Home News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia
The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: 80's Heavies in the Post Louis Era

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

    80's Heavies in the Post Louis Era

    Apologies for another heavyweight-centric thread. Has to be done. How Larry Holmes or Mike Tyson would have fared against the heavies of certain eras has been discussed. How would the other men who fought for, won, or were contenders for straps in the 80's have fared plopped into the mix which included Lee Oma, Joe Baksi, Savold, Charles, Jersey Joe and the other contenders milling about in the post-Louis period. Joe himself was in there as well of course.

    Were Tate and Weaver lucky to be in the 80's or is the period post Louis comparable and would find them not only enjoying success, but perhaps a higher level of it?

    Interested in any matchups, thoughts of the eras in general and even moreso what may have occurred regionally and internationally to hash out who would be beating and losing to whom, when, and why.

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,272
    vCash
    500

    Re: 80's Heavies in the Post Louis Era

    I'd put the eras better fighters (Witherspoon, Berbick, Weaver, Thomas) near the level of a Clarence Henry, Bob Baker, Nino Valdez etc. Never getting beyond contender status. They could win some and lose some vs the likes of an old Louis, Satterfield, Baski, Layne, old Charles etc.

    They all lose to the late 40s versions of Charles and Walcott.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    Sharks

    Strictly Post Louis reign era or are you including the war era Heavies during when Louis title was in essence, on ice.

    I only ask as I'm not sure if fighters like Jimmy Bivins, or more to the point, PRIME Jimmy Bivins is thrown into the mix here.

    I think it would be tougher for the 80's heavies to succeed if you included fighters such as Bivins who fought in the Post Louis reign era, but who were in thier primes.

    Maybe this actually does shed light on the quality of that 80's era, if any amount of manipulation of the fighters they could be matched up agianst is necesary.

    Hawk

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    Hagler

    Just nailed the point I was making.

    Hawk

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

    Re: 80's Heavies in the Post Louis Era

    Originally, it was aimed at asking and answering questions like, if we add the 80's guys to the mix, do Tate and Baksi garner wins over the other to move to a higher level to face say, the winner of an Oma-Thomas bout to place themselves in-line to meet, say, Charles who may find himself fresh off of a win over the winner of a Bruno-Woodcock, or Savold-Dokes bout.

    Also, is there a discussion here to be had regarding if Baker, Valdes and etc. were or were not better than Spoon or Coetzee or Berbick, but also how good potentially or in reality WERE the best Oma, Baksi, Baker, Layne. Can we figure out the true worth of each era's contenders by not only matching them up as a group, but by looking into if we have truly discussed what was the true pecking order of those post-Louis guys. After all, there were not 2 or 3 belts to choose from then.

    You can include whomever you wish I guess is the answer. Another thing we can discuss if it is worth it would be if the Post-Louis guys were in the 80's, who would be benefited (as if we do not know it might be guys like Oma and Baksi and Savold).

    Wide open.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    Many of the 80's titleists

    found themselves victim to weaknesses such as drug use.

    If placed in the late 40's early 50's, do they become more focused and dedicated to their trade?

    Do they pig out in the manner that they did in the 80's, when doing so in an earlier era, would be IMO far more costly as activity was essential as paydays were not what they were in the 80's.

    "Streamline" (Ie cut away the junk) a Micheal Dokes if you will and see his talent used to it's full potential, or no? But would the life of a boxer be "too Hard" in a much "harder" time for him? If he couldn't dedicate himself with a lighter work load and bigger paydays, what says he keeps an interest when he HAS to fight and for pitances for paydays and more often?

    If we take them "as they are" and place them in different eras, I see a Dokes or Tate or Witherspoon, who may have more talent than many of their NOW contemporaries, simply getting outworked by "hungrier" fighters such as a Baksi or a Valdes.

    Hawk

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    797
    vCash
    500

    Re: 80's Heavies in the Post Louis Era

    Marciano still would have gone 49-0 imo, maybe 52 and 0 if he wack out a few of the 80's people imo.
    I think they be below championship level of couse. top 15 of couse, but not relly the Marciano's Walcott's or Charles of the divsion. They still end up on drugs perhaps, they still had the drug trade in the 50's control by the mob of couse.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    188
    vCash
    500

    Re: 80's Heavies in the Post Louis Era

    I find it interesting that Louis was a post-Louis HW!
    Oh and more to the point i think the '80 guys in general better than the mid-late '40, early '50 contenders with only the champions and Bivens able to mix it with the top 15 or so '80 guys.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    50
    vCash
    500

    Re: 80's Heavies in the Post Louis Era

    Is it just me or have the 80's hw like Page, Witherspoon, Tubbs, Thomas and Dokes been lifted to undeserved heights ? Back in the 80¨s they were considered crap basically but now all I hear is how talented they were if only they had gotten in shape, off drugs etc. While I think they were treated a bit harsh back when they fought I really don't see great talent in any of them. IMO they would have had a hard time in the 1950's.
    Dokes was a fair boxer with no punch (overrated imo), Page a slower less talented Ali, Witherspoon a rather crude swinger with good power (overrated imo) , Tubbs a clever boxer with no punch (the most talented of them imo), and Thomas a one armed guy with a solid chin.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    HC

    I think it's feast or famine with these guys. Either folks over rate them or under rate them.

