Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

[gilgamesh]

It is interesting how Jack Johnson basically fought all of his toughest competition PRIOR to being the World Champion. It definitely don't happen that way too often, but every now and again it does.

Kinda happened that way with Sonny Liston too.

[HomicideHenry]

It is interesting how Jack Johnson basically fought all of his toughest competition PRIOR to being the World Champion. It definitely don't happen that way too often, but every now and again it does.

Kinda happened that way with Sonny Liston too.

I can think of an example where a fighter fought superior opponents after he was champion and that was Floyd Patterson. His opponents list following his career as champion was superior to anything when he was champion or prior.

[Ambling Alp II]

For what it's worth:

1. Larry Holmes
-IMHO everything that Muhammad Ali could do Larry Holmes did better he just had the misfortune of following a wildly popular champion and was competing in a relatively weak era in history; of all the heavy weights in history this is the man that I think would beat Muhammad Ali the most times.

2. Muhammad Ali
-He's the measuring stick by which all other heavyweights are compared but he wasn't this unbeatable Superman figure that the fan boys make him out to be; the 1960s version was faster but wasn't a complete fighter as he was so quick he could get away with mistakes, the 1970s version I find to be a bit superior because he learned to adapt to compensate for the loss in speed even though the losses began to pile up but this is also due to the fact that he was finally competing with heavy weights who were in the same pedigree as himself (ie, Frazier & Foreman & Norton, etc).

3. Evander Holyfield
-Greatest Cruiserweight of all-time who becomes 4x Heavyweight champion who was robbed of being a 5x Heavyweight champion. IMHO he had not only great conditioning and amazing self-belief he was very tough with good power and good skills. I think he could have got wins over Ali and Holmes, and would have defeated the vast majority of heavyweight champions in history.

4. Lennox Lewis
-Greatest European Heavyweight champion, Greatest British Heavyweight champion, he certainly the greatest big man in heavyweight history being three-time heavyweight champion and avenging all of his losses. He had very fast hands for his size and hit hard but had an excellent mind for boxing as a science though he could dig down deep and brawl it out if he had to.

5. Joe Louis
-25 title defenses over the course of nearly 12 years. I will never forget my grandfather saying that this man was the greatest fighting machine from the waist up he had ever seen and my grandfather saw basically every champion from Jack Dempsey to Lennox Lewis. More so than any other figure in boxing was the most beloved athlete in the sports history. His record is literally a Who's Who of boxing: Carnera, Baer, Schmeling, Braddock, Walcott, Charles, Conn, Lewis, Marciano, etc. Only old age prevented him from further success.

6. George Foreman
-The first incarnation was a seemingly indestructible brutal puncher who flattened everybody but Muhammad Ali and Jimmy Young. He becomes a born again Christian leaving the ring for a decade only to return as a more savvy boxer puncher who regains the title nearly 20 years to the day after losing it. Either version of George Foreman was difficult to defeat because he either blew you away or he outlasted you because he had a chin made out of cast iron steel.

7. Wladimir Klitschko
- Although he fought in a weak era of heavyweights it can't be ignored that the man had a title reign much like Larry Holmes and Joe Louis; his imposing size and physical conditioning along with his willingness to learn and adapt and improve would have made him a difficult assignment for any heavyweight in history.

8. Vitali Klitschko
-Considered by many still to this day to be the better brother I rank him slightly lower because he wasn't the unified or undisputed champion. That being said his imposing size and conditioning and toughness along with tremendous punching power would have made him a difficult assignment for any heavyweight in history.

9. Tyson Fury
-6'9" 260+ switch hitter with not only a brilliant mind in the ring but with very good hand and foot speed, the Gypsy King has essentially been the man to beat since 2015; his earlier career he demonstrated great boxing ability and mobility, his later career he demonstrated heart and toughness as well as solid punching power. His greatest strength has been his ability to adapt and change styles and he would have been problematic for any heavyweight in history.

10. Rocky Marciano
-Perhaps a sentimental favorite of mine but I tend to believe at his best he would have defeated Joe Louis at his best and that he was better than Joe Frazier, and I think he would have defeated Muhammad Ali at different times in his career. I think he was better than Jack Dempsey and without question he was the best conditioned heavyweight of all time who's work rate only increased as the fight went on rather than decrease. He wouldn't have been able to do much with the big men on this list, but virtually every heavyweight from the 2000s and prior I think he either would have defeated or he would have narrowly lost to.

Just Outside...

11. Mike Tyson
-He probably could have defeated Rocky Marciano and Joe Louis but the fact remains that Mike Tyson's prime was extremely short. I can't see him doing anything with the prime Larry Holmes or the prime Muhammad Ali, and I don't think anyone with a swarming style could have ever defeated George Foreman. And let's face it Mike Tyson struggled with tall heavyweights as well. Because his prime was so short and he largely lived off the notoriety of his name fighting mostly B-grade opponents following Buster Douglas, I can't see him being higher than this right here although I do think it probably in his prime he potentially could have defeated Lennox Lewis.

Not sure if I have ever saw a Top 10 hw list that bad. Three of these guys (who all happen to have a couple of things in common) have business being in there at all.

Holmes did everything that Ali did but better? I know you hate Ali but come on.

