Best Heavyweights of the 1980s

[Boilermaker]

Continuing on my series of threads counting down the decades, I am going with pretty much official results only. In a football league type table, Others are free to discuss/criticise using other methods. I can see right away, that this one is going to create some major controversy straight off the bat.

1. Mike Tyson - Defeated Larry Holmes, Michael Spinks, Williams, tucker, Thomas, Tubbs, Williams
2. Michael Spinks - W Holmes, Cooney L Tyson
3. Larry Holmes - L Tyson, Spinks W Berbick, Witherspoon, Spinks, williams,
3. Tony Tucker - W Douglas L Tyson
4. Marvis Frazier - W Smith L Tyson, Holmes
5. Witherspoon W Bruno, Page, Tubbs, Snipes, Tillis L Tyson, Holmes, Thomas D Smith
6. James SMith - W Weaver, Bruno D Witherspoon L Holmes, Tubbs, Frazier Tyson
7. Carl Williams L holmes, Weaver, Tyson W Berbick,
8. Douglas W Berbick L Tucker, Ferguson, White D Tangsted
9. Trevor Berbick, L Douglas, Williams, Tyson, W Page, Thomas,
10. Evander Holyfield W Tillis, Thomas, Dokes

11. Frank Bruno W Tillis, Coetzee L Tyson, Witherspoon, Smith
12. Gerrie Coetzee L Weaver, Snipes, Page, Bruno W Tillis, Dokes D Thomas
12. Michael dokes W Weaver L Coetzee
13. Pinklon Thomas L Berbick,, Tyson, Holyfield, W Witherspoon, Weaver D Coetzee

Marvis Fraziers win over Smith places him quite a bit higher than he is ever given credit for. i am sure that a lot of people will hate that. Would actually be quite ironic if he ranked close to as high for the decade as his father did/does in the 70s. And obviously Spinks' win over Holmes will have people jumping up and down hating the situation as well.

[dempseyfire]

To rate Spinks over Holmes is just stupid, sorry (so by your "official results" criteria, Michael's 2 W vs a washed-up Holmes, 1 of which is universally regarded as a bad decision, automatically cancel out all of Larry's 1980s victories??). As is your nonsensical placement of Marvis Frazier.

[King Carlos]

Stick to Fitz.

[AngryGoon38]

Holmes
Tyson
Spinks
Witherspoon
Page
Tucker
Tubbs
Berbick
Weaver
Bruno
Cooney
Smith
Tillis
Frazier
Coetzee
Dokes
Green
Snipes


Not necessarily of exact precise order of course,but thereabouts imo.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I stopped reading when I saw Spinks above Holmes.

[Bricks]

Why isnt Foreman in there either? Id rate Foreman in any top 15 HWs of the 1980s and if instead of these silly stat based lists, we are going on strictly the best based on one guy on his best day against the other guy on his best day which is what i always compile lists on.......than i make foreman of the 1980s in my top 10 for sure. He didnt beat anyone in the 80s other than cruisers Qawi and Bert Cooper but I rate him.

[JDC]

Anyone else have Witherspoon above Spinks?

[Boilermaker]

Why isnt Foreman in there either? Id rate Foreman in any top 15 HWs of the 1980s and if instead of these silly stat based lists, we are going on strictly the best based on one guy on his best day against the other guy on his best day which is what i always compile lists on.......than i make foreman of the 1980s in my top 10 for sure. He didnt beat anyone in the 80s other than cruisers Qawi and Bert Cooper but I rate him.

Foreman's best wins in the 80s were Dwight Qawi and Bert Cooper. Not bad wins, but surely not enough to place him in the top 10 of the decade based purely on results?

[Boilermaker]

To rate Spinks over Holmes is just stupid, sorry (so by your "official results" criteria, Michael's 2 W vs a washed-up Holmes, 1 of which is universally regarded as a bad decision, automatically cancel out all of Larry's 1980s victories??). As is your nonsensical placement of Marvis Frazier.

It was obvious that this one wasnt going to go down well as soon as i looked at the spinks results.

