of i see what ur saying but here this. baer lost alot because alot of champions in those days lost alot too. that wasnt unheard of. he finished his career with a damn good record 73-14. 14 losses arent that many for early aged fighters. for example...sharkey had 13 losses, schmelling had 10, braddock had um yeah alot more then 14 , and am langford who had several dozen losses himself.
And u cant just not put him on this list because hes an under acheiver. i will agree that he is, but then u have to be honest with the whole list. mike tyson is also an under acheiver. the guy could have really been something. i think hes one of the biggest underacheivers of all time.
solid lisy except wheres jack johnson and jack dempsey, both are gauranteed top 10s and most rate them in or near top 5. johnson is almost always top 5. i rate johnson 4th and dempsey 6th
solid lisy except wheres jack johnson and jack dempsey, both are gauranteed top 10s and most rate them in or near top 5. johnson is almost always top 5. i rate johnson 4th and dempsey 6th
i suppose dempsey should be in there, maybe taking fraziers or holys place.
my list has changed drasticly in the last few months. for example, i never reall rated larry holmes a real lot because the only fight i had seen of his was vs tyson. but i was able to see some footage of some fights of his when he was a bit youger and i was impressed.
i also used to rate rocky above Louis but recently i got a DVD with a lot of joe louis stuff on it and i came to the conclusion that joe was better (taking nothing away from rock, the guy was a champ)
also, i will always find space for iron mike in my top 10, people are always ranting on about how he beat no-ones and old men. but its not a fighters fault if he comes around at a time when the division is weak.
a late 80's mike tyson could have been competive in ant era of heavyweights.
barry wrote:Lewis fought 10 present, past, or future world (WBC, WBA & IBF) champs, Tyson fought 13. They both reigned in rather weak periods in the heavyweight division and the quality of opposition was very, very close with not enough advantage for either fighter in terms of quality. Though Tyson was a lot more devastating in his reign than Lewis was.
As to naming five fighters that Tyson faced, I can name four that Tyson beat that Lewis took on several years later, when they were past their primes, Tony Tucker, Frank Bruno, Tyrell Biggs, Razor Ruddock...and of those four, Ruddock was the only one that Lewis beat in a better fashion than Tyson did. Hell, they fought several of the same fighters and the quality of each was as I said, very, very similar!
The facts remain that Tyson was beat by every top fighter he faced, Holyfield and Lewis (and thats not counting Douglas who was hardly great). Tyson has always been stopped in every defeat as well.
Lewis is vastly underated in my opinion. He has beaten EVERY fighter he fought, albeit in rematches with two of them. His only minus point was he was sometimes too cagey and hesitant. His right hand punch was devasting when it landed clean.
Lewis's two defeats were to big punching, big heavyweights and lack of serious training and under-estimation accounted for those. He beat both very easily in the rematches. Remember going into their fights McCall had stopped 17 out 24 opponents (7 in the 1st round) and Rahman had stopped 28 out of 34 opponents (12 in the 1st round). McCall was 16 stone 8lbs and Rahman 17 stone so a clean punch from these guys would have hurt any fighter.
Here here. At last someone with some sense. This was the point I was making. Lewis would have been even better if he had better opponents to fight. Tyson never avenged any of his defeats. I think someone pointed out elsewhere on this site that this is what determines a great fighter. So in that sense Tyson cannot be considered great. Tyson was over-rated. I put him 10 when really he isn't in my top 15/20 really. Peer pressure! Look at the decent fighters who also took him the distant, then look at his record and name any quality heavyweights he knocked out. None! Lewis knocked out quality who were the 'one' who were supoosed to beat him. Look at two heavyweights in their prime who both Lewis and Tyson fought. Holyfield destroyed Tyson twice and Lewis did vice versa to Holyfield. You may say Tyson was past it. So take Ruddock. He was in his prime against Lewis and Tyson in their prime and Lewis destroyed him!
Loki wrote:I know it's tough, I have rated mine by styles I like and achivements.
