Was Boxing Better in the 80s?

A lot of things were better in the 80s - music, movies, general human relations to name a few. But a lot of things are way better now - hair care products, Yoda, serial television, cell phones, etc. What about boxing though? Was boxing better in the 80s vs. Now?  There were certainly some great boxers in the 80s and some great fights. Although when people talk about golden eras of boxing, the 1980s doesn't get brought up. It is true that the sport reached it's peak many years earlier, back in the 1920s, becoming almost like what football is now in terms of popularity, and continued to enjoy more cultural relevance through the next few decades, culminating with the great heavyweights of the 60s and 70s. And generally, when the heavyweight division is strong, people beyond the hardcore fans tend to care about boxing. This is why you will generally hear that boxing was best in the 70s (or 60s & 70s). 

Even in that decade though, while of course you had the likes of Muhammad Ali. Joe Frazier, and George Foreman, that was pretty much the heavyweight division for the 70s. Ken Norton and even Ron Lyle deserve honorable mention and Floyd Patterson was still fighting though not nearly the same guy he was in the 60s but I think people tend to forget how there really wasn't much else- even in the smaller weight divisions (though the later 70s saw the rise of Roberto Duran and Sugar Ray Leonard). The great thing about that era though was that everybody fought each other. Ali fought Joe Frazier 3 times, 2 of which were as classic as it gets. Ali fought Ken Norton 3 times as well. Foreman fought Frazier twice, Norton once, and of course there was the very famous Rumble in the Jungle with Foreman and Ali. This is not something that happens as much any more so boxing fans will always long for that golden era.

In the 80s, the heavyweight division was not as intriguing. The luminaries from the 70s were retired and/or faded. Muhammad Ali tried to make a slight comeback in the beginning of the decade but his fights against Larry Holmes and Trevor Berbick never should have been allowed to happen as Ali was a sad shell of his former self. Larry Holmes was the champ and his reign lasted longer than we had seen in a while- winning 48 fights in a row and leaving him one short of Rocky Marciano's record of 49 before he lost to Michael Spinks. Holmes beat some formidable fighters but certainly none of them were great. Boxing was starting to receive a backlash in the early 80s as well for being too violent. There were several high-profile deaths in the ring and there was even some talk of banning the sport entirely.

Mike Tyson emerged in the middle of the decade to revitalize boxing and bring a new generation of fans. It wasn't just that he won fights, it was the way he won them that captured everybody's attention. There were no legitimate challengers like in other great heavyweight eras but it didn't matter because Tyson was just so incredible, like a wrecking ball smashing through the division. Like nothing else we had ever seen before. George Foreman destroyed some people too, most notably Joe Frazier and Ken Norton, but it was not the same sudden, dynamic explosion of speed, power and technique that Tyson brought to the table. Although this was exciting and compelling, without great competition the heavyweight division was not going to continue to thrive, nor ever stack up to any other great decade.

What I think set the 80s apart, though, was how many great fighters we saw in the lighter weight classes became household names. There were the 4 Kings - Sugar Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, Tommy Hearns, and Marvin Hagler - and also rising stars like Ray Mancini, Julio Ceasar Chavez, and Hector Camacho. Sugar Ray was at the top of heap in terms of popularity and many thought of him as the second coming of Ali- just in a smaller weight class. He also was surrounded by the other aforementioned kings, fought all of them, and won. The first fight against Duran, both against and Hearns and the one against Hagler were all classics. But the greatest fight of the decade (as well as one of the best ever) belongs to Hagler and Hearns in 1985. It was only a couple of rounds but there was more action than you might see in a year of fights, both men just looking to finish the fight from the first bell. You rarely see that kind of unrelenting intensity ever, especially from 2 Hall-of-Famers at the same time.

So the 80s had no shortage of special, exciting fighters but without the classic heavyweight pedigree, it can never be considered one of the top decades in boxing. But how does that compare to now? Going back to my original question, is boxing better now than it was then? I could go on and on about the state of boxing currently and there are plenty of criticism to be had but I will say this for the modern era - there is LOT of talent. Well, at least there is a lot of talent in all of the weight classes except for the one that matters the most. It is true that Tyson Fury has breathed life into the heavyweight division, as he is a very interesting character, an extremely talented, smart boxer and at his size with his movement, would present a matchup problem for any great heavyweight from any era but at the same time, has not had a significant challenge to keep the sport more relevant. And he's been the only compelling heavyweight for the last 20 or so years, in my opinion.

Just like the 80s though, the true talent is in the smaller weight classes now. Except even smaller. Naoya Inoue is absolutely brilliant and easily my favorite fighter of this time and he competes at 118 pounds. Then there are a ton of exciting fighters in that 120-160 pound divisions. Vasiliy Lomachenko and Canelo Alvarez are most definitely going to end up in the Hall of Fame and there may be plenty of others from this era when it is all said and done. The biggest problem though, besides the lack of exciting heavyweights, is that there are now more weight classes than ever as well as 4 different sanctioning bodies. So we can have over 60 different people holding recognized, championship belts at a given time. That's just in men's boxing. Women's boxing has really emerged and we are starting to see some amazing talent there too but it might be too splintered for your average layperson to really get into, especially now that we have MMA in the mix as well. That's kind of the key for a sport to take off. It has to appeal to mass audience. It can't just be the hardcore fans that follow it, it has to cross over into cultural relevance. And boxing does NOT have that now, by any stretch of the imagination.

To summarize, boxing in the 80s had more cross-over appeal, probably had more classic fighters, and I would say had more overall entertainment value than boxing does now. Currently though, there is certainly more talent, far more diverse talent, and some great female fighters worth watching. So in my opinion, given all of those things, the winner and still champion is....The 1980s!  To be fair though, we won't really have a good perspective on it until some more time has passed. Plus I grew up in the 80s so had a different viewpoint than I do now. But c'mon, you can't tell me that as great as any of these people are now, we will ever have another Mike Tyson, another Sugar Ray, Camacho, Hearns, etc. Because that was another great things about the 80s - characters. You could even say that it was the decade of pop cultural characters that will never be duplicated, although I will admit, now that I have seen Baby Yoda, I can never go back to looking at Old Yoda again.