It's been a while.....

Rodney wrote:As per discussion as a sidenote, those who are not aware  for us Northern folk Evander has a talk in at York Racecourse in Sept, cheapest 50 quid a pop.
But great opportunity to meet a living legend.

Rodders

hazharrison wrote:He's up here soon. £100! Extortion.

Rodney wrote:Cheers Truss mate, I seen your name and expected a barrage for Louis at No 1, hope you're not becoming rationale.

I'd want his other ear for a 100 quid Haz.

Cheers Rodders

hazharrison wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:A decade is a long time in boxing and I dont really think the 1990s particularly belonged to any heavyweight convincingly. Lewis was better in the latter part of the decade and pretty much confirmed that when he beat Holyfield. Holyfield certainly amassed a better record than Lewis in the early to mid part of the decade however he came off second best Bowe in that period and came off second best to Lewis in the tail end of the decade. There was no dominant heavyweight in the 1990s in my opinion.

Lewis was better in 1999.

Think KO Magazine rated them: Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis.

 
Lewis was better in 1999 yes. It doesnt mean he was or wasnt better at other stages in the decade if thats the implication. Thats for speculation.

I think Holyfield was probably the better heavyweight for more of the 1990s than Lewis but he wasnt dominant in the 1990s and he has big losses to go with his big wins over the decade. Interesting that KO magazine rated him 1 when his record against the two fighters below him is 1-1-3 with that solitary win close and disputeable and the draw considered outright robbery. I think it highlights thats its not straightforward evaluating the decade.

"I think Holyfield was probably the better heavyweight for more of the 1990s than Lewis"

There you go, we agree. Thanks.

hazharrison wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:Can those that have rated Foreman in the top five posts a few of the their reasons.  I accept  that in head to heads his does well, but in terms of record his is pretty poor, his first reign has his best win, but Frazer was tailor made for him, and Norton whilst being good was not an ATG. His other victory in that reign was  against Jose Roman. then lost to past his best Ali .Second career saw a lucky win against Moorer, but losses to Holyfield , Morrison,  Briggs, and a lucky MD to Axel Shulz. is that really enough to put him above say Tyson or Lewis? Four world title victories gets you top five? Sorry but I just don't get it.

Foreman was a monster. He absolutely thrashed one of the greatest heavyweights of all time in Joe Frazier and damned nearly beat the greatest into mush. Ali was never the same fighter after the beating he took from Foreman.

George was a well schooled destroyer - better footwork than he was given credit for and adept at closing down the ring. It's not outlandish to imagine he'd have remained champion for an age had Ali wilted under that attack in Zaire.

Granted, Norton fell before almost every big puncher he faced but he was a fine fighter who went more or less even-up with Ali and Holmes. He also has the donnybrook with Rob Lyle - there aren't many heavyweights who have survived such a war.

His second career was remarkable. The Holyfield effort was admirable and the Moorer win knocks up his rating. The Briggs defeat was baloney while Morrison - a confirmed steroid cheat - had to run like the wind to sneak past him. If he'd have stood his ground -- like Briggs -- he'd have been obliterated. That's amazing for a fighter who was mixing with Ali and Frazier in the 70's.

Haz, I agree that he was a monster, and the victory over Frazier was a great win, but regardless of the long terms effects of fights against (and Frazier) had on Ali, it doesn't change the fact Ali out boxed, thought and fought him in Zaire, and he got KO'd by an Ali that had already lost to Frazier and Norton, and whilst his second career was indeed remarkable, the record speaks for itself-one good win amongst mostly heroic failure, and as for the idea that if Morrison had stood his ground he would have been obliterated- so what? Surely the point is that Morrison fought the perfect fight- won nearly every round and never looked like losing. I have no arguement with people rating him highly based on possible theoretical head to head basis, but his record doesn't warrant a top five placing for me- if he had either got revenge over Ali, or fought his way back into contention in the mid to late 70s / early 80s and regained a title, then yes but losing to Young and then disappearring for a decade before his second coming put paid to it.

The victory over Frazier was one of the greatest heavyweight wins of all time. I agree that Ali outfoxed him, however, that was the greatest heavyweight in history at his absolute best (in a scintillating performance). Who else could have stopped Foreman at that point other than the best ever? What does that say about the man's quality?

Who do you rank above him?

As for the Morrison fight -- yes Morrison nicked a decision but a young, steroid fuelled bomber had to totally change his tactics in order to sneak past a 40-odd year old version of Big George. You say "so what?". I think that speaks volumes.

Foreman fought during the toughest stretch in heavyweight history -- almost killed Frazier twice (a fellow top ten heavyweight at his peak first time around), destroyed Norton, outslugged Ron Lyle and left Ali a shadow of what he once was. He also pulled off one of the greatest comebacks in boxing history. The performances against Holyfield and Moorer were remarkable.

Have to disagree that it was Ali at his best -that would been around 67 or 68, or that it was that fight that left him never the same again - he was already in slow decline ever siince his comeback began- and the really rapid drop came post 74, and as dicussed on a previous post, Ali fought the only fight he could- he could never have danced around him, or kept him off, so he just let George knacker himself out- and George was unable to adapt- beecause he was one dimensional. The who else could have beat him is pretty speculative but maybe Liston, Holmes, Lewis, possibly Johnson, but as I said it's not his head to head comparrisons that let him down-it's his record in title fights.
Morrison won 117 to 110 on two cards and 118 to 108 on the other I think - hardly nicking it, and that fact he boxed rather than slugged tells me he fought an sensible fight- the only way he was gonig to lose was getting caught with a big shot, so why take a risk?

You haven't seen the Foreman-Morrison fight then? Tommy fought like he had shepherds pie in his pants -- ran like a thief against a geriatric.

Ali was at his best against Foreman. He wasn't as quick as he once was but he was tougher and more experienced. He put in a superhuman effort that night. Ali less than his best couldn't have pulled it off.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:He's up here soon. £100! Extortion.

You aren't a fan anymore Haz......I remember on your website you had a picture of you and him together.....If I remember rightly you looked like Kurt Cobain....

Only he looked like he had more life in him...