    I look at the group not so much as UNDER ACHIEVERS, becuase that suggests they could have accomplished so much more than they did, but as decently talented fighters, who because of thier inconsistancy, they were pretty much solely responsible for the criticism they had heaped upon them.

    Good, solid, servicable.

    Beyond or beneath that, is too much for me.

    Hawk

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    577
    vCash
    500

    Re: 80's Heavies in the Post Louis Era

    Quote Originally Posted by hagler04
    I'd put the eras better fighters (Witherspoon, Berbick, Weaver, Thomas) near the level of a Clarence Henry, Bob Baker, Nino Valdez etc. Never getting beyond contender status. They could win some and lose some vs the likes of an old Louis, Satterfield, Baski, Layne, old Charles etc.

    They all lose to the late 40s versions of Charles and Walcott.
    I put old Joe Louis, Rex Layne, Roland Lastarza on the same level as clarence henry, bob baker, nino valdez. In fact Joe louis knocked out nino valdez in a live exhibition in 1951 in 1 round. I think if you match joe louis of 1951 vs henry and baker, he would win close decisions.


    I think the 1980s heavyweights were all very talented, on the same level as the talented big heavyweights of the 1950s baker, valdez, old louis
    Last edited by Elmer Ray; 04-01-2008 at 06:47 PM.

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,283
    vCash
    500

    Re: 80's Heavies in the Post Louis Era

    I think Dokes, Page, and Witherspoon were most likely to fit in best in other eras HAD THEY FOUGHT TO THEIR POTENTIAL, and (in this fantasy scenario), I think they WOULD HAVE trained more like their 1940s contemporaries, and avoided drugs. In which case all three would be top 10 to top 5 IMO, depending on the exact era.

    Witherspoon's ongoing problems with Don King cannot be underestimated as to the negative effect they had on his mindset, and career. He was a very depressed individual over the fact that he was a world champ and still had to live in an apartment for financial reasons. He was big, strong, clever, and dangerous... KOing Bruno while himself a bloated blimp probably says more for Tim's ability than Bruno's lack thereof.

    Dokes and Page were faster than most heavies, ever, and I think Dokes's power might be under-rated ("with no punch"??--hey HCO5). He nearly killed John L. Gardner, and in the Weaver #1 stoppage exhibited fine power. Also Ocasio #2, and quite a few others.

    I think all three of the above heavies are appropriately diminished by critics for their often less-than-inspired performances, but IF they were properly motivated regularly (I know, "woulda-coulda-shoulda") had they fought 50-70 years ago, I like their chances to rise to the top echelon.

    I DON'T think Thomas accomplished enough, despite beating Spoon for the title and successfully defending against Weaver, to show me that he's as good as these others. Same with Berbick...despite his beating Page and Thomas. I know that sounds odd, but I don't think Thomas or Berbick at their best is as good as Spoon, Dokes, or Page at their best.

    Tubbs is my question mark. Met him in person once and he wasn't very big, just fat. For what it's worth, Dokes in person didn't seem very big, either.

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    535
    vCash
    500

    Re: 80's Heavies in the Post Louis Era

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Frank
    I think Dokes, Page, and Witherspoon were most likely to fit in best in other eras HAD THEY FOUGHT TO THEIR POTENTIAL, and (in this fantasy scenario), I think they WOULD HAVE trained more like their 1940s contemporaries, and avoided drugs. In which case all three would be top 10 to top 5 IMO, depending on the exact era.

    Witherspoon's ongoing problems with Don King cannot be underestimated as to the negative effect they had on his mindset, and career. He was a very depressed individual over the fact that he was a world champ and still had to live in an apartment for financial reasons. He was big, strong, clever, and dangerous... KOing Bruno while himself a bloated blimp probably says more for Tim's ability than Bruno's lack thereof.

    Dokes and Page were faster than most heavies, ever, and I think Dokes's power might be under-rated ("with no punch"??--hey HCO5). He nearly killed John L. Gardner, and in the Weaver #1 stoppage exhibited fine power. Also Ocasio #2, and quite a few others.

    I think all three of the above heavies are appropriately diminished by critics for their often less-than-inspired performances, but IF they were properly motivated regularly (I know, "woulda-coulda-shoulda") had they fought 50-70 years ago, I like their chances to rise to the top echelon.

    I DON'T think Thomas accomplished enough, despite beating Spoon for the title and successfully defending against Weaver, to show me that he's as good as these others. Same with Berbick...despite his beating Page and Thomas. I know that sounds odd, but I don't think Thomas or Berbick at their best is as good as Spoon, Dokes, or Page at their best.

    Tubbs is my question mark. Met him in person once and he wasn't very big, just fat. For what it's worth, Dokes in person didn't seem very big, either.
    Dokes always seemed smaller that his listed 6'3". And Tubbs always looked to be 6'2".

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 06:08 PM
  2. Joe Louis vs Ezzard Charles
    By kikibalt in forum Boxing Gallery: Photos, Posters, Videos, etc.
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-30-2006, 05:46 PM
  3. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 08-10-2006, 06:23 PM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-19-2006, 09:27 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia Links Home