I guess the first question is the results themselves, as you point out. Narrow the time frame to 1985-86 (ie the two fights). Who really won the series between Spinks and holmes? Surely you could not say that Holmes was better than Spinks based on two official losses? You also couldnt say really, that they were universally regarded as bad decisions, in the sense that they were close, and to be fair, they could have gone either way. In those circumstances you have to go with the original decision. If this was two prime for prime fights between two fighters with identical otherwise records then clearly Spinks would have to rank above.

Obviously Holmes wasnt at his very best and was old. Of course i accept that, in fact like everyone else, i would rank Holmes the better fighter than Spinks. But here i am using results only. In this circumstances, you cant really rank behind a fighter you lost to twice, unless that fighter has some serious other losses or unless their are some really extenuating circumstances, such as a retirement or other reasons.

Looking at things a slightly different way, which fighter did Holmes or anyone else beat that was a better fighter and would be favoured over the Larry Holmes that Michael Spinks beat, twice? ie where would you rank the larry Holmes Spinks beat, on the list that i posted?

Regarding Marvis Frazier, I too was surprised at how high he ranked under my system, and i admit their is a lot of conjecture about who ranks above who, after the holmes/Tyson top two. But given that no other fighter was good enough (other than arguably spinks) to beat Holmes or Tyson, his losses to these two mean nothing. He had no other losses. Which other fighters had a better win than the Bonecrusher Smith win? I dont rank Marvin this high either, but we are looking solely at results and fighters actually beaten. Not impressive losses (a loss is a loss), Impressiveness in winning or subjective head to head speculation

[dempseyfire]

To rate Spinks over Holmes is just stupid, sorry (so by your "official results" criteria, Michael's 2 W vs a washed-up Holmes, 1 of which is universally regarded as a bad decision, automatically cancel out all of Larry's 1980s victories??). As is your nonsensical placement of Marvis Frazier.

It was obvious that this one wasnt going to go down well as soon as i looked at the spinks results.

I guess the first question is the results themselves, as you point out. Narrow the time frame to 1985-86 (ie the two fights). Who really won the series between Spinks and holmes? Surely you could not say that Holmes was better than Spinks based on two official losses? You also couldnt say really, that they were universally regarded as bad decisions, in the sense that they were close, and to be fair, they could have gone either way. In those circumstances you have to go with the original decision. If this was two prime for prime fights between two fighters with identical otherwise records then clearly Spinks would have to rank above.

Obviously Holmes wasnt at his very best and was old. Of course i accept that, in fact like everyone else, i would rank Holmes the better fighter than Spinks. But here i am using results only. In this circumstances, you cant really rank behind a fighter you lost to twice, unless that fighter has some serious other losses or unless their are some really extenuating circumstances, such as a retirement or other reasons.

Looking at things a slightly different way, which fighter did Holmes or anyone else beat that was a better fighter and would be favoured over the Larry Holmes that Michael Spinks beat, twice? ie where would you rank the larry Holmes Spinks beat, on the list that i posted?

Regarding Marvis Frazier, I too was surprised at how high he ranked under my system, and i admit their is a lot of conjecture about who ranks above who, after the holmes/Tyson top two. But given that no other fighter was good enough (other than arguably spinks) to beat Holmes or Tyson, his losses to these two mean nothing. He had no other losses. Which other fighters had a better win than the Bonecrusher Smith win? I dont rank Marvin this high either, but we are looking solely at results and fighters actually beaten. Not impressive losses (a loss is a loss), Impressiveness in winning or subjective head to head speculation

To your points:

1) I think Spinks deserved the W vs Larry the first go-around, but I challenge ANYONE on this forum to show me a scorecard from their rematch showing Spinks winning. . .

2) You asked "which fighter did Larry Holmes or anyone else beat who would be favored vs the Holmes Spinks beat?" . . EASY . .for starters, Carl Truth Williams, who got robbed vs Larry in Holmes's previous fight. Also Witherspoon, who lost a razor thin decision to Larry years earlier. Hell, add Pinklon Thomas and Tony Tubbs.

