Ten Greatest Heavyweights of the last 30 years!!!

Been thinking about this and here is my list........1981 onwards..Subjective......

1. Evander Holyfield
2. Mike Tyson
2. Lennox Lewis
4. Larry Holmes (1981 onwards)
5. Riddick Bowe
6. Vladimir Klitscho
7. Vitali Klitscho
8. Tim Witherspoon
9. Mike Weaver
10. Michael Moorer

Will predictably have Lewis top of the tree and would swap the brothers around as well but other than seems a good order of an average list

You think Vitali is above Vlad?????

Think Vlad's win puts him higher.....Both have beat little in the way of opposition till Haye...

Though Sanders was a good win..

I'd find a place for Big George. Afterall, the two guys who beat him were better than Sanders, Purity or Brewster and he has the disadvantage of being a midle aged fat man. He also beat one of the guys you have in the top ten.

Vitali's never been sparked though Truss, unlike Wlad.

They've both beaten rubbish so little in their records but have always felt Vitali is a lot better than the era he's in whereas Wlad benefits from it. He may have lost against Lewis but he did at least compete well against a great heavyweight who was albeit ill prepared and ageing.

Foreman has never been sparked ..let's have him up there...

I can see both sides but for me the Haye win and all the titles and longevity seem to give him the nod...

Everybody happy with Weaver and TIm being in there..

Below Bowe they're much of a muchness, personally don't think Wlad is that far ahead of the likes of Witherspoon or Moorer, lets be honest Wlad wouldn't have gone near someone like Foreman even when he was 46.

Be a hard matchup to call which kind of proves that Vlad might not be all that great....

Foreman gets a shot off he wins...and he'd have at least 8 rounds with his chin and endurance to land it...

Not sure Vlad would be good on the back foot either and nothing but a train would back Foreman up..

I do love Foreman I must admit, even into his 40's he was next to impossible to budge and hell did the likes of Moorer, Holyfield and Briggs try to. That's what seperates the brothers their ability to take a shot, Vitali deals with likes of Marciano and Dempsey comfortably but can't say i'd put money on Wlad beating them.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I do love Foreman I must admit, even into his 40's he was next to impossible to budge and hell did the likes of Moorer, Holyfield and Briggs try to. That's what seperates the brothers their ability to take a shot, Vitali deals with likes of Marciano and Dempsey comfortably but can't say i'd put money on Wlad beating them.

There was a dude who'd never been knocked down in his career too...until he met Dempsey

How I long for someone like Dempsey or Tyson in the heavyweight division now

1.lennox lewis (just)
2. larry holmes (number 1 of last 31/32 years)
3. evander holyfield
4. mike tyson
5. riddick bowe
6. wladimir klitschko
7. george foreman
8. vitali klitschko
9. tim witherspoon
10. tommy morrison

Afternoon, Truss.

Lewis has to be top of the pile, for me; though as we've found out many times, me and you will never agree on that! I'm glad you've found a decent spot for Holmes, too; Cooney, Witherspoon (I think he won the fight, for what it's worth) and Smith were all this side of 1981, I believe. Throw in the fact that he returned, lightyears past his best, and still gave a good account of himself in other title efforts against Holyfield and McCall, and he's entitled to a fairly good placing, for me.

Think Bowe is too high, though. Gets far too much of an easy ride in my eyes, considering that his mythical 'prime' seemed to last for three fights. I much prefer Wladimir's consistency at the highest level, even if the era hasn't been packed to the rafters with talent.

1. Lennox Lewis
2. Evander Holyfield
3. Mike Tyson
4. Wladimir Klitschko
5. Larry Holmes
6. Vitali Klitschko
7. Riddick Bowe
8. Michael Moorer
9. George Foreman
10. Mike Spinks

Would have liked to have found a spot for Witherspoon, but he was just too inconsistent, despite his talent. Certainly had the potential to be at the higher end of this list. Spinks' reign at Heavyweight may have been short, but I think his two wins over Holmes (albeit an older version) and a knockout of Cooney just about pip Terrible Tim, Mike Weaver and John Ruiz.

Been watching Lewis' fights back to back recently and just watched the Mavrovic one, the guy wasn't particularly great but good god he had one hell of a chin on him

1. Larry Holmes
2. Lennox Lewis
3. Evander Holyfield
4. Mike Tyson
5. Riddick Bowe
6. Vitali Klitschko
7. Tim Witherspoon
8. George Foreman
9. Wladimir Klitsschko
10. Greg Page

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Been watching Lewis' fights back to back recently and just watched the Mavrovic one, the guy wasn't particularly great but good god he had one hell of a chin on him

Very true, Ghosty. I remember reading an interview with Lewis a few years back in which he described the Mavrovic fight as the 'toughest and most frustrating' of his career.

Maloney was quoted as saying 'he must have 240lb of steel in his chin', it's just something like that you don't see in the current heavyweights

George Foreman hogey.....

You really think Holmes 81-85 is worthy of the top slot???