1. Rocky Marciano
2. Jack Dempsey
3. Mike Tyson
4. Muhammed Ali
5. Joe Louis
6. Jack Johnson
7. George Foreman
8. Joe Frazier
9. Sonny Liston
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Gene Tunney
12. Larry Holmes
13. Evander Holyfield
Im a great Mike's fan but i think that on your list ,is overrated.
Floyd Patterson?????????????????????????????????????????????
solid lisy except wheres jack johnson and jack dempsey, both are gauranteed top 10s and most rate them in or near top 5. johnson is almost always top 5. i rate johnson 4th and dempsey 6th
i suppose dempsey should be in there, maybe taking fraziers or holys place.
my list has changed drasticly in the last few months. for example, i never reall rated larry holmes a real lot because the only fight i had seen of his was vs tyson. but i was able to see some footage of some fights of his when he was a bit youger and i was impressed.
i also used to rate rocky above Louis but recently i got a DVD with a lot of joe louis stuff on it and i came to the conclusion that joe was better (taking nothing away from rock, the guy was a champ)
also, i will always find space for iron mike in my top 10, people are always ranting on about how he beat no-ones and old men. but its not a fighters fault if he comes around at a time when the division is weak.
a late 80's mike tyson could have been competive in ant era of heavyweights.
my list is almost always changing...the more you know about fighters the better you get an understanding as to were they belong in history.. and since i joined this forum at the end of june, i have learned 10X more then i had learned my entire life. kudos to the posters.
Louis (25 defenses? Are you kidding?)
Ali (most talented)
Marciano (undefeated)
Holyfield (RING mag had him one spot too high...one of THE all time P4P greats...Armstrong/Robinson type...ALL of you oldtimers seriously dropped the ball here, while stroking Iron Mike to kill him)
Johnson (great defense...but makes someone like Byrd seem one dimensional)
Dempsey (you know, Tyson but with heart)
Foreman (power that froze Joe...thats all I need to know)
Maybe Jeffries or Lewis should be up there too....styles make fights...I can see Holy and Marciano going to war...yet I can see Lewis KOing Marciano (see that Lewis uppercut, oldtimers...he would lift Rock off of his feet with that punch, should he land it, coming from someone that is 6'5"...you're old and blind to deny it)...but Lewis aint KO'ing Holy, not even old Holy...but Foreman would KO Lennox (but not Holyfield)
Prime Holmes was unKOable, although slightly overrated (the most boring established champion ever...him or Ruiz)
proffesor X.. im only 17 so i dont see how i could be an old timer... i can def. see rocky beating lewis.
as for holyfield.. alright obviously his 2 biggest wins of his career were over tyson. but lets not forget the tyson he was fighting. a past the prime tyson. tyson was never the same after buster douglas, and i think we can all agree that tyson would have eaten all of evander instead of just his ear if they fought say 1986/87.and i wouldnt rank him in my top 5 P4P fighters.... maybe not even my top 10..i think many people overrate him n lewis. they were basically the only good heavyweights in the 90's IMO and i think the 90's were a very weak time for the heavyweight division.
Due to the fact that on any given night any of the top twenty heavyweights of the past could have beaten one another. Out of ten bouts, some might just win once, or twice out of ten against someone like Louis, but each man proved that at their very best they were virtually unbeatable, if only for a short time, so I guess I rank fighters using a bit of both who would beat who and what they accomplished, and their tools as a fighter how effective they were at their very best, and several more aspects, but favoritism no doubt plays a small role in my rankings as it does in the rankings of anyone, that’s just human nature, but I do try to be as unbiased as possible and I think I do very well in doing that.
My pick of Max Baer is probably unjust and more based on what could have been rather than what was. In top condition Baer was like a wrecking ball who could take it just as well as he could dish it out, and in his bouts against Schmeling, Carnera and Schaaf he would have been hard to bet against regardless of who he was facing, but Baer is probably the all-time, ultimate underachiever.