Joe Frazier didn't make the list? Joe Frazier?
No Jack Johnson either?
They do have something in common that may have prevented them from the making it.

[HomicideHenry]

For what it's worth:

1. Larry Holmes
-IMHO everything that Muhammad Ali could do Larry Holmes did better he just had the misfortune of following a wildly popular champion and was competing in a relatively weak era in history; of all the heavy weights in history this is the man that I think would beat Muhammad Ali the most times.

2. Muhammad Ali
-He's the measuring stick by which all other heavyweights are compared but he wasn't this unbeatable Superman figure that the fan boys make him out to be; the 1960s version was faster but wasn't a complete fighter as he was so quick he could get away with mistakes, the 1970s version I find to be a bit superior because he learned to adapt to compensate for the loss in speed even though the losses began to pile up but this is also due to the fact that he was finally competing with heavy weights who were in the same pedigree as himself (ie, Frazier & Foreman & Norton, etc).

3. Evander Holyfield
-Greatest Cruiserweight of all-time who becomes 4x Heavyweight champion who was robbed of being a 5x Heavyweight champion. IMHO he had not only great conditioning and amazing self-belief he was very tough with good power and good skills. I think he could have got wins over Ali and Holmes, and would have defeated the vast majority of heavyweight champions in history.

4. Lennox Lewis
-Greatest European Heavyweight champion, Greatest British Heavyweight champion, he certainly the greatest big man in heavyweight history being three-time heavyweight champion and avenging all of his losses. He had very fast hands for his size and hit hard but had an excellent mind for boxing as a science though he could dig down deep and brawl it out if he had to.

5. Joe Louis
-25 title defenses over the course of nearly 12 years. I will never forget my grandfather saying that this man was the greatest fighting machine from the waist up he had ever seen and my grandfather saw basically every champion from Jack Dempsey to Lennox Lewis. More so than any other figure in boxing was the most beloved athlete in the sports history. His record is literally a Who's Who of boxing: Carnera, Baer, Schmeling, Braddock, Walcott, Charles, Conn, Lewis, Marciano, etc. Only old age prevented him from further success.

6. George Foreman
-The first incarnation was a seemingly indestructible brutal puncher who flattened everybody but Muhammad Ali and Jimmy Young. He becomes a born again Christian leaving the ring for a decade only to return as a more savvy boxer puncher who regains the title nearly 20 years to the day after losing it. Either version of George Foreman was difficult to defeat because he either blew you away or he outlasted you because he had a chin made out of cast iron steel.

7. Wladimir Klitschko
- Although he fought in a weak era of heavyweights it can't be ignored that the man had a title reign much like Larry Holmes and Joe Louis; his imposing size and physical conditioning along with his willingness to learn and adapt and improve would have made him a difficult assignment for any heavyweight in history.

8. Vitali Klitschko
-Considered by many still to this day to be the better brother I rank him slightly lower because he wasn't the unified or undisputed champion. That being said his imposing size and conditioning and toughness along with tremendous punching power would have made him a difficult assignment for any heavyweight in history.

9. Tyson Fury
-6'9" 260+ switch hitter with not only a brilliant mind in the ring but with very good hand and foot speed, the Gypsy King has essentially been the man to beat since 2015; his earlier career he demonstrated great boxing ability and mobility, his later career he demonstrated heart and toughness as well as solid punching power. His greatest strength has been his ability to adapt and change styles and he would have been problematic for any heavyweight in history.

10. Rocky Marciano
-Perhaps a sentimental favorite of mine but I tend to believe at his best he would have defeated Joe Louis at his best and that he was better than Joe Frazier, and I think he would have defeated Muhammad Ali at different times in his career. I think he was better than Jack Dempsey and without question he was the best conditioned heavyweight of all time who's work rate only increased as the fight went on rather than decrease. He wouldn't have been able to do much with the big men on this list, but virtually every heavyweight from the 2000s and prior I think he either would have defeated or he would have narrowly lost to.

Just Outside...

11. Mike Tyson
-He probably could have defeated Rocky Marciano and Joe Louis but the fact remains that Mike Tyson's prime was extremely short. I can't see him doing anything with the prime Larry Holmes or the prime Muhammad Ali, and I don't think anyone with a swarming style could have ever defeated George Foreman. And let's face it Mike Tyson struggled with tall heavyweights as well. Because his prime was so short and he largely lived off the notoriety of his name fighting mostly B-grade opponents following Buster Douglas, I can't see him being higher than this right here although I do think it probably in his prime he potentially could have defeated Lennox Lewis.

Not sure if I have ever saw a Top 10 hw list that bad. Three of these guys (who all happen to have a couple of things in common) have business being in there at all.

Holmes did everything that Ali did but better? I know you hate Ali but come on.

Joe Frazier didn't make the list? Joe Frazier?
No Jack Johnson either?
They do have something in common that may have prevented them from the making it.

Much of my list depends on how well I think fighters from the past would have done with the likes of Muhammad Ali and I can't see Jack Johnson being able to do much with him or quite frankly any heavyweight of the past 75 or 80 years.