3) Spinks beyond the Holmes W did diddly poo at HW. You can't give him credit for not losing beyond Larry and Tyson when he didn't fight anyone else besides tomato cans (alcoholic Cooney, Tangstad)

4) To the same point, Frazier had no other losses b/c he didn't fight most of the other top HWs!!! You can't give him credit for not losing to the likes of Thomas, Page, Coatzee, Berbick, Tucker etc. if he never fought them! Tons of 80s HWs had better resumes than beating Bugner and Bonecrusher Smith . .

[Bricks]

Why isnt Foreman in there either? Id rate Foreman in any top 15 HWs of the 1980s and if instead of these silly stat based lists, we are going on strictly the best based on one guy on his best day against the other guy on his best day which is what i always compile lists on.......than i make foreman of the 1980s in my top 10 for sure. He didnt beat anyone in the 80s other than cruisers Qawi and Bert Cooper but I rate him.

Foreman's best wins in the 80s were Dwight Qawi and Bert Cooper. Not bad wins, but surely not enough to place him in the top 10 of the decade based purely on results?

No not enough based on results as you say boiler.....but I never like these results based lists....its like saying Virgil Hill was a great LH champ as he made 22 defences....but the reality is a shot thomas hearns gave him a boxing lesson

[Bricks]

Marvis Frazier is only ever remembered for his decapitation in 30 seconds by a rampaging Tyson, and his 1 round beatdown by uncle LArry and we remember how he was 200lbs and pushed to the hilt prematurely by a mad Joe Frazier.

WHats forgotten is this kid had some tremendous wins early in his career over a dangerous Bonecrusher, and a Joe Bugner who could still box (later wins over tillis, page and bey proved that).

I think based on results and what he could do on his best night Marvis easily belongs on this list. He could quite possibly beat any number of inconsistent talented and bigger HWs of the lost HW generation of the 80s.

I could see him beating Bruno in the mid 80s on points, beating any one of these guys Tubbs,Berbick, Thomas,Williams,Page, Coetzee etc.

[Boilermaker]

To your points:

1) I think Spinks deserved the W vs Larry the first go-around, but I challenge ANYONE on this forum to show me a scorecard from their rematch showing Spinks winning. . .

How about Frank Brunette and Jerry roth's scorecard? Or (according to boxrec) United Press International who had it 143 to 142? AP had it 143 to 142 to Holmes. A quick google search seemed to indicated that Holmes 8 rounds to 7 is the most popular decision. I challenge ANYONE to show me any match where there is one winning round difference between the fighters and not have different opinions on who deserved the win. Given that Holmes is obviously the more well known fighter and more popular fighter, it is expected that any bias would largely favour him in reviews. It was obviously a close fight, maybe Holmes fought better and deserved the win but his job was to impress three people and he only impressed two of them. Do you think the scoring was so bad that the judges were corrupt? Or did they just see it differently than others.

2) You asked "which fighter did Larry Holmes or anyone else beat who would be favored vs the Holmes Spinks beat?" . . EASY . .for starters, Carl Truth Williams, who got robbed vs Larry in Holmes's previous fight. Also Witherspoon, who lost a razor thin decision to Larry years earlier. Hell, add Pinklon Thomas and Tony Tubbs.

All subjective.

Carl Williams was KO d in 2 rounds by Mike Weaver at about this time. Tim Witherspoon was about to be KOd in a round by Bonecrusher smith and had lost to Thomas. Tony tubbs i suppose was going okay, but he was having close fights with guys and not really a standout. You just gave 5 names who were better fighters than Larry when Larry fought Spinks. Given that none of these had declined and presumably each had probably gained in experience and improved since the Holmes loss, it would seem that you would indicate that when Holmes lost to spinks the first time, he was at best the 6th best heavyweight in the world. I think that is hard to justify. Especially when saw how successful a totally shot (far worse than he was against Spinks) Larry Holmes performed in the 90s.