Tommy Burns I feel is greatly underrated due to his size, which he was small, but he was the same type of fighter who belongs alongside of Sam Langford, “Barbados” Joe Walcott, Jack Dillon and Harry Greb in that size really did not mean much when those men stepped through the ropes. Burns was also the first champion to actually go around the world to solidify his claim as champion fighting the best that each country had and pretty much dominating and beating up every man that he faced until he came up against Johnson. Against Johnson, Burns proved that the size myth is just that…a myth, at least when the fighters are at the very top level. Burns took pretty much everything that Johnson could give and was still asking for more when the bout was stopped. There are very few fighters throughout history that I feel could have given away 20+ pounds against quality opposition and still win and Burns is one of those fighters. He was 11-1-1 (9 KO) and set a record in heavyweight title fights with eight consecutive knockouts in title bouts, which I don’t know without looking if it still stands today, but doubtfully, but overall Burns was a very solid champion.
Mike Tyson, well I think Tyson was an all-time great who peaked fast and burnt out in his early twenties, just like Terry McGovern, or Pipino Cuevas. No one before, or after had the aura that Tyson brought to the ring and when he was “on” the opponent should have stayed home. As to calling his bout with Holyfield and Lewis as the most important, career defining of his career, I very, very much disagree, especially the bout with Lewis in which Tyson was at least twelve years past his prime and to say that he never beat any great fighters is just incorrect. He destroyed Michael Spinks and Larry Holmes like no one before, or after. Holmes was older, but he was still a great fighter who was very capable and at the time could have probably defeated all, with the exception of a couple heavyweights. Tyson’s reign was just as impressive as anyone in history with the exception of Louis, whose accomplishments no one can touch. At his best Tyson was a monster. He had great skills and he used them in his prime and his heart was as big as any that ever stepped in the ring…forget the McBride quit job…look back at the beatings that he took from Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis and look at what it took to take him out. His hand-speed was possibly the best ever at heavyweight and his power spoke for itself and like any of the other greats, on any given night Tyson could beat any man that ever stepped in the ring!.
Barry and Rory how can you rate Tyson so highly? Holyfield was a blown up heavyweight who destroyed Tyson. He may have been past his peak but he still got destroyed by Lewis and Holyfield. You could argue Holyfield was past his prime. Tyson beat most people before they even got into the ring. Thats why he was good not his boxing ability. Spinks and Holmes were well past their prime and not that good anyway. As for Lewis dominating in a poor era how about Tyson's era? It wasn't much better. I posted a question in an earlier thread so I'll ask it again. Take out his defeats, which he never avenged and I think someone pointed out before this is what a great champion does, and the big, decent fighters who were not scared of him and went the distance: Ruddock, Tucker, Smith, Willis and than name a quality fighter Tyson beat? I'll think you'll find none! By the way I looked through Buster Douglas's record on this site and he was a lot better than people gave him credit for. He did get bashed by Holyfield though. Another fighter who blew the 'a big fighter will always beat a smaller fighter myth' out the water.
Lewis KOing Marciano (see that Lewis uppercut, oldtimers...he would lift Rock off of his feet with that punch, should he land it, coming from someone that is 6'5"...you're old and blind to deny it)...
well i could see marciano landing the right and knocking lewis out cold as just as likely to happen. i mean 2nd rate mcail and rahman did
No fighter has ever destroyed Tyson in a fight, a few beat him and beat him very well, but it took them several rounds to do so, it wasn’t a quick seek and destroy type of win, none of them, which just shows Tyson's resiliency even at his worst. If you think Tyson beat opponents because of aura rather than skill then you've not watched any pre-1990 Tyson, you haven’t seen the Tyson that would jab, bob and weave his way inside to unleash hellish hooks and uppercuts to the body and head of an opponent. That was the Tyson with incredible hand-speed, great bob and weave style which help him to cut off the ring very well and a chin and heart that were outstanding. Even though it really means little over all, put together a checklist of all the variables that make up a fighter at their very best, both the good and bad and see who comes out on top.