Johnson's success was largely dependent on the fact that he was fighting much smaller men or limited opposition who only were noteworthy because they happen to be a White Hope. His resume prior to becoming champion was pretty damn good but his championship reign I can't really rank too highly, considering he avoided every black challenger of consequence just like his predecessors before him.

Though the Jack Johnson era or the white hope era was quite a marketable time in history let's make no mistake it was one of the weakest in heavyweight history when top challengers were guys like Fireman Jim Flynn.

As for Joe Frazier other than the Ali fights there is very little that necessarily stands out to me that screams "all-time great", considering his championship reign consisted mostly of weak title challengers and he arguably lost the first time to Oscar Bonavena. He never did fight Ken Norton and he was obliterated twice by George Foreman. Maybe the only great win of his career was Jerry Quarry. I'm sure you will bring up Buster Mathis or Jimmy Ellis, but the former was an undisciplined heavyweight who ballooned well over 300 pounds quite often and the latter was a middleweight who was best known for being Ali's sparring partner more than anything else.

Furthermore I know your condescending remark was some implication of racism which is ridiculous considering the vast majority of my list consisted of black heavyweights. No I can't see the 5 ft 11 Joe Frazier being able to do anything with these modern heavyweights who would just uppercut him to death. Or Jack Johnson with that turn of the 20th century style being able to do much with the heavyweights of today either.

Mind you if I did make a bigger list they would make the top 15 let alone top 20, and one can make an argument that even the number 20 ranked a guy had the capability of beating one of the top five ranked guys at least once in a series. For example I did not include Riddick Bowe on my list, largely because his prime was way too short but I do think he was fully capable of defeating the Klitschko brothers who I do rank in the top 10.

There's a lot of guys who are not in the top 10 of my rankings who were more than capable of beating the guys in my top 10 rankings but I don't think they would win a series and quite frankly they're accomplishments overall is simply not as impressive as the guys in the top 10.

Take for example Mike Tyson who I don't rank in the top 10 I can make an argument that Joe Frazier would have beaten Mike Tyson because he was mentally stronger than Mike, but overall I have to rank Tyson slightly ahead of Joe because quite frankly Mike Tyson not only was a better over all around fighter than Joe skill-wise but his wins and accomplishments were better than Joe's. Tyson's path to the heavyweight title was not only faster but was against better opposition and his title defenses were largely better than Joe's. Take Muhammad Ali out of the equation from Joe's record and it's pretty hard to argue that Frazier was really a top 10 guy.

And yes I stand by my statement that Larry Holmes was better than Muhammad Ali. He would have had the most success against Muhammad Ali than anyone else because he knew exactly what Ali did and he would not have been psyched out by Ali either. His jab was superior to Ali's and unlike Ali he could dig down deep and fight back hard and unlike Ali he was a boxer puncher. He had an amazing ring IQ and was quite the general in the ring, with tremendous conditioning and very good hand and foot speed himself. Whether it be the 1960s or 1970s version of Muhammad Ali he would have had his hands more than full with Larry Holmes.

Just for fun what is your top 10 list of heavyweights?

[Jaywheel]

Who the hell did the Klits beat? Frazier took the "0" from the man that is consensus #1 or 2 All time HW. That alone puts him above Wlad and Vitali. Holmes #1? What's his defining win or claim? Ali 3x Champ. Frazier the champ beat Ali in the biggest fight, on the biggest stage. Tyson unified the titles by 21, and dispatched easily your #1 (not a prime Holmes I concede).

[HomicideHenry]

As I explained my top 10 list is also how I think people would fare against each other head-to-head and I can't see the 5'11" Joe Frazier being able to do much with these heavyweights 6'6"-6'9" 245-275+ who actually are skillful and athletic with great minds in the ring. Not just their accomplishments.

Frazier defeating men near his own size, but getting destroyed by 6 foot 4, 210-215 pound George Foreman tends to make me think that he would have got uppercutted relentlessly by the Klitschko brothers. Never mind the fact he probably would have been clinched to death.

[gilgamesh]

As I explained my top 10 list is also how I think people would fare against each other head-to-head and I can't see the 5'11" Joe Frazier being able to do much with these heavyweights 6'6"-6'9" 245-275+ who actually are skillful and athletic with great minds in the ring. Not just their accomplishments.

Frazier defeating men near his own size, but getting destroyed by 6 foot 4, 210-215 pound George Foreman tends to make me think that he would have got uppercutted relentlessly by the Klitschko brothers. Never mind the fact he probably would have been clinched to death.

Even if he would've got beaten by them he definitely would've have gotten "uppercutted relentlessly by the Klitschko brothers"

in Wlad's rematch with Sam Peter, Peter spent ALL NIGHT ducking down into uppercut range, I was screaming at the television 'Uppercut that f*cking dude. He's wide open for it'.

He never threw uppercut 1 until Round 10, and when he did he knocked Samuel Peter out a few minutes later.

Wlad has a good uppercut, but he did not exactly bust loose with it all that often.

[HomicideHenry]

As I explained my top 10 list is also how I think people would fare against each other head-to-head and I can't see the 5'11" Joe Frazier being able to do much with these heavyweights 6'6"-6'9" 245-275+ who actually are skillful and athletic with great minds in the ring. Not just their accomplishments.