Could be but no Shavers or Norton...

Very tough and decent fighter his defeat to Lewis was his only loss in 28 fights, just a shame his career was cut short.

Holmes if 78 was included Chris would be my number 1........

Those first 21/2/ 3 yrs of his reign were important.......

Holy has Bowe, Moorer, Douglas and a better Tyson twice on his cv..

Just swings it.....but hey all opinions welcome..

Truss, i put Holmes there because he was in my opinion a top 5 all time heavyweight and still undefeated champion for a few years during the stated period. Even when past his best he was still able to dominate the division and never suffered silly losses like many of his other challengers for the top spot in my list. I always thought it was a shame he was robbed of matching the Rocks record by some shocking judging in the Spinks fight.
The fact i put Foreman so high on the list says more about what i think of the quality of the heavyweights of the last 30 years, frankly he KO's the vast majority of fighters in that period old or not.

Did he really dominate the division after 83????

When he relinquished rather than face Greg Page????

81 to 83.....enough really??

Foreman beat moorer and that was it really...................

But hey always welcome are new opinions..

It would be like saying Lewis is the best Heavyweight of the past 10 years really but realistically in that period he would have to rank below Wlad and Vitali

Well in view of the fact you have Moorer who Foreman KOed as the 10th best heavy of the last 30 years fella, i think Foreman more than deserves a place in the top 10. As you say all about opinions and most of us on here know our stuff well enough to make the debate an interesting one.

You can counter that by saying Moorer beat Holyfield yet Holyfield beat Foreman, styles make fights

Moorer beat Botha, Schultz and Bean too.....

Pedantically could also add he was 99-91 up on George when he was nailed..

Your both correct and theres no more true statement in boxing that styles make fights, but Truss the fact is nobody gets to keep a belt for being ahead on the scorecards before getting brutally KOed. For the record though Moorer was a very good fighter and had the tools to be a far better fighter than he will be remembered and possibly could have been a great if he could have stayed at Light Heavy. As a heavy he was just a touch short of top notch as his rematch with Holyfield showed as he was battered around the ring for the duration of the fight.

Never said he was top notch..which is why he's down the list...

However with Botha, Holy etc and the fact he outclassed Foreman for 10 rounds I'm stating why he is higher..

Be honest Tubbs and Thomas come before Foreman for me.......

Although Foreman is top 10 on my alltime list..

Looking at our lists we are not a million miles apart, but we all have opinions i think Page at his best gets in the top ten, you think Weaver gets there im not gonna quibble with you if we all agreed on everything there would be no point in discussion.

1) Lennox Lewis
2) Evander Holyfield
3) Mike Tyson
4) Vitali Klitschko
5) Larry Holmes
6) Wladimir Klitschko
7) Riddick Bowe
8) Tim Witherspoon
9) Ike Ibeabuchi
10) George Foreman

In terms of pure ability, Tyson and Bowe would have the top 2 spots but their legacies didnt match their talents.

Wlad holds better wins than Vitali, but I feel Vitali edges it due to the fact he avenged the Sanders loss and also gave a valiant performance against an ATG in Lewis.

Foreman sneaks a place in the top 10 but only just. Other than KO'ing a glass jawed Moorer, he didnt really show me during his return that he was anything more than a heavy bag with strong dig. Getting outboxed for extended periods by mediocrity like Savarese and Schulz doesnt really help his cause.

Wins against the undefeated Byrd and Tua are enough to give Ike a place despite his short career.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I'd find a place for Big George. Afterall, the two guys who beat him were better than Sanders, Purity or Brewster.

Morrison could only manage a fortunate draw against Purrity, so thats debatable.

Benson, Ike Ibeabuchi could maybe have been as good as anyone mentioned in the last 30 years, but potential is not enough to earn his a top ten place for me. As we have said before though its all about opinions.

How on earth can anybody place Holmes above Tyson as being the better fighter over the last 30 years.....
Lewis...Yes
Holyfield.. Yes
Holmes ...Never..

Lewis
Holy
Holmes
Vitali
Wlad

Not sure of the remaining 5's order, but they are all fairly similar. Not sure why Tyson gets a free ride... He is a quitter.

I think there a 7 certs:

Lewis
Holmes
Holyfield
Tyson
Bowe
Vitali
Wlad

I dont see how they could fail to be the top 7 in whatever particular order one chooses. Certainly cant see how Moorer, Witherspoon or Foreman could rank above any of them.

Lewis was better than Holyfield, and dunno who Vlad is but Wlad is better than Vitali imo

Lewis was better than Holy....

Why????

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Lewis was better than Holy....

Why????

Won both fights, won the first by at least 4 rounds and robbed to a draw, won their rematch as well and never took beatings off a big fat heavyweight in James Toney 8 years ago, he beat Vitali at the same time. Lennox is miles better

You not think being battered twice by Bowe before hand might have left Evander in less than prime condition....

you not think that Holy lost to Toney when well past his best????

