It's been a while.....

First topic message reminder :

Evening gents,

With the recent debates going and seeing as it's been a while I was just wondering what people have as their top ten heavyweights ever?

Cheers in advance.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:1 Ali
2 Louis
3 Holmes
4 Johnson
5 Foreman
6 Lewis
7 Tyson
8 Dempsey
9 Frazier
10 Liston
11 Holyfield

Not sure why you did a top 11, normally it is in multiples of 5 eg top 5 top 10 top 15 not a top 11 haha

Haha I know. I really like Holyfield so thought I'd do a top 15, then realised I couldn't be ar$ed thinking about it.

1. Ali
1. Louis
3. Holmes
3. Lewis
5. Foreman
6. Liston
7. Johnson
8. Tyson
9. Dempsey
10. Frazier

Just can't split the first, second and the third and fourth places. My mind changes on both of the spots every time I think about it and as this is my list I make the rules!

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:1. Ali/Fury
2. Louis
3. Johnson
4. Foreman
5. Holmes
6. Marciano
7. Dempsey
8. Frazier
9. Tyson
10. Holy
11. Jeffries
12. Lewis
13. Liston

Holy at 10  

Being out pointed by Moorer, Ruiz, Toney and Byrd warrents a Top 10 these days!!   

You make me laugh Trusstopher

Taking your advice...Moving Ali to 6 as well..losing to Berbick..

Am very disappointed by the lack of appreciation for the boilermaker. Can see an overlong thread on the man in the pipeline. I'll teach you philistines sooner or later.

Teach or grind them down?

A win is a win Bhb

Jeffries was a great, unquestionably and his wins over Sharkey and Fitz were great, but the fact Johnson beat him just edges him out of a top 10 for me. I'd have him in a top 15 if that makes you feel better Rowley?

Johnson beat him after six years retired. The collective top ten and pound for pound lists will be a lot different places if we mark down everyone who has made an ill advised comeback.

Thats why I don't have Holyfield in a top 10

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Foreman
5. Marciano
6. Frazier
7. Lewis
8. Tyson
9. Holyfield
10. Dempsey

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Thats why I don't have Holyfield in a top 10

Holyfield was the heavyweight of the 90's. He beat Riddick Bowe, Michael Moorer, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Buster Douglas, Ray Mercer and Mike Tyson. He regained the championship from Bowe (first man to do so since Patterson). He also pushed Lewis close in their rematch (despite being a tad over the hill).

That's before you take into account his heroic moments in defeat.

I think a top ten berth can easily be justified.

Got to agree with Rowley there, using the Johnson defeat as a way of marking Jeffries down is pretty harsh! Not dissimilar to Holmes-Ali, in all reality. I appreciate that Jeffries reportedly said that he'd not have been able to beat Johnson even in his prime ("I could never have reached him in a million years"), but it's always fairer to deal in facts rather than estimations.

I had Jeffries at number five in my list and while I could easily rejig and have him a spot or two lower, he still has a lot going for him. Continuing to draw the colour line and not facing Johnson while he was champion doesn't help (although the pressures of the time, not to mention the fact that his own father threatened to disown him if he ever boxed Papa Jack) does make it a little more understandable, but unlike Johnson the Boilermaker did at least go to the trouble of defending his crown against contenders who were very next cab off the rank. Jeffries was the first fighter of the gloved era to really qualify as a dominant Heavyweight champion.

He's also one of a tiny little handful of Heavyweight champions to have never been beaten in or even around his peak years. In fairness, being 6'2" and between 215 and 220 lb made him a bit of a giant for his era, but bigger man or not, climbing between the ropes after only five professional fights and taking back-to-back assignments against the likes of Ruhlin and Choynski is still being dropped in at the deep end.

hazharrison wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Thats why I don't have Holyfield in a top 10

Holyfield was the heavyweight of the 90's. He beat Riddick Bowe, Michael Moorer, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Buster Douglas, Ray Mercer and Mike Tyson. He regained the championship from Bowe (first man to do so since Patterson). He also pushed Lewis close in their rematch (despite being a tad over the hill).

That's before you take into account his heroic moments in defeat.

I think a top ten berth can easily be justified.

