90s had bigger punchers, yes, but you won't see me agreeing with you about the talent. No way. If that was the case, why were two old guys from the 70s (Foreman and Holmes) able to hang with a lot of the younger guys from the 90s?? Foreman and Holmes were able to COMPETE and WIN ROUNDS against a prime Evander Holyfield for gods sake! Holmes decisively beat Ray Mercer and Foreman KO'd Moore, and beat Shannon Briggs!

Lets compare the top 4 from each era. The top fighters from the 90s would be Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, and Bowe. In the 70s it would be Ali, Foreman, Frazier, and Holmes/Norton. Yeah, I'll go with the 70s.

Not a good argument. An old Lewis and Holyfield would probably beat a lot of top young fighters from the 70s too, and Holmes and Foreman both enhanced the 90s by still being as good as they were. Also Holmes is not a 70s fighter, he peaked later. You're like the first one to classify him as such as an attempt to tip the scales for the 70s. I might as well include both Klitschko's into the 90s which would then make it Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, Bowe, Vitali, Wladimir etc. In other words a blowout.

[M Bison]

Agreed with the top statement.

The 70s had the best combination of quality and depth whereas the 90s had serious depth but lacked real quality or heart below Tyson/Holy/Lewis.

But I think the 60s is severely underrated, there was Patterson, youngest champ ever, Ali, then the second youngest champ ever, Listion who was to rule for a thousand years, Terrell, Williams, prime Chuvalo, Folley, Cooper, Frazier, Ellis, Bonavena, Mtahis and a few others.

Heart?
Taking punches from a big ole heavyweight willingly isn't showing heart, its showing a complete lack of care for your own well being its dumb, idiotic!

60's, 70's being underrated?
Wow just wow... Really?
You can't even really mean that when you consider the amount of nuthugging over fighters from that era and the nostalgia to those eras how can you even make such a idiotic statement.

Boxing from the 90's evolved and thus came about the era of a good big fighter always beats a small good fighter and then on forward came the usual drivel of demeaning a division.

[soul_survivor]

Heart?
Taking punches from a big ole heavyweight willingly isn't showing heart, its showing a complete lack of care for your own well being its dumb, idiotic!

60's, 70's being underrated?
Wow just wow... Really?
You can't even really mean that when you consider the amount of nuthugging over fighters from that era and the nostalgia to those eras how can you even make such a idiotic statement.

Boxing from the 90's evolved and thus came about the era of a good big fighter always beats a small good fighter and then on forward came the usual drivel of demeaning a division.

i never said the 70s was underrated, maybe u can read better next time?

i said the 60s were underrated and they are often, just look at this thread, most talk centers around the 70s and rightfully so and the 90s and often talk turns to hws of the 20s and 30s, guys like louis, dempsey, tunney but we don't often hear about patterson/terrell/williams/ and a few others that i mentioned. im not saying they were all great but it was terrific depth, just before the famous age of the 70s.

and no, a bigger heavyweight wouldn't effectively always beat a smaller guy, tyson battered taller guys and heavier guys much of his career and lewis got stopped cold by two smaller, barely b level sluggers.

[Kiddoe]

70's no doubt. 90's right behind it.

[young_robbed]

Not a good argument. An old Lewis and Holyfield would probably beat a lot of top young fighters from the 70s too, and Holmes and Foreman both enhanced the 90s by still being as good as they were. Also Holmes is not a 70s fighter, he peaked later. You're like the first one to classify him as such as an attempt to tip the scales for the 70s. I might as well include both Klitschko's into the 90s which would then make it Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, Bowe, Vitali, Wladimir etc. In other words a blowout.

An old Lewis and Holyfield would beat a lot of the fighters from the 70s? Really? Woulda shoulda coulda, I don't care about that ****. too bad that is completely hypothetical and we will never know if that is true or not. We have to go by what actually happened. Holmes and Foreman did enhance the 90s but they were still old as dirt by the time they fought the 90s guys, and they did quite good against the top 90s guys. Like I said, Holmes and Foreman won rounds against a top guy from the 90s in Holyfield.

Holmes IMO did peak by the 70s. I guess you could argue he peaked by the early 80s, but he also started getting some questionable decisions by that time as well (against Tim Witherspoon). Holmes, IMO, looked at his best against Norton & Shavers, just as good as he did against Cooney or Snipes.

[BKM-2010]

An old Lewis and Holyfield would beat a lot of the fighters from the 70s? Really? Woulda shoulda coulda, I don't care about that ****. too bad that is completely hypothetical and we will never know if that is true or not. We have to go by what actually happened. Holmes and Foreman did enhance the 90s but they were still old as dirt by the time they fought the 90s guys, and they did quite good against the top 90s guys. Like I said, Holmes and Foreman won rounds against a top guy from the 90s in Holyfield.

They won rounds against Holyfield in a fight where they also took a brutal beating. Foreman was a punching bag in quite a few moments, he was just durable enough to keep going/standing. You're making too big of a deal about that. Besides Foreman also looked terrible in quite a few fights in the 90s even against weaker opposition. But these two guys were doing well because they are ATG's, not because this is a slight for the 90s HW division. What is your point?

Holmes IMO did peak by the 70s. I guess you could argue he peaked by the early 80s, but he also started getting some questionable decisions by that time as well (against Tim Witherspoon). Holmes, IMO, looked at his best against Norton & Shavers, just as good as he did against Cooney or Snipes.

Holmes does not belong in the '70s fighters' bracket. I don't want to bring up the Klitschko's for the 90s argument again that you ignored.