Maybe you think Lewis is better than Ali...after all Holmes and Berbick both spanked him...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You not think being battered twice by Bowe before hand might have left Evander in less than prime condition....

you not think that Holy lost to Toney when well past his best????

Maybe you think Lewis is better than Ali...after all Holmes and Berbick both spanked him...

Lewis beat him when they fought, it really is as simple as that, and beat him big, Holyfield had the Bowe fights when he took Tyson to school, he was still class, and it's a shame to see him fighting now, but Lewis is the better man imo.

He didn't beat him big and your opinion is flawed...

Ezzard Charles beat Lewis...So he's better than Louis!!

Holmes beat Ali...so he's better than Ali

Calzaghe beat Jones so he's better than Jones..

Your reasoning is completely flawed..

I've got to go with Towzer on this one, Trussman. If we degraded every win on the basis of it coming against a fighter who'd been beaten at some stage in the past, then there wouldn't be all that many 'great' wins in boxing history.

No doubt that Holyfield had been through three wars with Bowe, but Lewis had also had his clock cleaned by McCall and had a life and death struggle with Mercer, too. You keep ignoring that, since losing to Bowe and Moorer, Holyfield had stunned the boxing world by beating the seemingly rejuvinated Tyson twice and had avenged the defeat against Moorer. He was in some of the best form of his life.

The thing with Holyfield is that, for all his title reigns, he never really established himself as a long-serving or dominant champion in any of them, certainly not in a way which Lewis did between taking the WBC title from McCall in their rematch and the slip up against Rahman. I'd say that Holyfield's four greatest rivals at Heavyweight were Bowe, Tyson, Moorer and Lewis, and combined he was 4-4-1 against them.

Given that Lewis was clearly the better man over their two fights, I think he simply has to rank above Holyfield, great though Evander was back in the day.

Holy had also been in a war with Tyson...

Seriously not telling me an 8/1 underdog against Tyson because he was finished was in prime condition against Lennox....

By your reasoning then if Vitali's 1st fight was declared no contest and he won a rematch..

He'd be better than Lewis.. B.s

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He didn't beat him big and your opinion is flawed...

Ezzard Charles beat Lewis...So he's better than Louis!!

Holmes beat Ali...so he's better than Ali

Calzaghe beat Jones so he's better than Jones..

Your reasoning is completely flawed..

Yes, but were getting to that again you usually say my opinion is usually flawed when i don't agree with you, i never said they were better though did i, Lewis beat him and was better imo, Tyson above Lewis? he wouldn't of got past Lennox' jab at all and it would of been similar to Wlad v Haye, very, very overrated fighter. Lennox Lewis is the best heavyweight of the past 20 years imo, and would of competed in ANY era.

You said he was better because he beat him.......

JUst pointing out that Holy was past his prime........and it's a bit of a flawed notion..

Its incredibly difficult to place Holyfield and Lewis. For all the rivalries in the heavyweight division in the 90s, the only contest where two of the rivals met in anything like both primes was Bowe v Holyfield I and possibly II.

The timing of the division favoured Lewis immensely. The main players in the division outside Lewis were Moorer, Bowe, Holyfield, Tyson and at a bit of a stretch Foreman. The fact Lewis didnt beat any of them until basically 2000 makes it tricky to say. Had Holyfield gone on to post some impressive stuff after the Lewis fight it would make it a bit easier but a split trilogy with someone as average as Ruiz kind of indicates a guy thats past his best.

Because its so hard to measure I dont really mind who rates above who. Probably a better argument for Lewis overall tough seeing as he actually has the win on paper.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Holy had also been in a war with Tyson...

Seriously not telling me an 8/1 underdog against Tyson because he was finished was in prime condition against Lennox....

By your reasoning then if Vitali's 1st fight was declared no contest and he won a rematch..

He'd be better than Lewis.. B.s

Whether or not Holyfield was in his absolute peak physical condition is, of course, debatable, and I see your point. But for me, a fighter's recent form is a better measuring stick, rather than using conjecture on whether or not they're at their physical peak. You're only as good as your last fight, as they say - and Holyfield had been very good, beating Tyson twice and blasting out Moorer in a unification match up. Besides, we could also be pedantic and say that the 1999 version of Lewis, at thirty-four and after a knockout loss to McCall and a struggle to the wire with Mercer, was hardly in the same physical condition as he'd been in back in the days of Corea - but that would be daft. The fact is that Holyfield was in a great run of form when Lewis beat him.

The Lewis-Vitali point is irrelevant, first off because Lewis won the fight (despite your protests, Truss!) and secondly because it's painfully clear that the gap in achievements and legacy between Vitali and Lewis is much wider than between Lewis and Holyfield, hence why the Lewis-Holyfield bouts become so much more important to take in to consideration.

Jose napoles won his last fights before Stracey didn't he...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Jose napoles won his last fights before Stracey didn't he...

He'd also taken an absolute thrashing off Monzon about a year before, too. Anyway, I count Stracey's win over Napoles as one of the best by a British fighter, and am not as quick to degrade it as some others are.