3) Spinks beyond the Holmes W did diddly poo at HW. You can't give him credit for not losing beyond Larry and Tyson when he didn't fight anyone else besides tomato cans (alcoholic Cooney, Tangstad)

I do agree with this. I think the Cooney win is overated nowadays. He and Tangstad were not bad but not great fighters either. But, the Holmes wins are underated, just because Holmes was not as good as he used to be. I doubt anyone else beats him. It is always hard to rate fighters with short careers against those with longer careers. At the end of the day, if fighter A beats fighter b then fighter A really does deserve to be rated above fighter B unless there are extenuating circumstances (i know there are some here). If fighter B happens to be the best fighter of the decade then that makes fighter A the best fighter even if he has no other fights. Fighter C might have a better resume but beating fighter C,D<,e,f,g,h,i and J does not raise him above fighter A. Especially if fighter C has fought and lost to fighter B. At least not under the system i am using at the moment which is purely results based.

4) To the same point, Frazier had no other losses b/c he didn't fight most of the other top HWs!!! You can't give him credit for not losing to the likes of Thomas, Page, Coatzee, Berbick, Tucker etc. if he never fought them! Tons of 80s HWs had better resumes than beating Bugner and Bonecrusher Smith . .

This comes back to the point that i just made. The question really is how good was Bugner and/or Bonecrusher Smith. If Bonecrusher was one of the top fighters of the 80s then Marvis deserves the high ranking. If not then maybe you have a point. If you beat say the 5th best fighter in the world, then you deserve to be ranked higher than the guy who beat the 6th, 7th and 8th best fighter but lost to the 9th best.

[Thunder and Lightning]

Continuing on my series of threads counting down the decades, I am going with pretty much official results only. In a football league type table, Others are free to discuss/criticise using other methods. I can see right away, that this one is going to create some major controversy straight off the bat.

1. Mike Tyson - Defeated Larry Holmes, Michael Spinks, Williams, tucker, Thomas, Tubbs, Williams
2. Michael Spinks - W Holmes, Cooney L Tyson
3. Larry Holmes - L Tyson, Spinks W Berbick, Witherspoon, Spinks, williams,
3. Tony Tucker - W Douglas L Tyson
4. Marvis Frazier - W Smith L Tyson, Holmes
5. Witherspoon W Bruno, Page, Tubbs, Snipes, Tillis L Tyson, Holmes, Thomas D Smith
6. James SMith - W Weaver, Bruno D Witherspoon L Holmes, Tubbs, Frazier Tyson
7. Carl Williams L holmes, Weaver, Tyson W Berbick,
8. Douglas W Berbick L Tucker, Ferguson, White D Tangsted
9. Trevor Berbick, L Douglas, Williams, Tyson, W Page, Thomas,
10. Evander Holyfield W Tillis, Thomas, Dokes

11. Frank Bruno W Tillis, Coetzee L Tyson, Witherspoon, Smith
12. Gerrie Coetzee L Weaver, Snipes, Page, Bruno W Tillis, Dokes D Thomas
12. Michael dokes W Weaver L Coetzee
13. Pinklon Thomas L Berbick,, Tyson, Holyfield, W Witherspoon, Weaver D Coetzee

Marvis Fraziers win over Smith places him quite a bit higher than he is ever given credit for. i am sure that a lot of people will hate that. Would actually be quite ironic if he ranked close to as high for the decade as his father did/does in the 70s. And obviously Spinks' win over Holmes will have people jumping up and down hating the situation as well.

Witherspoon never faced Tyson did he, don't know if that boosts his rating in your system but I think he should obviusly be ahed of Marvis.

Can in some way agree with having Tyson ahed of Holmes but like many others said in no way should Spinks be #2.

[Boilermaker]

Continuing on my series of threads counting down the decades, I am going with pretty much official results only. In a football league type table, Others are free to discuss/criticise using other methods. I can see right away, that this one is going to create some major controversy straight off the bat.