Frazier defeating men near his own size, but getting destroyed by 6 foot 4, 210-215 pound George Foreman tends to make me think that he would have got uppercutted relentlessly by the Klitschko brothers. Never mind the fact he probably would have been clinched to death.

Even if he would've got beaten by them he definitely would've have gotten "uppercutted relentlessly by the Klitschko brothers"

in Wlad's rematch with Sam Peter, Peter spent ALL NIGHT ducking down into uppercut range, I was screaming at the television 'Uppercut that f*cking dude. He's wide open for it'.

He never threw uppercut 1 until Round 10, and when he did he knocked Samuel Peter out a few minutes later.

Wlad has a good uppercut, but he did not exactly bust loose with it all that often.

Perhaps, but you know if Vladimir was shy with the uppercut Vitali wouldn't have been shy with it. That's why I said Klitschko brothers instead of one or the other because one brother was more aggressive than the other. That being said I still can't see Joe Frazier being able to get close enough to do much damage to Vladimir.

[Ambling Alp II]

Who the hell did the Klits beat? Frazier took the "0" from the man that is consensus #1 or 2 All time HW. That alone puts him above Wlad and Vitali. Holmes #1? What's his defining win or claim? Ali 3x Champ. Frazier the champ beat Ali in the biggest fight, on the biggest stage. Tyson unified the titles by 21, and dispatched easily your #1 (not a prime Holmes I concede).

They didn't beat anyone that good. Notice that homicide didn't start naming names.

Love the outside of Ali, what did Frazier do? Why do people try to take out the biggest win of someone's career? It's stupid.
Frazier did also beat Quarry 2x, Bonavena 2x, Ellis 2x.
Love the argument that Frazier would struggle with guys just because of their size. Look at the Buster Mathis fight. And could actually move.

Henry loves his white guys. always has. No way in the world Wladimir or Fury should be close the Top 20. Why would Vitaly be in the Top 50? Why should he be ranked a head of say Witherspoon or Thomas or Tony Tubbs?

Jack Johnson was clearly a top 10 hw. Would have been nice if he had defended the title against Langford, McVey or Jeannette. He would probably be even higher if he did. But he did beat those guys before he won the title. Even with the poor film quality, it's obvious that he had a lot of skill.

Ali was clearly better in the 1960s than the 1970s. Not arguable. The Ali from 1970-1975 or Holmes is close. The Ali from 1964-1967 was obviously better. Could do anything Holmes could and was much faster on his feet and hand speed.

[Ambling Alp II]

Doubt anyone would have the same top 10. There are several guys that are very close.

It should be something like this:

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

Ali is the clear #1. Louis is the clear #2. #3-#8 are all close. Tyson or Liston being just in the top 10 instead of Dempsey and/or Marciano. Nobody else has a case for the Top 10.

[HomicideHenry]

Who the hell did the Klits beat? Frazier took the "0" from the man that is consensus #1 or 2 All time HW. That alone puts him above Wlad and Vitali. Holmes #1? What's his defining win or claim? Ali 3x Champ. Frazier the champ beat Ali in the biggest fight, on the biggest stage. Tyson unified the titles by 21, and dispatched easily your #1 (not a prime Holmes I concede).

They didn't beat anyone that good. Notice that homicide didn't start naming names.

Love the outside of Ali, what did Frazier do? Why do people try to take out the biggest win of someone's career? It's stupid.
Frazier did also beat Quarry 2x, Bonavena 2x, Ellis 2x.
Love the argument that Frazier would struggle with guys just because of their size. Look at the Buster Mathis fight. And could actually move.

Henry loves his white guys. always has. No way in the world Wladimir or Fury should be close the Top 20. Why would Vitaly be in the Top 50? Why should he be ranked a head of say Witherspoon or Thomas or Tony Tubbs?

Jack Johnson was clearly a top 10 hw. Would have been nice if he had defended the title against Langford, McVey or Jeannette. He would probably be even higher if he did. But he did beat those guys before he won the title. Even with the poor film quality, it's obvious that he had a lot of skill.

Ali was clearly better in the 1960s than the 1970s. Not arguable. The Ali from 1970-1975 or Holmes is close. The Ali from 1964-1967 was obviously better. Could do anything Holmes could and was much faster on his feet and hand speed.

Has nothing to do with heavyweights being white especially when six out of 10 of my top 10 are black.

Again I base a lot of it on the fact that I don't think a lot of these guys from the 1980s and prior could do much with the best of boxing's big men. It might sound blasphemous to people but Chris Byrd, for example, was basically in the mold of Jimmy Young who many of the heavyweights of the 1970s struggled with & both Klitschko brothers had basically no issues against him.

It's not necessarily who these people have beaten as much as it is their physicality and abilities are such that I believe they could have easily bridged the gap in quality. If the 1960s and 1970s is the best ERA in heavyweight history it's very difficult for me to see men who were not much bigger than light heavy weights being able to do much with these athletic giants who have good hand and foot speed combined with having solid ring IQs.

The axiom is almost always true that a good little man will lose to a good big man and let's face it these days someone 6'2 and 200 lb is considered small. Whether people like it or not these modern heavyweights would have been problematic for the likes of Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis, because quite frankly they never fought anyone who was a combination of not only size and power but skills and athleticism and ring smarts.