[quote="hazharrison"]

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Thats why I don't have Holyfield in a top 10

hazharrison wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Thats why I don't have Holyfield in a top 10

Holyfield was the heavyweight of the 90's. He beat Riddick Bowe, Michael Moorer, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Buster Douglas, Ray Mercer and Mike Tyson. He regained the championship from Bowe (first man to do so since Patterson). He also pushed Lewis close in their rematch (despite being a tad over the hill).

That's before you take into account his heroic moments in defeat.

I think a top ten berth can easily be justified.

No my dear friend, he was the second best heavyweight of the 90s. Lewis was the best, as evidenced by the fact that he beat him twice and outboxed him with ease.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:1. Ali/Fury
2. Louis
3. Johnson
4. Foreman
5. Holmes
6. Marciano
7. Dempsey
8. Frazier
9. Tyson
10. Holy
11. Jeffries
12. Lewis
13. Liston

Holy at 10  

Being out pointed by Moorer, Ruiz, Toney and Byrd warrents a Top 10 these days!!   

You make me laugh Trusstopher

Taking your advice...Moving Ali to 6 as well..losing to Berbick..

If you want to take to the extreme....might aswell move Tyson down......after all.....he did get spanked by Williams and McBride........

Holy above Lewis  

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Foreman
5. Johnson
6. Marciano
7. Dempsey
8. Lewis
9. Tyson
10. Frazier

Liston, Holyfield and Jeffries just miss out and to be honest, anything below the first four is up for debate.

I dont really get this Holyfield cant be a top ten guy or has no claim to rank above Lewis. I have Lewis a few spots higher myself but going off the head to heads alone given the respective stages of their careers is not exactly foolproof.

Presumably Tunney must rank above Dempsey, Charles above Loius, Tyson above Holmes etc on that basis.

Well said Chris, as you have alluded to difficult to hold the colour line thing against Jeffries because as you have mentioned was just the way things were back then and as I have always maintained if we are to do it for Jeff we also have to do likewise for Dempsey and Johnson who both did the same to varying degrees. Also worth remembering Jeffries was very much a novice when he turned over Fitzsimmons and whilst his size and stamina obviously played a part one only has to read the round by round reports, as I have, for Jeffries later fights and compare them to his earlier ones to realise he learned quick and added some decent skills to his obvious physical assets, to a point where he was even outboxing the peerless Corbett second time round.

Also worth reiterating just how dominant he was perceived as being during his reign. It was not uncommon to see many a fighter being described as a match for anyone with the almost inevitable caveat that this excluded Jeffries. One only has to look at how hard Hart struggled for acceptance/validity as champion with many even going as far as to still describe Jeffries as the real champion.

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.

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.

Tunney out thought Dempsey......Spinks-Holmes.......

Foreman wasn't a thinking fighter......Didn't outfight him anyway..Foreman got tired..

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.

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Thats why I don't have Holyfield in a top 10

Holyfield was the heavyweight of the 90's. He beat Riddick Bowe, Michael Moorer, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Buster Douglas, Ray Mercer and Mike Tyson. He regained the championship from Bowe (first man to do so since Patterson). He also pushed Lewis close in their rematch (despite being a tad over the hill).

That's before you take into account his heroic moments in defeat.

I think a top ten berth can easily be justified.

No my dear friend, he was the second best heavyweight of the 90s. Lewis was the best, as evidenced by the fact that he beat him twice and outboxed him with ease.

He was the best when they fought but over the decade, Holyfield got the better work done. Lewis may not even be second best during that decade. Riddick Bowe has a decent argument. Lewis was the heavyweight of the 00s.

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Thats why I don't have Holyfield in a top 10

Holyfield was the heavyweight of the 90's. He beat Riddick Bowe, Michael Moorer, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Buster Douglas, Ray Mercer and Mike Tyson. He regained the championship from Bowe (first man to do so since Patterson). He also pushed Lewis close in their rematch (despite being a tad over the hill).

That's before you take into account his heroic moments in defeat.

I think a top ten berth can easily be justified.

No my dear friend, he was the second best heavyweight of the 90s. Lewis was the best, as evidenced by the fact that he beat him twice and outboxed him with ease.