As to their era's, I already mentioned that both Tyson and Lewis ruled at rather weak times and they both fought the same kind of opposition, again as I previously mentioned neither had an advantage in quality of opponents. Now to name some of the quality fighters that Tyson faced, but before so, I agree, Douglas was better than he often get credit for, but Tony Tucker put it on him after which Tyson put it on Tucker. Anyone that knows the era and knows the fighters and followed their career knows that Tony Tubbs was a very good heavyweight as is the case with Pinklon Thomas, Trevor Berbick and Tyrell Biggs all of whom Tyson beat very impressively.
Then you can go to the second career of Tyson, which Tyson did have two careers, ala’ Ali, but Tyson did not have the same ability that Ali had to come back, but then again Ali is the greatest for a reason. But Tyson still had a pretty impressive second coming! He came back and again made Frank Bruno look like the less superior fighter by far, which if I am not mistaken was the same Frank Bruno that gave Lewis fits. The Bruce Seldon that entered the ring against Tyson was possibly the most terrified champion in history, but prior Seldon had done something that Lewis and Tyson could not and that was stop Tony Tucker. After the Holyfield losses Tyson was through as a serious contender.
Speaking of Holyfield, Lewis should have won the first bout no doubt about it, but the second, well the fight speaks for itself and these were the two defining fights of Lewis’ career and in them he was far, far from looking like a dominating champion and more of the survivor-type and in complete and all fairness, Holyfield was around five, or six years past his prime and anyone that would try to suggest otherwise just doesn’t know what they are talking about. Against an old Holyfield, Lewis had a real difficult time the second time around, so it leaves little doubt in my mind that the Holyfield of 1992 would be all over Lewis and would put him to sleep within five rounds. The first bout with Holyfield, Lewis was flat out robbed in my opinion, but it still was not a dominating, or impressive performance…it was a rather boring fight where Lewis did not engage in any kind of exchanges. As I said earlier, Tyson and Lewis had very similar opposition, but Tyson was more damaging and more impressive in his reign than was Lewis!
[quote="BrocktonBlockbuster49"]arsenal tyson beaat a prime spinks
Yeah I agree....a prime light heavyweight! Barry, Tyson may have had skill but anyone in the boxing game will tell you if you beat an oppenent before they even get in the ring its game over. You don't even have to be that good. If you get the better of someones mind i.e. Ali/Foreman than the battle is already won. As I said where were his skills against big decent fighters? Tucker, Tillis, Smith, Douglas? I think we'll have to agree to disagree!
the only one that was scared of tyson was spinx and boneclutcher. no other heavy went into the ring beaten before they entered. guys like tony tucker, frank bruno, trevor berbick, larry holmes, pinklon thomas, etc all werent scared they wanted to win.
its a myth that tyson didnt have heart, because in his prime he had plent of stamina and heart. he easily went 12 rounds with tucker and bonecrusher, and showed heart in all his defenses. tyson showed loads of heart in the beating douglas gave him.
i agree 100% with barry, tyson was washed up in the 90s, in fact i noticed after rooney left him tyson stopped using his once amazing defense and head fakes and body work. tyson lost his heart and motivation in the 90s not to mention he lost all his skills. holyfield beat a very different tyson. tyson became a headhunter, didnt have his once amazing defense, and didnt throw his once lethal combinations to the head and body.
the peak tyson knocks out holy, holy was stunned at times by the washed up mike but he never faced mike when he was a lethal machine. holy would have got knocked out early, he couldnt take tyson combinations and shots.
tyson was probaably more dominant than any heavy champ in history, there wasnt a man that dominated like that since joe louis and his bum of the month tour. u realize any time an opponent hit tyson hard aka tucker, bruno, bonecrusher it wa huge news. thats how invisible mike seemed!!!!!!!! the though of him being floored never crossed anyone mind.
u could even make a case tyson beat as good as competetion as holmes, but dominated more
tyson not only beat, but DOMINATED and knocked out men who were never knocked out before.
larry holmes and tyson common opponents:
larry holmes 15u trevor berbick
mike tyson KO 2 trevor berbick
mike tyson 12u bonecrusher
larry holmes TKO 12 bonecrusher- gave hoolmes a harder fight than mike
mike tyson TKO 1 carl williams
Larry holmes 15u carl williams- close decision but in fairness, holmes was past his prime
michael spinks TWICE 15 deciion holmes- holmes past prime
mike tyson KO 1 spinks
holmes out of his 20 title defenses, fought 7 champions beating 6 of them.