It's apples and oranges to believe Jack Dempsey fighting a lumbering Jess Willard would have had the same success against Tyson Fury. That being said I might say Jack Dempsey has the best chance of the Old Timers to make a successful transition in today's heavyweight scene even though I think he would be a Cruiserweight at best in this day and age.

If David Haye, 6 ft 3 and 220 lb, with all his hand and foot speed could not land a single punch of consequence on Vladimir Klitschko it's very difficult for me to believe that Joe Frazier who was much slower and smaller could have done anything. When I do my rankings list it's envisioning hypothetical head-to-head matchups as well not just accomplishments.

If it was strictly based on accomplishments and quality opposition then my list would look radically different but that is not how I based my list entirely. It's all based primarily on who could have beaten who and I have yet to hear a serious argument from Alp or anyone else that the vast majority of these guys prior to the 1990s could have done much with Lennox Lewis or the Klitschko brothers or Tyson Fury.

[Ambling Alp II]

You have 6; you should have more. If you had 6 white guys in your all0time basketball list it would racist as well. Your track record on boxrec gave you away a long time ago.

Leaving out Joe Frazier and Jack Johnson is absurd. Putting in the Klitschkos and Fury in the Top 10 is absurd.

Love the argument that Frazier is too short. He was the same height as Tyson and was taller than Marciano, whom you have in there.

The Klitschkos had no issues with Chris Byrd? You do realize that Byrd beat Vitaly. (Not interested in excuses.)
Byrd was not as good as Jimmy Young.
You have never head a serious argument why fighters before the 1990s are better than guys nowadays? Maybe try watching the fights. Might be a reason why there have been so many bad fights and not a great hw fight in decades.
,
You yourself have Foreman Holmes, Ali and Louis in your top 10. All fought before the 1990s.

The mere fact that ancient Foreman and ancient Holmes did as well as they did in the 1990s when they were way past their best. That alone should make you think that maybe guys before the the 1990s could fight.

[HomicideHenry]

Alp... I can't change your mind on me being not a racist person even though my fiance is Persian because all you see is Trump voter next to my name and everybody knows your track record with labeling people perpetually forever as being racist or bigoted just because they don't vote the way you do.

The basketball comparison is ridiculous considering there are far more athletes on the court than there is in a boxing ring so by proxy there are far more people to weed out than in boxing when doing all time ratings for basketball. I think the only white guy I can think of who would be in the top 10 in NBA history would be Larry Bird.

Why you are fixated on race I have no idea but it's something that you need to be deprogrammed from because it just makes you a really cynical man with really horrible attitudes because you live in a prism of color.

Rocky Marciano is on my top 10 primarily because Muhammad Ali himself said that Marciano was superior to Joe Frazier and even Joe Frazier himself rated Rocky Marciano as the number two heavyweight of all time behind Joe Louis. I think Marciano and Frazier and Tyson are all listed as 5'11" although I tend to believe that Mike Tyson was actually shorter than that. Joe Frazier beyond his conditioning and toughness was essentially a one-armed fighter who was relatively easy to hit. Again outside of Muhammad Ali can you really point it out to me that he really was so great? I don't think knocking out the glass jawed former light heavyweight champion Bob Foster really qualifies as being an all-time great, and outside of Muhammad Ali that is really the only quality win that he had while as champion.

Vitali quit because of a shoulder injury although he was very far ahead in the score cards against Byrd. Neither of the Klitschko's struggled with him. I don't care if it sounds ridiculous to you Byrd was in that elusive patty cake slap shot style that Jimmy young did and in my opinion Byrd was a bit more impressive considering he was taking on far more bigger men than Jimmy Young did.

I know you don't want to let go of anything or admit anything but all of these guys were so incredibly small in comparison to guys today Alp, they would not be heavyweights today and if they were they would be far more slower and lethargic because of the extra poundage they would have to put on to qualify as heavyweights today (210+). Dempsey and Marciano were in the 180's, Louis was in the 190's, Ali and Frazier at their best were 200'ish.

The guys in the 1990s and prior were certainly more athletic and more graceful and pleasing to watch on film than heavyweights today because they were more smaller, but you forget that they were also competing against men who were just as small and light as they were 99 out of 100 and what big men they did face were just big lumps who were basically stationary targets.

I mean seriously make a strong argument that Jess Willard or Abe Simon or Buddy Baer not only would beat the top heavyweights today but would be heavyweight champion today, or hell even Primo Carnera. I will be waiting for that response although I don't think you can make it because you know as well as I do that they were not athletic or skillful giants, even though you love to bring them up anytime a small man beat them when really all they were was a large punching bag for the most part.

I think part of George Foreman and Larry Holmes success in the 1980s and 1990s was largely due to the fact that so many people looked at them as sideshow attractions not taking them seriously, which is why they were able to get the better of men who did not look at them as being credible. Yes it also had to do with those men being great caliber fighters even though they were older, but one can make an argument that George Foreman only became champion due to Michael Moorer's vanity and Holmes never managed to pull the feat off for obvious reasons because he was old.

I reckon I should pose the question to you how well would Holyfield and Tyson and Lewis and Bowe would have done in the 1970s? I can see those men stealing wins off of prime Foreman and prime Holmes and prime Ali and prime Frazier. But maybe you are so nostalgic for the 1970s because that's where you grew up that those guys would have always beaten the 1990s guys.