1. Mike Tyson - Defeated Larry Holmes, Michael Spinks, Williams, tucker, Thomas, Tubbs, Williams
2. Michael Spinks - W Holmes, Cooney L Tyson
3. Larry Holmes - L Tyson, Spinks W Berbick, Witherspoon, Spinks, williams,
3. Tony Tucker - W Douglas L Tyson
4. Marvis Frazier - W Smith L Tyson, Holmes
5. Witherspoon W Bruno, Page, Tubbs, Snipes, Tillis L Tyson, Holmes, Thomas D Smith
6. James SMith - W Weaver, Bruno D Witherspoon L Holmes, Tubbs, Frazier Tyson
7. Carl Williams L holmes, Weaver, Tyson W Berbick,
8. Douglas W Berbick L Tucker, Ferguson, White D Tangsted
9. Trevor Berbick, L Douglas, Williams, Tyson, W Page, Thomas,
10. Evander Holyfield W Tillis, Thomas, Dokes

11. Frank Bruno W Tillis, Coetzee L Tyson, Witherspoon, Smith
12. Gerrie Coetzee L Weaver, Snipes, Page, Bruno W Tillis, Dokes D Thomas
12. Michael dokes W Weaver L Coetzee
13. Pinklon Thomas L Berbick,, Tyson, Holyfield, W Witherspoon, Weaver D Coetzee

Marvis Fraziers win over Smith places him quite a bit higher than he is ever given credit for. i am sure that a lot of people will hate that. Would actually be quite ironic if he ranked close to as high for the decade as his father did/does in the 70s. And obviously Spinks' win over Holmes will have people jumping up and down hating the situation as well.

Witherspoon never faced Tyson did he, don't know if that boosts his rating in your system but I think he should obviusly be ahed of Marvis.

Can in some way agree with having Tyson ahed of Holmes but like many others said in no way should Spinks be #2.

No he didnt, it is a mistake.

Just on the Spinks thing (because i do agree that Holmes was better than spinks under nearly every circumstance), but if that point were conceded would most agree that Spinks is the third ranked heavy, or would witherspoon or others take that position. What is the consensus on this?

[Thunder and Lightning]

Continuing on my series of threads counting down the decades, I am going with pretty much official results only. In a football league type table, Others are free to discuss/criticise using other methods. I can see right away, that this one is going to create some major controversy straight off the bat.

1. Mike Tyson - Defeated Larry Holmes, Michael Spinks, Williams, tucker, Thomas, Tubbs, Williams
2. Michael Spinks - W Holmes, Cooney L Tyson
3. Larry Holmes - L Tyson, Spinks W Berbick, Witherspoon, Spinks, williams,
3. Tony Tucker - W Douglas L Tyson
4. Marvis Frazier - W Smith L Tyson, Holmes
5. Witherspoon W Bruno, Page, Tubbs, Snipes, Tillis L Tyson, Holmes, Thomas D Smith
6. James SMith - W Weaver, Bruno D Witherspoon L Holmes, Tubbs, Frazier Tyson
7. Carl Williams L holmes, Weaver, Tyson W Berbick,
8. Douglas W Berbick L Tucker, Ferguson, White D Tangsted
9. Trevor Berbick, L Douglas, Williams, Tyson, W Page, Thomas,
10. Evander Holyfield W Tillis, Thomas, Dokes

11. Frank Bruno W Tillis, Coetzee L Tyson, Witherspoon, Smith
12. Gerrie Coetzee L Weaver, Snipes, Page, Bruno W Tillis, Dokes D Thomas
12. Michael dokes W Weaver L Coetzee
13. Pinklon Thomas L Berbick,, Tyson, Holyfield, W Witherspoon, Weaver D Coetzee

Marvis Fraziers win over Smith places him quite a bit higher than he is ever given credit for. i am sure that a lot of people will hate that. Would actually be quite ironic if he ranked close to as high for the decade as his father did/does in the 70s. And obviously Spinks' win over Holmes will have people jumping up and down hating the situation as well.

Witherspoon never faced Tyson did he, don't know if that boosts his rating in your system but I think he should obviusly be ahed of Marvis.