He was the best when they fought but over the decade, Holyfield got the better work done. Lewis may not even be second best during that decade. Riddick Bowe has a decent argument. Lewis was the heavyweight of the 00s.

So does beating every serious contender over the 90s not count for Lewis? Barring of course Tyson and Bowe, the former who paid Lewis not to fight him, and the latter who was so scared he dumped his belt in the bin.

?? How can David Haye not be on here?

he is a nailed on top ten fighter of all time.

For me he easily takes out Foreman and Fraizer. Too quick and punches harder.

Ali may scrape a points win but will be controversial.

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Thats why I don't have Holyfield in a top 10

Holyfield was the heavyweight of the 90's. He beat Riddick Bowe, Michael Moorer, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Buster Douglas, Ray Mercer and Mike Tyson. He regained the championship from Bowe (first man to do so since Patterson). He also pushed Lewis close in their rematch (despite being a tad over the hill).

That's before you take into account his heroic moments in defeat.

I think a top ten berth can easily be justified.

No my dear friend, he was the second best heavyweight of the 90s. Lewis was the best, as evidenced by the fact that he beat him twice and outboxed him with ease.

He was the best when they fought but over the decade, Holyfield got the better work done. Lewis may not even be second best during that decade. Riddick Bowe has a decent argument. Lewis was the heavyweight of the 00s.

So does beating every serious contender over the 90s not count for Lewis? Barring of course Tyson and Bowe, the former who paid Lewis not to fight him, and the latter who was so scared he dumped his belt in the bin.

Barring Bowe, Tyson, Moorer, Foreman, Holmes, Douglas ahem....

Lewis was a work in progress for most of the decade. Holyfield was a tad past his best by the time they met. Unquestionably, Holyfield was the best of that decade.

Even David Haye does not have David Haye in his top ten of all time. He is a top ten crusier if that makes things a little better though, that said though so is Johnny Nelson.

IM sure he does. He is number one cruiser of all time and is top ten heavy. I think he handles (crushes) Tyson, Lewis etc.

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Thats why I don't have Holyfield in a top 10

Holyfield was the heavyweight of the 90's. He beat Riddick Bowe, Michael Moorer, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Buster Douglas, Ray Mercer and Mike Tyson. He regained the championship from Bowe (first man to do so since Patterson). He also pushed Lewis close in their rematch (despite being a tad over the hill).

That's before you take into account his heroic moments in defeat.

I think a top ten berth can easily be justified.

No my dear friend, he was the second best heavyweight of the 90s. Lewis was the best, as evidenced by the fact that he beat him twice and outboxed him with ease.

He was the best when they fought but over the decade, Holyfield got the better work done. Lewis may not even be second best during that decade. Riddick Bowe has a decent argument. Lewis was the heavyweight of the 00s.

So does beating every serious contender over the 90s not count for Lewis? Barring of course Tyson and Bowe, the former who paid Lewis not to fight him, and the latter who was so scared he dumped his belt in the bin.

Barring Bowe, Tyson, Moorer, Foreman, Holmes, Douglas ahem....

Lewis was a work in progress for most of the decade. Holyfield was a tad past his best by the time they met. Unquestionably, Holyfield was the best of that decade.

Well Holyfield missed out:

Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, McCall, Golota, Briggs ahem...

Lewis has a better resume than Holyfield, as well as a better record. You surely can't deny that.

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.

hazharrison wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Thats why I don't have Holyfield in a top 10

Holyfield was the heavyweight of the 90's. He beat Riddick Bowe, Michael Moorer, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Buster Douglas, Ray Mercer and Mike Tyson. He regained the championship from Bowe (first man to do so since Patterson). He also pushed Lewis close in their rematch (despite being a tad over the hill).

That's before you take into account his heroic moments in defeat.

I think a top ten berth can easily be justified.

Ali regained from Spinks didn't he ??

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?

I don't care If Foreman fought like a night club bouncer...........

Frazier and Norton were both at their peak and Lyle is rated as one of the greatest fighters never to have won the heavy title...

Chuck in Moorer and the reclaimation (sounds good) and he has as good a case as anyone three and below..

