The Golden generation - Best of the rest

The HW division is receiving a much needed boost with the upcoming super fight between Haye and Klitschko set to decide the best in the division.

My question is who do you rate as the best heavy of the golden generation if you take out the 3 standouts in Ali, Frasier and Foreman. It was an era full of strength in depth where most of the contenders of the day fought each other on several occasions yet I don't think there is a clear candidate for best of the rest. Nor do I see many of them troubling an all time top 20 list.

So if we take it from say mid 60s to the end of the 70s judging them on talent, legacy and achievements who is your best of the rest? Would any of them sneak into anll all time top 20 list for you?

Some of the contendors

*Ken Norton
*Jerry quarry
*George Chuvalo
*Earnie Shavers
*Jimmy Ellis
*Oscar Bonavena
*Ron Lyle

I dont really include guys like Ernie Terrell, Cleveland Williams,Zora Folley and Flyod Patterson as they stopped fighting early 70's and did a lot of their work in the 50's and early 60's but feel free to include them as they did fight a lot of the guys on the list. Feel free to add others that i'm sure I've missed.

As an aside if you take out the top 3 do you feel that the era may be a tad over rated and would you regard any other era as better or on a par with this bunch?

Cheers.

That's fine depth in the supporting cast, to which should be added men like Ernie Terrell, Jimmy Young and Joe Bugner (seriously, watch his first fight with Ali and, above all his fight with Frazier, where he had Smokin' Joe in some trouble). Oddly enough, I think Norton, who quailed before a puncher, would have had a tough time against the Klitschkos, but any of the others (Chuvalo excepted) might have fancied their chances of pulling off the right result against the brothers.

That depth is basically unmatched by any era in heavyweight history, in my opinion, with the very possible exception of the days when men like McVea and Jeannette were plying their trade alongside the champions of the day and getting ignored. By virtue of his results against Ali and his performance against Holmes, Norton must be awarded the 'best of the rest' title, and would be just outside my all-time top 20 heavyweights, but it's some achievement for one generation to have three inside, or very close to, an all-time divisional top ten, and another handful knocking on the door of a top 20. A revision too far to describe this era as "overrated", in my opinion; living through it at the time, it seemed like a golden age, and from this distance, it does so all the more.

As this was such a tough era, then anyone who actually won a championship has to be given extra kudos but most of the fighters from that era were of standard that they could have won a title in another era.

The thing that made this era so great was the willingness of all of the fighters to fight each other, which I think helped develop each fighter, thus enabling great fights for the punters.

Because this era is so dominated by managers and TV executives wanting their fighter to remain unbeaten, they very really get tested and when they have to get down in the trenches they come up short.

The heavyweight era of that period is revered and quite rightly so, along with the Fab 4 (Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Duran) of the 80s.

By removing the top 3 as you put it only removes all time greats fighters but still shows a era of quality fighters in quality competitive fights which in this day and age, only Froch, Pacman, Hopkins, Juan Marquez and Katisdis instantly comes to mind with the same mindset.

Not claiming the above list are all time greats, but they consistently look to take on the best available of their era.

I would choose Floyd Patterson out of them all but would probably go with Norton out of the more recent one's, tough to choose as most of them are at a similair level, great bunch of fighters.

I'd pick Norton out of the ones listed. What is a shame is that Shavers and Chuvalo never fought, arguably biggest puncher vs best chin in the history of the division.

bellchees wrote:I'd pick Norton out of the ones listed. What is a shame is that Shavers and Chuvalo never fought, arguably biggest puncher vs best chin in the history of the division.

Would have been a cracker bellchees

I would add Buster Mathis to the list, and I wouldn't sat this generation was overrated- some great quality in there.
The real shame is that the generation that followed had great potential, but most it was snorted and smoked away- Witherspoon , Tubbs, Thomas Page etc were all very talented equally unmotivated - the lost generation moniker is pretty apt for them.

Can you include Holmes here? He was active from 1973 and was beating the likes of norton and shavers by '78. If so then it has to be him by a country mile, top 5 ATG heavy in my opinion.

Good article

Wouldn't have Ellis or Quarry as Floyd Patterson got robbed against them. As you say it is mid 60s to the end of the 70s it has to be Larry Holmes followed by Norton.

I wouldn't really include Holmes in that era. As you say it wasnt until the tail end of the 70's that he mixed it with the some of the rest and ive never really heard anyone include him in that generation. If you do include him then yeah obviously hes the clear standout. Pity he wasnt born a few years earlier or started boxing earlier we would have had our own heavyweight fab 4 and some great match ups..

Out of interest how do you think he fares against Foreman, Frasier and a younger Ali?

paperbag_puncher wrote:I wouldn't really include Holmes in that era. As you say it wasnt until the tail end of the 70's that he mixed it with the some of the rest and ive never really heard anyone include him in that generation. If you do include him then yeah obviously hes the clear standout. Pity he wasnt born a few years earlier or started boxing earlier we would have had our own heavyweight fab 4 and some great match ups..

Out of interest how do you think he fares against Foreman, Frasier and a younger Ali?

I rate all 4 in my top 10 heavyweights and it is fascinating match ups.