Can in some way agree with having Tyson ahed of Holmes but like many others said in no way should Spinks be #2.

No he didnt, it is a mistake.

Just on the Spinks thing (because i do agree that Holmes was better than spinks under nearly every circumstance), but if that point were conceded would most agree that Spinks is the third ranked heavy, or would witherspoon or others take that position. What is the consensus on this?

In my opinion yes Spinks is third but you could just as easely make the argument for Witherspoon on the grounds that Spinks record as a heavy is terrible, except for Holmes no realy good wins, both Tangstad and Cooney were good but Cooney was probably way past it and Tangstad was good by european standards.

Witherspoon did alot more but in my opinion beating Holmes (even a faded one) twice means Spinks just edges Spoon.

[Boilermaker]

Witherspoon never faced Tyson did he, don't know if that boosts his rating in your system but I think he should obviusly be ahed of Marvis.

Can in some way agree with having Tyson ahed of Holmes but like many others said in no way should Spinks be #2.

No he didnt, it is a mistake.

Just on the Spinks thing (because i do agree that Holmes was better than spinks under nearly every circumstance), but if that point were conceded would most agree that Spinks is the third ranked heavy, or would witherspoon or others take that position. What is the consensus on this?

In my opinion yes Spinks is third but you could just as easely make the argument for Witherspoon on the grounds that Spinks record as a heavy is terrible, except for Holmes no realy good wins, both Tangstad and Cooney were good but Cooney was probably way past it and Tangstad was good by european standards.

Witherspoon did alot more but in my opinion beating Holmes (even a faded one) twice means Spinks just edges Spoon.

After I count these decades down to the 1880s, I am going to merge them together with each other to get a results based top 150. I think I will switch Holmes and Spinks, because it really is a consensus decision based on the fact that Holmes was not as good as he was earlier in the decade even though he was still quite decent.

Witherspoon is highly regarded by most, but I dont see it in his results. What wins of his make him the standout number 4? A bruno win isnt that impressive, and he drew his series with Bonecrusher Smith who also beat Bruno. Marvis is much criticised, and obviously didnt fight as many good heavys as the others. But a win over Smith is better than what Witherspoon did against Smith, isnt it?

[Ambling Alp]

I think overall this is a decent way to rank fighters. You look at their key wins, and their losses.
You do have to consider how competitive the fights were, as well as bad decisions. After looking at these results, Like most people, I would rate Holmes over Spinks, and would have Frazier much lower, though I have come around the last few years on the idea that he was a little underrated.

There are some results that need to be included:
Frazier beat Tillis; Tillis was closer to his prime than when holyfield beat him and that win is included for Holyfield.
The 2nd Weaver-Dokes fight which was a draw.

Also think that Renaldo Snipes, Tony Tubbs, Greg Page and Mike Weaver should be included. They each had key fights against guys on this list and had some success. Might even consider David Bey, who beat Page and Cooney. Any of the results that the fighters already mentioned had against Snipes and Weaver should be factored in.

This needs some tweaking, but the basic premise isn't bad.

[Thunder and Lightning]

No he didnt, it is a mistake.

Just on the Spinks thing (because i do agree that Holmes was better than spinks under nearly every circumstance), but if that point were conceded would most agree that Spinks is the third ranked heavy, or would witherspoon or others take that position. What is the consensus on this?

In my opinion yes Spinks is third but you could just as easely make the argument for Witherspoon on the grounds that Spinks record as a heavy is terrible, except for Holmes no realy good wins, both Tangstad and Cooney were good but Cooney was probably way past it and Tangstad was good by european standards.

Witherspoon did alot more but in my opinion beating Holmes (even a faded one) twice means Spinks just edges Spoon.

After I count these decades down to the 1880s, I am going to merge them together with each other to get a results based top 150. I think I will switch Holmes and Spinks, because it really is a consensus decision based on the fact that Holmes was not as good as he was earlier in the decade even though he was still quite decent.