I never said the guys from the 1990s and prior could not fight of course they could anyone with a functioning brain cell could see that is true. Mind you it was not that long ago I made a thread where it was Muhammad Ali versus Tyson Fury and I said it would take everything that Fury had to negate Ali's strengths, and that it would either end up in a majority decision or split decision for Tyson Fury or it would end up a draw.

So I do give these guys credit and I've already stated that in my view George Foreman and Larry Holmes and Lennox Lewis would have beaten Tyson Fury, but I have the imagination and the willingness to see that styles make fights and that a well-conditioned 6'9 switch hitter with good hand and foot speed and tremendous heart and determination would have been quite problematic for Muhammad Ali.

You just happened to be one of these people who don't think that Muhammad Ali at his peak could have been remotely touched let alone defeated and even Muhammad Ali was more humble than that considering he often said he felt Rocky Marciano could have beaten him.

And I don't know how many times I have to explain this time and again if I was basing things strictly off of accomplishments and quality wins, my list would look a lot more differently but this list is primarily how I think people would fare against each other in matches--- the two things are not the same though in your mind it is. I've known many fighters who had great quality wins but were simply incapable of defeating certain fighters because of their size.

Based on quality wins Tommy Loughran should have never lost to Primo Carnera. That's one example of many I could provide. Having quality wins on a resume is okay but at some point it stops because physics gets in the way. Carnera wasn't anything to scream over either but he won a rather wide decision over the all-time great Loughran.

This is something you can't wrap your mind around. Quality wins and skills against people your own size or near your own size is fine but at some point you have to admit if you're up against a big man with similar skills and abilities or worth that the big man is going to nullify a lot of those skills and abilities that the smaller man has even if the smaller man has an excellent resume.

Otherwise boxing history would show much smaller men defeating big men on such a frequent basis that every horse jockey in the land would put on the boxing gloves because size would be a detriment if you were over a certain height or weight.

Mind you I never once said that the Klitschko brothers or Tyson Fury would just obliterate these guys making it look easy cuz that's not the case. They would be competitive matches and would be hard struggles at times I just tend to believe that they would have given the old timers all they could handle, because they have the athleticism and the heart and desire to dig down deep and fight back harder and to improve and adapt just like those all time great heavyweights of the past.

Lastly I would remind you just because people are competing in a relatively weak era doesn't mean that they couldn't have fought and been competitive with men in much tougher eras. There might be some trade off because the old time fighters were battle ready at all times and hardened by constant competition, but I think the athleticism and the size differentials and less wear and tear of fighters today might very well bridge the gap.

A lot of fighters back in the old days fought on much longer than they should have and were competing against other men who fought on much longer than they should have which gave the appearance of having long primes, when the truth was everybody was so worn down physically they were all on level playing fields. One ought to do a thread on when people should have retired.

Like I said on the Tyson Fury fight by fight thread if Tyson Fury is able to comfortably beat Usyk it will give ample evidence in my view that Tyson Fury could have fought and defeated the likes of Evander Holyfield and others considering Usyk is in the same stratosphere of greatness as those type of guys considering his tremendous amateur pedigree and accomplishments being undisputed cruiserweight champion and defeating one of the top three heavyweights in the world not once but twice rather easily. It won't come easy for Tyson Fury because this certainly is the best challenge he will face as a professional at least on paper but if he's able to defeat the Ukrainian it's going to be harder and harder for nostalgic boxing fans like yourself to make a solid argument that men smaller than Usyk could do the job against Fury.

[Sweet Dick Willie]

Shit man, you voted for Trump?

[Ambling Alp II]

Alp... I can't change your mind on me being not a racist person even though my fiance is Persian because all you see is Trump voter next to my name and everybody knows your track record with labeling people perpetually forever as being racist or bigoted just because they don't vote the way you do.

The basketball comparison is ridiculous considering there are far more athletes on the court than there is in a boxing ring so by proxy there are far more people to weed out than in boxing when doing all time ratings for basketball. I think the only white guy I can think of who would be in the top 10 in NBA history would be Larry Bird.

Why you are fixated on race I have no idea but it's something that you need to be deprogrammed from because it just makes you a really cynical man with really horrible attitudes because you live in a prism of color.

Rocky Marciano is on my top 10 primarily because Muhammad Ali himself said that Marciano was superior to Joe Frazier and even Joe Frazier himself rated Rocky Marciano as the number two heavyweight of all time behind Joe Louis. I think Marciano and Frazier and Tyson are all listed as 5'11" although I tend to believe that Mike Tyson was actually shorter than that. Joe Frazier beyond his conditioning and toughness was essentially a one-armed fighter who was relatively easy to hit. Again outside of Muhammad Ali can you really point it out to me that he really was so great? I don't think knocking out the glass jawed former light heavyweight champion Bob Foster really qualifies as being an all-time great, and outside of Muhammad Ali that is really the only quality win that he had while as champion.