David Haye takes out Foreman. He was just a glorified street fighter and a poor one at that!

Furysuppercut wrote:David Haye takes out Foreman. He was just a glorified street fighter and a poor one at that!

Okay..

My god you agreed with me!?

well hey, its a start.

Furysuppercut wrote:My god you agreed with me!?

well hey, its a start.

okay...

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.

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Thats why I don't have Holyfield in a top 10

Holyfield was the heavyweight of the 90's. He beat Riddick Bowe, Michael Moorer, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Buster Douglas, Ray Mercer and Mike Tyson. He regained the championship from Bowe (first man to do so since Patterson). He also pushed Lewis close in their rematch (despite being a tad over the hill).

That's before you take into account his heroic moments in defeat.

I think a top ten berth can easily be justified.

No my dear friend, he was the second best heavyweight of the 90s. Lewis was the best, as evidenced by the fact that he beat him twice and outboxed him with ease.

He was the best when they fought but over the decade, Holyfield got the better work done. Lewis may not even be second best during that decade. Riddick Bowe has a decent argument. Lewis was the heavyweight of the 00s.

So does beating every serious contender over the 90s not count for Lewis? Barring of course Tyson and Bowe, the former who paid Lewis not to fight him, and the latter who was so scared he dumped his belt in the bin.

Barring Bowe, Tyson, Moorer, Foreman, Holmes, Douglas ahem....

Lewis was a work in progress for most of the decade. Holyfield was a tad past his best by the time they met. Unquestionably, Holyfield was the best of that decade.

Well Holyfield missed out:

Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, McCall, Golota, Briggs ahem...

Lewis has a better resume than Holyfield, as well as a better record. You surely can't deny that.

The fighters Lewis missed clearly rate higher than those Holyfield missed.

Holyfield has the bigger and better quality wins.

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Thats why I don't have Holyfield in a top 10

Holyfield was the heavyweight of the 90's. He beat Riddick Bowe, Michael Moorer, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Buster Douglas, Ray Mercer and Mike Tyson. He regained the championship from Bowe (first man to do so since Patterson). He also pushed Lewis close in their rematch (despite being a tad over the hill).

That's before you take into account his heroic moments in defeat.

I think a top ten berth can easily be justified.

No my dear friend, he was the second best heavyweight of the 90s. Lewis was the best, as evidenced by the fact that he beat him twice and outboxed him with ease.

He was the best when they fought but over the decade, Holyfield got the better work done. Lewis may not even be second best during that decade. Riddick Bowe has a decent argument. Lewis was the heavyweight of the 00s.

So does beating every serious contender over the 90s not count for Lewis? Barring of course Tyson and Bowe, the former who paid Lewis not to fight him, and the latter who was so scared he dumped his belt in the bin.

Barring Bowe, Tyson, Moorer, Foreman, Holmes, Douglas ahem....

Lewis was a work in progress for most of the decade. Holyfield was a tad past his best by the time they met. Unquestionably, Holyfield was the best of that decade.

Well Holyfield missed out:

Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, McCall, Golota, Briggs ahem...

Lewis has a better resume than Holyfield, as well as a better record. You surely can't deny that.

The fighters Lewis missed clearly rate higher than those Holyfield missed.

Holyfield has the bigger and better quality wins.

If you discount Bowe beating him twice...

You'd have to say Holy's win over Bowe, Foreman and his two wins over a half decent Tyson match anything Lewis achieved...Unless you give Lewis kudos for Vitali..

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Thats why I don't have Holyfield in a top 10

Holyfield was the heavyweight of the 90's. He beat Riddick Bowe, Michael Moorer, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Buster Douglas, Ray Mercer and Mike Tyson. He regained the championship from Bowe (first man to do so since Patterson). He also pushed Lewis close in their rematch (despite being a tad over the hill).

That's before you take into account his heroic moments in defeat.

I think a top ten berth can easily be justified.

No my dear friend, he was the second best heavyweight of the 90s. Lewis was the best, as evidenced by the fact that he beat him twice and outboxed him with ease.

He was the best when they fought but over the decade, Holyfield got the better work done. Lewis may not even be second best during that decade. Riddick Bowe has a decent argument. Lewis was the heavyweight of the 00s.