Witherspoon is highly regarded by most, but I dont see it in his results. What wins of his make him the standout number 4? A bruno win isnt that impressive, and he drew his series with Bonecrusher Smith who also beat Bruno. Marvis is much criticised, and obviously didnt fight as many good heavys as the others. But a win over Smith is better than what Witherspoon did against Smith, isnt it?

I think you are selling Spoon a bit short he did draw his series with Smith but he beat more than Bruno i mean he beat Snipes, Tillis, Cummings, Page, Tubbs, Eklund and he did better against Holmes than most others.

I agree with you that Marvis is a little underrated and it is sad that he is basically just remembered for being blasted by Tyson in 30seconds but he doesn't have close to the record of Witherspoon.

[observer1]

To rate Spinks over Holmes is just stupid, sorry (so by your "official results" criteria, Michael's 2 W vs a washed-up Holmes, 1 of which is universally regarded as a bad decision, automatically cancel out all of Larry's 1980s victories??). As is your nonsensical placement of Marvis Frazier.

I agree Holmes should be ahead, but how was an undefeated Holmes who went on to box for 15 more years washed up?

Slightly passed his best maybe, but washed up?

[Goodnight, Irene]

He was more than slightly past it.

[Boilermaker]

In my opinion yes Spinks is third but you could just as easely make the argument for Witherspoon on the grounds that Spinks record as a heavy is terrible, except for Holmes no realy good wins, both Tangstad and Cooney were good but Cooney was probably way past it and Tangstad was good by european standards.

Witherspoon did alot more but in my opinion beating Holmes (even a faded one) twice means Spinks just edges Spoon.

After I count these decades down to the 1880s, I am going to merge them together with each other to get a results based top 150. I think I will switch Holmes and Spinks, because it really is a consensus decision based on the fact that Holmes was not as good as he was earlier in the decade even though he was still quite decent.

Witherspoon is highly regarded by most, but I dont see it in his results. What wins of his make him the standout number 4? A bruno win isnt that impressive, and he drew his series with Bonecrusher Smith who also beat Bruno. Marvis is much criticised, and obviously didnt fight as many good heavys as the others. But a win over Smith is better than what Witherspoon did against Smith, isnt it?

I think you are selling Spoon a bit short he did draw his series with Smith but he beat more than Bruno i mean he beat Snipes, Tillis, Cummings, Page, Tubbs, Eklund and he did better against Holmes than most others.

I agree with you that Marvis is a little underrated and it is sad that he is basically just remembered for being blasted by Tyson in 30seconds but he doesn't have close to the record of Witherspoon.

I looked at the records of Tillis, Snipes, Page and Tubbs. Neitehr of these four really did enough to break into the top 10 though. Page, for example lost to Bugner (who Frazier beat), Berbick, witherspoon, tubbs among others. His best wins were Tillis, Snipes and Coetzee. None of whom did enough to be top 10 fighters. Tillis Tubbs and Snipes, i am sure will have the same problem. They lost to top 10 fighters mostly and didnt really beat anyone inside teh top 10 or far inside the top 10.

[Crease]

1. Mike Tyson - Defeated Larry Holmes, Michael Spinks, Williams, tucker, Thomas, Tubbs, Williams
2. Michael Spinks - W Holmes, Cooney L Tyson
3. Larry Holmes - L Tyson, Spinks W Berbick, Witherspoon, Spinks, williams,
3. Tony Tucker - W Douglas L Tyson
4. Marvis Frazier - W Smith L Tyson, Holmes
5. Witherspoon W Bruno, Page, Tubbs, Snipes, Tillis L Tyson, Holmes, Thomas D Smith
6. James SMith - W Weaver, Bruno D Witherspoon L Holmes, Tubbs, Frazier Tyson
7. Carl Williams L holmes, Weaver, Tyson W Berbick,
8. Douglas W Berbick L Tucker, Ferguson, White D Tangsted
9. Trevor Berbick, L Douglas, Williams, Tyson, W Page, Thomas,
10. Evander Holyfield W Tillis, Thomas, Dokes

11. Frank Bruno W Tillis, Coetzee L Tyson, Witherspoon, Smith
12. Gerrie Coetzee L Weaver, Snipes, Page, Bruno W Tillis, Dokes D Thomas
12. Michael dokes W Weaver L Coetzee
13. Pinklon Thomas L Berbick,, Tyson, Holyfield, W Witherspoon, Weaver D Coetzee

No Greg Page?
That's a shocker!!!!