Vitali quit because of a shoulder injury although he was very far ahead in the score cards against Byrd. Neither of the Klitschko's struggled with him. I don't care if it sounds ridiculous to you Byrd was in that elusive patty cake slap shot style that Jimmy young did and in my opinion Byrd was a bit more impressive considering he was taking on far more bigger men than Jimmy Young did.

I know you don't want to let go of anything or admit anything but all of these guys were so incredibly small in comparison to guys today Alp, they would not be heavyweights today and if they were they would be far more slower and lethargic because of the extra poundage they would have to put on to qualify as heavyweights today (210+). Dempsey and Marciano were in the 180's, Louis was in the 190's, Ali and Frazier at their best were 200'ish.

The guys in the 1990s and prior were certainly more athletic and more graceful and pleasing to watch on film than heavyweights today because they were more smaller, but you forget that they were also competing against men who were just as small and light as they were 99 out of 100 and what big men they did face were just big lumps who were basically stationary targets.

I mean seriously make a strong argument that Jess Willard or Abe Simon or Buddy Baer not only would beat the top heavyweights today but would be heavyweight champion today, or hell even Primo Carnera. I will be waiting for that response although I don't think you can make it because you know as well as I do that they were not athletic or skillful giants, even though you love to bring them up anytime a small man beat them when really all they were was a large punching bag for the most part.

I think part of George Foreman and Larry Holmes success in the 1980s and 1990s was largely due to the fact that so many people looked at them as sideshow attractions not taking them seriously, which is why they were able to get the better of men who did not look at them as being credible. Yes it also had to do with those men being great caliber fighters even though they were older, but one can make an argument that George Foreman only became champion due to Michael Moorer's vanity and Holmes never managed to pull the feat off for obvious reasons because he was old.

I reckon I should pose the question to you how well would Holyfield and Tyson and Lewis and Bowe would have done in the 1970s? I can see those men stealing wins off of prime Foreman and prime Holmes and prime Ali and prime Frazier. But maybe you are so nostalgic for the 1970s because that's where you grew up that those guys would have always beaten the 1990s guys.

I never said the guys from the 1990s and prior could not fight of course they could anyone with a functioning brain cell could see that is true. Mind you it was not that long ago I made a thread where it was Muhammad Ali versus Tyson Fury and I said it would take everything that Fury had to negate Ali's strengths, and that it would either end up in a majority decision or split decision for Tyson Fury or it would end up a draw.

So I do give these guys credit and I've already stated that in my view George Foreman and Larry Holmes and Lennox Lewis would have beaten Tyson Fury, but I have the imagination and the willingness to see that styles make fights and that a well-conditioned 6'9 switch hitter with good hand and foot speed and tremendous heart and determination would have been quite problematic for Muhammad Ali.

You just happened to be one of these people who don't think that Muhammad Ali at his peak could have been remotely touched let alone defeated and even Muhammad Ali was more humble than that considering he often said he felt Rocky Marciano could have beaten him.

And I don't know how many times I have to explain this time and again if I was basing things strictly off of accomplishments and quality wins, my list would look a lot more differently but this list is primarily how I think people would fare against each other in matches--- the two things are not the same though in your mind it is. I've known many fighters who had great quality wins but were simply incapable of defeating certain fighters because of their size.

Based on quality wins Tommy Loughran should have never lost to Primo Carnera. That's one example of many I could provide. Having quality wins on a resume is okay but at some point it stops because physics gets in the way. Carnera wasn't anything to scream over either but he won a rather wide decision over the all-time great Loughran.

This is something you can't wrap your mind around. Quality wins and skills against people your own size or near your own size is fine but at some point you have to admit if you're up against a big man with similar skills and abilities or worth that the big man is going to nullify a lot of those skills and abilities that the smaller man has even if the smaller man has an excellent resume.

Otherwise boxing history would show much smaller men defeating big men on such a frequent basis that every horse jockey in the land would put on the boxing gloves because size would be a detriment if you were over a certain height or weight.

Mind you I never once said that the Klitschko brothers or Tyson Fury would just obliterate these guys making it look easy cuz that's not the case. They would be competitive matches and would be hard struggles at times I just tend to believe that they would have given the old timers all they could handle, because they have the athleticism and the heart and desire to dig down deep and fight back harder and to improve and adapt just like those all time great heavyweights of the past.

Lastly I would remind you just because people are competing in a relatively weak era doesn't mean that they couldn't have fought and been competitive with men in much tougher eras. There might be some trade off because the old time fighters were battle ready at all times and hardened by constant competition, but I think the athleticism and the size differentials and less wear and tear of fighters today might very well bridge the gap.

A lot of fighters back in the old days fought on much longer than they should have and were competing against other men who fought on much longer than they should have which gave the appearance of having long primes, when the truth was everybody was so worn down physically they were all on level playing fields. One ought to do a thread on when people should have retired.

Like I said on the Tyson Fury fight by fight thread if Tyson Fury is able to comfortably beat Usyk it will give ample evidence in my view that Tyson Fury could have fought and defeated the likes of Evander Holyfield and others considering Usyk is in the same stratosphere of greatness as those type of guys considering his tremendous amateur pedigree and accomplishments being undisputed cruiserweight champion and defeating one of the top three heavyweights in the world not once but twice rather easily. It won't come easy for Tyson Fury because this certainly is the best challenge he will face as a professional at least on paper but if he's able to defeat the Ukrainian it's going to be harder and harder for nostalgic boxing fans like yourself to make a solid argument that men smaller than Usyk could do the job against Fury.