tyson out of his 11 title defenses fought 9 champions beating 8 of them.
holmes never unified the title, tyson did. tyson cleaned out the division nearly beating all the aplha and former champions, holmes left some holes as he never fought page, dokes, thomas, or unified the title.
holmes was never knocked out even in the nineties, and fought close fights with hoylfield, yet when he fought tyson 5 years younger he was knocked out easily.
tyson always fought top contenders or champions, holmes sometimes fought journeyman or les deserving challengers.
now im not bashing holmes, im just giving you a different and open view of things of tyson in the 80s.
Ha ha very funny. Spinks started off as a light heavyweight so you can't say he was a geniune heavyweight. Tyson was a small heavyweight and there is a difference. I agree that Holmes dominated in an era that was probably the worse ever for heavyweight boxing. As for Tyson how can you say Smith was scared but Bruno wasn't? Did you see the fights? Smith went the distance and Bruno was beaten twice! If people are going to argue about Tyson's greatness please answer my question. What quality heavyweight did he KO? Don't say Holmes or Spinks please. The only decent fighter he ever stopped was Ruddock and that was controversial. Tubbs, Thomas, Biggs etc wouldn't even be in a best 100. Holmes may get into a top 40.
Anyone that knows the era and knows the fighters and followed their career knows that Tony Tubbs was a very good heavyweight as is the case with Pinklon Thomas, Trevor Berbick and Tyrell Biggs all of whom Tyson beat very impressively.
That's not counting guys like Carl Williams, Frank Bruno, Alex Stewart, Frans Botha and Lou Savarese...so you see, he knocked out plenty of quality heavies, but being that that is the question...what quality fighters has Lennox Lewis knocked out?
As to Holmes fighting during the weakest period, well the current crop of heavyweights are the weakest in hsitory. Holmes was in the exact same boat as Tyson and Lewis when it comes to quality of opposition!
For the record, Spinks was a genuine heavyweight, that's what it's called when a fighter moves up beyond the 175 and 190 divisions, of which Spinks had four prior bouts at heavyweight, beating another great in Holmes twice! But if you want to use that argument, Holyfield was not a genuine heavyweight either, Holyfield, the bouts that were the defining moments of Lewis' career and two fights that Lewis did not look overly impressive in...at least Tyson blasted out the smaller men in impressive fashion!
I just read where you stated that Holmes may be a top 40...which that just speaks completely for itself without needing comment! Perhaps the Holmes that fought Butterbean would be top 40, but the prime Larry Holmes was top ten!
Well if you say Biggs was a good heavyweight he got stopped by Lewis in 3 rounds and by Tyson in 7. He was 27 when Tyson fought in and 31 when Lewis fought him. You could argue that as a heavyweight at 31 he was more in his prime when he fought Lewis. But come on he got stopped 18 months after the Tyson fight by Gary Mason. Now if you are saying Gray Mason was a quality world heavyweight you're having a laugh. A top European fighter. He got stopped sorry battered by Lewis. I actually liked Mason and always thought he would have given a better account of himself than Bruno did against Tyson.
Arsenal wrote:Well if you say Biggs was a good heavyweight he got stopped by Lewis in 3 rounds and by Tyson in 7. He was 27 when Tyson fought in and 31 when Lewis fought him. You could argue that as a heavyweight at 31 he was more in his prime when he fought Lewis. But come on he got stopped 18 months after the Tyson fight by Gary Mason. Now if you are saying Gray Mason was a quality world heavyweight you're having a laugh. A top European fighter. He got stopped sorry battered by Lewis. I actually liked Mason and always thought he would have given a better account of himself than Bruno did against Tyson.
Tyson held Biggs up and gave him a beating, he could have stopped Biggs at anytime. He never liked Biggs and even talks after the fight about loving beating the hell out of Biggs.
, and am langford who had several dozen losses himself.