So does beating every serious contender over the 90s not count for Lewis? Barring of course Tyson and Bowe, the former who paid Lewis not to fight him, and the latter who was so scared he dumped his belt in the bin.

Barring Bowe, Tyson, Moorer, Foreman, Holmes, Douglas ahem....

Lewis was a work in progress for most of the decade. Holyfield was a tad past his best by the time they met. Unquestionably, Holyfield was the best of that decade.

Well Holyfield missed out:

Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, McCall, Golota, Briggs ahem...

Lewis has a better resume than Holyfield, as well as a better record. You surely can't deny that.

The fighters Lewis missed clearly rate higher than those Holyfield missed.

Holyfield has the bigger and better quality wins.

Holmes, Douglas, Foreman = Over the hill
Tyson = Post-prime
Moorer and Bowe = He lost

Really?

Douglas was over the hill guys..

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.

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Thats why I don't have Holyfield in a top 10

Holyfield was the heavyweight of the 90's. He beat Riddick Bowe, Michael Moorer, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Buster Douglas, Ray Mercer and Mike Tyson. He regained the championship from Bowe (first man to do so since Patterson). He also pushed Lewis close in their rematch (despite being a tad over the hill).

That's before you take into account his heroic moments in defeat.

I think a top ten berth can easily be justified.

No my dear friend, he was the second best heavyweight of the 90s. Lewis was the best, as evidenced by the fact that he beat him twice and outboxed him with ease.

He was the best when they fought but over the decade, Holyfield got the better work done. Lewis may not even be second best during that decade. Riddick Bowe has a decent argument. Lewis was the heavyweight of the 00s.

So does beating every serious contender over the 90s not count for Lewis? Barring of course Tyson and Bowe, the former who paid Lewis not to fight him, and the latter who was so scared he dumped his belt in the bin.

Barring Bowe, Tyson, Moorer, Foreman, Holmes, Douglas ahem....

Lewis was a work in progress for most of the decade. Holyfield was a tad past his best by the time they met. Unquestionably, Holyfield was the best of that decade.

Well Holyfield missed out:

Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, McCall, Golota, Briggs ahem...

Lewis has a better resume than Holyfield, as well as a better record. You surely can't deny that.

The fighters Lewis missed clearly rate higher than those Holyfield missed.

Holyfield has the bigger and better quality wins.

Holmes, Douglas, Foreman = Over the hill
Tyson = Post-prime
Moorer and Bowe = He lost

Really?

Easy game to play.

Holyfield, Tyson and Ruddock were all past their best.

Lewis can't match Holyfield's victories over Bowe and Tyson.

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Thats why I don't have Holyfield in a top 10

Holyfield was the heavyweight of the 90's. He beat Riddick Bowe, Michael Moorer, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Buster Douglas, Ray Mercer and Mike Tyson. He regained the championship from Bowe (first man to do so since Patterson). He also pushed Lewis close in their rematch (despite being a tad over the hill).

That's before you take into account his heroic moments in defeat.

I think a top ten berth can easily be justified.

No my dear friend, he was the second best heavyweight of the 90s. Lewis was the best, as evidenced by the fact that he beat him twice and outboxed him with ease.

He was the best when they fought but over the decade, Holyfield got the better work done. Lewis may not even be second best during that decade. Riddick Bowe has a decent argument. Lewis was the heavyweight of the 00s.

So does beating every serious contender over the 90s not count for Lewis? Barring of course Tyson and Bowe, the former who paid Lewis not to fight him, and the latter who was so scared he dumped his belt in the bin.

Barring Bowe, Tyson, Moorer, Foreman, Holmes, Douglas ahem....

Lewis was a work in progress for most of the decade. Holyfield was a tad past his best by the time they met. Unquestionably, Holyfield was the best of that decade.

Well Holyfield missed out:

Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, McCall, Golota, Briggs ahem...

Lewis has a better resume than Holyfield, as well as a better record. You surely can't deny that.

The fighters Lewis missed clearly rate higher than those Holyfield missed.

Holyfield has the bigger and better quality wins.

Holmes, Douglas, Foreman = Over the hill
Tyson = Post-prime
Moorer and Bowe = He lost

Really?