Both Ali and Holmes had great jabs and used them to set up their attacks. Ali’s jab was faster and used it most of the time before he threw combinations but Holmes jab was more stiff and more effective at keeping off his opponents. Holmes is a style nightmare for Ali as he struggled with the jab against the likes of Norton, Jones, Ellis and Young. Holmes struggled most with pressure. I think this fight goes the distance and Ali would have won a decision over Holmes due to his speed and overall better adaptability, but this would have been a very taxing fight for Ali, mentally and technically.

Holmes vs Frazier I think the key question here is if Frazier can get past the jab...if he can Holmes is in for a nasty fight...I think if Frazier gets inside he would cause Holmes a lot of problems...I think Holmes wins a close fight where both fighters get knocked down.

Foreman by early ko or Holmes late stoppage or points win.

Not at all sure that we could say that Patterson was robbed against Quarry, whose draw and win against Floyd seemed perfectly okay to me.

Leotis Martin probably belongs among this company. He was a tad inconsistent but, on his day, was a very good fighter with a murderous punch. He it was who knocked out a rejuvenated Sonny Liston in what turned out to be Liston's last fight. Martin, however, suffered a detached retina and was, himself, forced to retire.

One who should have meade the list would be Thad Spencer. Spencer was so highly regarded around '68 that he was the pre tournament favourite for the WBA tournament set up to find Ali's successor. Spencer under performed, however, losing to Quarry at the first time of asking and that precipitated the wheels coming off, his career falling into a tailspin.

This article has stirred many memories for me, and for that I thank paperbag for sharing his thoughts with us.

Great stuff.

HumanWindmill wrote:Not at all sure that we could say that Patterson was robbed against Quarry, whose draw and win against Floyd seemed perfectly okay to me.

Leotis Martin probably belongs among this company. He was a tad inconsistent but, on his day, was a very good fighter with a murderous punch. He it was who knocked out a rejuvenated Sonny Liston in what turned out to be Liston's last fight. Martin, however, suffered a detached retina and was, himself, forced to retire.

One who should have meade the list would be Thad Spencer. Spencer was so highly regarded around '68 that he was the pre tournament favourite for the WBA tournament set up to find Ali's successor. Spencer under performed, however, losing to Quarry at the first time of asking and that precipitated the wheels coming off, his career falling into a tailspin.

This article has stirred many memories for me, and for that I thank paperbag for sharing his thoughts with us.

Great stuff.

Floyd handed the draw to Quarry in the first fight. The 2nd fight I thought Patterson won the fight and got jobbed. Watched it once only but it was a snooze fight windy so I wouldn't recommend watching it again.

Kind of makes people who rate Louis number 1 look like complete dumbasses really doesn't it...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Kind of makes people who rate Louis number 1 look like complete dumbasses really doesn't it...

True...No heavyweight has anywhere near the record Ali does so he is unquestionably the greatest ever...Louis is a great fighter but cant be rated higher than Ali.

The genius of PBF wrote:

Floyd handed the draw to Quarry in the first fight. The 2nd fight I thought Patterson won the fight and got jobbed. Watched it once only but it was a snooze fight windy so I wouldn't recommend watching it again.

Saw both at the time and have seen them again since, PBF.

If anybody had the better of the going in the first fight it was Quarry, in my opinion, though sentiment of the day was very much with the popular Floyd. No robbery in the second, either, in which Quarry floored Patterson, ( they had each been on the floor in the previous fight, ) on his way to the win.

You sure you're not thinking of Ellis v Patterson ? Now that WAS a robbery.

paperbag_puncher wrote:I wouldn't really include Holmes in that era. As you say it wasnt until the tail end of the 70's that he mixed it with the some of the rest and ive never really heard anyone include him in that generation. If you do include him then yeah obviously hes the clear standout. Pity he wasnt born a few years earlier or started boxing earlier we would have had our own heavyweight fab 4 and some great match ups..

Out of interest how do you think he fares against Foreman, Frasier and a younger Ali?

I view Holmes similarly to Lewis in the sense that he was a great boxer with a number of great attributes, but probably not the right ones to beat Ali. As discussed on the Lewis vs The Greats thread, Ali tended to struggle more against pressure and a high workrate, and I don't think Larry brings these attributed to the table in a big enough quantity. Ali's speed and footwork, quick hands and sound jab of his own would be enough I think to out move and outpoint holmes to a decision.

I can see Larry beating Frazier. His jab was as solid as many a fighters right cross, and would be the key in keeping Joe at bay. As Joe try's to move inside Larry can catch him coming in with the right, out muscle him. He had the chin to withstand Fraziers best shots, and joe wasn't always the hardest to hit. I think holes by late stoppage. Foreman is tricky, he did have the power to take most opponents out but holes was a much better boxer and had a decent chin. I think if Holmes boxes clever and avoids the big punches early on he'd out box foreman over 15 rounds, maybe even stopping him late if george ran out of gas - we saw against norton how Holmes had the stomach for a tear up in the championship rounds and I find him a very hard guy to back against.

Apologies for some of the ridiculous spelling errors in my post, my iPhone thinks it knows better than me what I want to type.