[Thunder and Lightning]

After I count these decades down to the 1880s, I am going to merge them together with each other to get a results based top 150. I think I will switch Holmes and Spinks, because it really is a consensus decision based on the fact that Holmes was not as good as he was earlier in the decade even though he was still quite decent.

Witherspoon is highly regarded by most, but I dont see it in his results. What wins of his make him the standout number 4? A bruno win isnt that impressive, and he drew his series with Bonecrusher Smith who also beat Bruno. Marvis is much criticised, and obviously didnt fight as many good heavys as the others. But a win over Smith is better than what Witherspoon did against Smith, isnt it?

I think you are selling Spoon a bit short he did draw his series with Smith but he beat more than Bruno i mean he beat Snipes, Tillis, Cummings, Page, Tubbs, Eklund and he did better against Holmes than most others.

I agree with you that Marvis is a little underrated and it is sad that he is basically just remembered for being blasted by Tyson in 30seconds but he doesn't have close to the record of Witherspoon.

I looked at the records of Tillis, Snipes, Page and Tubbs. Neitehr of these four really did enough to break into the top 10 though. Page, for example lost to Bugner (who Frazier beat), Berbick, witherspoon, tubbs among others. His best wins were Tillis, Snipes and Coetzee. None of whom did enough to be top 10 fighters. Tillis Tubbs and Snipes, i am sure will have the same problem. They lost to top 10 fighters mostly and didnt really beat anyone inside teh top 10 or far inside the top 10.

Don't realy know were you are going with this, I can understand if you make the case that Smith, Thomas or Holyfield deserves to be ahed of Spoon but if you mean that Marvis deserves it because of the faulty records of those top 10 fighters wich alot of them where that Spoon beat, so I'm sorry if a missunderstood but Marvis was never a top ten fighter from what i know and Witherspoon was top ten ranked longer than any other fighter of the 80s, like I said I think Witherspoon definetly is number 4 if not 3 in the 80s but you can make the case for other fighters, just can't see how Marvis should be ranked higher.

[Ambling Alp]

After I count these decades down to the 1880s, I am going to merge them together with each other to get a results based top 150. I think I will switch Holmes and Spinks, because it really is a consensus decision based on the fact that Holmes was not as good as he was earlier in the decade even though he was still quite decent.

Witherspoon is highly regarded by most, but I dont see it in his results. What wins of his make him the standout number 4? A bruno win isnt that impressive, and he drew his series with Bonecrusher Smith who also beat Bruno. Marvis is much criticised, and obviously didnt fight as many good heavys as the others. But a win over Smith is better than what Witherspoon did against Smith, isnt it?

I think you are selling Spoon a bit short he did draw his series with Smith but he beat more than Bruno i mean he beat Snipes, Tillis, Cummings, Page, Tubbs, Eklund and he did better against Holmes than most others.

I agree with you that Marvis is a little underrated and it is sad that he is basically just remembered for being blasted by Tyson in 30seconds but he doesn't have close to the record of Witherspoon.

I looked at the records of Tillis, Snipes, Page and Tubbs. Neitehr of these four really did enough to break into the top 10 though. Page, for example lost to Bugner (who Frazier beat), Berbick, witherspoon, tubbs among others. His best wins were Tillis, Snipes and Coetzee. None of whom did enough to be top 10 fighters. Tillis Tubbs and Snipes, i am sure will have the same problem. They lost to top 10 fighters mostly and didnt really beat anyone inside teh top 10 or far inside the top 10.

I guess I don't really get this line of reasoning. If you don't repsect Page and Tillis that much, then why does Marvis Frazier rate so high? Page and Tillis are his biggest wins.