Easy game to play.

Holyfield, Tyson and Ruddock were all past their best.

Lewis can't match Holyfield's victories over Bowe and Tyson.

I wouldn't play his game.......He's wumming..

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Thats why I don't have Holyfield in a top 10

Holyfield was the heavyweight of the 90's. He beat Riddick Bowe, Michael Moorer, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Buster Douglas, Ray Mercer and Mike Tyson. He regained the championship from Bowe (first man to do so since Patterson). He also pushed Lewis close in their rematch (despite being a tad over the hill).

That's before you take into account his heroic moments in defeat.

I think a top ten berth can easily be justified.

No my dear friend, he was the second best heavyweight of the 90s. Lewis was the best, as evidenced by the fact that he beat him twice and outboxed him with ease.

He was the best when they fought but over the decade, Holyfield got the better work done. Lewis may not even be second best during that decade. Riddick Bowe has a decent argument. Lewis was the heavyweight of the 00s.

So does beating every serious contender over the 90s not count for Lewis? Barring of course Tyson and Bowe, the former who paid Lewis not to fight him, and the latter who was so scared he dumped his belt in the bin.

Barring Bowe, Tyson, Moorer, Foreman, Holmes, Douglas ahem....

Lewis was a work in progress for most of the decade. Holyfield was a tad past his best by the time they met. Unquestionably, Holyfield was the best of that decade.

Well Holyfield missed out:

Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, McCall, Golota, Briggs ahem...

Lewis has a better resume than Holyfield, as well as a better record. You surely can't deny that.

The fighters Lewis missed clearly rate higher than those Holyfield missed.

Holyfield has the bigger and better quality wins.

Holmes, Douglas, Foreman = Over the hill
Tyson = Post-prime
Moorer and Bowe = He lost

Really?

Easy game to play.

Holyfield, Tyson and Ruddock were all past their best.

Lewis can't match Holyfield's victories over Bowe and Tyson.

Holyfield can't match Lewis' victory over himself.  

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Thats why I don't have Holyfield in a top 10

Holyfield was the heavyweight of the 90's. He beat Riddick Bowe, Michael Moorer, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Buster Douglas, Ray Mercer and Mike Tyson. He regained the championship from Bowe (first man to do so since Patterson). He also pushed Lewis close in their rematch (despite being a tad over the hill).

That's before you take into account his heroic moments in defeat.

I think a top ten berth can easily be justified.

No my dear friend, he was the second best heavyweight of the 90s. Lewis was the best, as evidenced by the fact that he beat him twice and outboxed him with ease.

He was the best when they fought but over the decade, Holyfield got the better work done. Lewis may not even be second best during that decade. Riddick Bowe has a decent argument. Lewis was the heavyweight of the 00s.

So does beating every serious contender over the 90s not count for Lewis? Barring of course Tyson and Bowe, the former who paid Lewis not to fight him, and the latter who was so scared he dumped his belt in the bin.

Barring Bowe, Tyson, Moorer, Foreman, Holmes, Douglas ahem....

Lewis was a work in progress for most of the decade. Holyfield was a tad past his best by the time they met. Unquestionably, Holyfield was the best of that decade.

Well Holyfield missed out:

Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, McCall, Golota, Briggs ahem...

Lewis has a better resume than Holyfield, as well as a better record. You surely can't deny that.

The fighters Lewis missed clearly rate higher than those Holyfield missed.

Holyfield has the bigger and better quality wins.

Holmes, Douglas, Foreman = Over the hill
Tyson = Post-prime
Moorer and Bowe = He lost

Really?

Easy game to play.

Holyfield, Tyson and Ruddock were all past their best.

Lewis can't match Holyfield's victories over Bowe and Tyson.

I wouldn't play his game.......He's wumming..

Just because I disagree with your opinion Truss, doesn't mean I'm wumming.

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.

Louis
Ali
Jeffries
Dempsey
Johnson
Holmes
Marciano
Foreman
Lewis
Tyson

Always tempted to throw Holy in the mix but he's inability to put back to back consistency prevents me from doing so.

A better P4P fighter than many on that list though.

Cheers Rodders

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.

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