As saad would have done,:

[Cojimar 1946]

Numbers can easily be inflated in boxing. you can always find an opponent to beat. The sheer amount of titles defenses means nothing.

Klitschko was stopped by three fighters who were not even ranked. That alone eliminates Klitschko.
Name one great heavyweight who this happened to.

Tyson also beat better opponents. It's not even close.

Head to head, Klitschko would be lucky to get out of the 1st round.

Holyfield lost to guys in his prime who did very little aside from beating him in their careers so did Lennox Lewis. Without Holyfield in his resume Bowe might not crack the top 70 and Moorer is likely outside the top 200. That's how horrendous their resumes are. Wladimir is far from the only guy with bad losses

[Ambling Alp II]

Klitschko had 3 bad losses. All were stoppages. Holyfield had 1 and he went the distance.
Moorer was better than Purrity, Brewster and Sanders.
Lewis lost only two, and got a lot of flack over it. McCall and Rahman were better than the guys Klitschko lost to.
Bowe was much better than the 70th best fighter. If Bowe never fought Holyfield, he should still be rated higher than Klitschko.

Take a look at these guys:
Ali
Louis
Foreman
Johnson
Frazier
Holmes
Holyfield
Lewis
Marciano
Dempsey
Tyson
Liston
Jeffries
Bowe
Charles
Walcott
Norton
Patterson
Langford
Wills
Jeannette
McVey
Schmeling
Sharkey
Baer

All 25 have a better victims list than Wladimir Klitschko.
None of them were stopped three times close to their prime like he was.
He doesn't deserve to be ranked ahead of any of them.

[Controversial]

Klitschko had 3 bad losses. All were stoppages.
Moorer was better than Purrity, Brewster and Sanders.

None of them were stopped three times close to their prime like he was.
He doesn't deserve to be ranked ahead of any of them.

Klitschko did change as a fighter later though and once he became more defensive he was more effective. Dull but effective. For me he proves the point the size makes a difference at HW if you know how to use it, he wasn't a great fighter but he became hard to beat. And to be fair they weren't great fighters he lost too but they were big hard hitting fighters, not sub 200lb opponents or guys too small to be HWs today. Lewis found out the hard way it only takes one punch from these big guys to lose at HW.

[Cojimar 1946]

Klitschko had 3 bad losses. All were stoppages. Holyfield had 1 and he went the distance.
Moorer was better than Purrity, Brewster and Sanders.
Lewis lost only two, and got a lot of flack over it. McCall and Rahman were better than the guys Klitschko lost to.
Bowe was much better than the 70th best fighter. If Bowe never fought Holyfield, he should still be rated higher than Klitschko.

Take a look at these guys:
Ali
Louis
Foreman
Johnson
Frazier
Holmes
Holyfield
Lewis
Marciano
Dempsey
Tyson
Liston
Jeffries
Bowe
Charles
Walcott
Norton
Patterson
Langford
Wills
Jeannette
McVey
Schmeling
Sharkey
Baer

All 25 have a better victims list than Wladimir Klitschko.
None of them were stopped three times close to their prime like he was.
He doesn't deserve to be ranked ahead of any of them.

Resume wise Bowe has very little besides Holyfield. You can choose to believe he is better than his resume indicates but the fact is he didn't accomplish much outside of beating Holyfield sort of like the guys who beat Klitschko but not quite as extreme.

Bowes best wins outside of Holyfield are probably a faded Tubbs and Andrew Golota. You seriously see those as impressive wins?

[DrDuke]

If Bowe never fought Holyfield, he should still be rated higher than Klitschko.

[HomicideHenry]

If Bowe never fought Holyfield, he should still be rated higher than Klitschko.

The shell of Michael Dokes, who was not only well passed his prime but had battled drug addiction for many years and the tubby (pardon the pun) Tony Tubbs are pretty much the only names of consequence that stick out on Bowe's record. Pinklon Thomas, also, was on the decline because one fight later he was knocked out in one round by Tommy Morrison.

All of those men who fought Riddick Bowe would have lost to the Klitschko brothers. Even in their primes I don't think they would have been able to do much with the Klitschko brothers either. Without the Holyfield fights Bowe has one of the weakest resumes I have ever seen of a world heavyweight champion.

If one is to argue his case for being ranked higher than the Klitschko brothers it has to be on the basis of a hypothetical head-to-head matchup rather than his resume. Because record wise it's simply not there, especially when you consider Vladimir Klitschko was WBO champion 2x's, and the consensus heavyweight champion of the world for 8 years with 20 some odd title defenses.

The over-the-hill trio of Dokes, Tubbs and Thomas were the best that Bowe fought and I would venture to say comfortably that Ruslan Chagaev, Sultan Ibragimov, and David Haye alone were superior wins for Wladimir Klitschko.

Who else does Bowe have? Biggs? Cooper? Hide? I think Peter, Brewster and Rahman either are better wins or are comparable worth. Gonzales? Donald? I think Byrd and Thompson are better wins or comparable worth.

So, I think Alp is pretty wrong about this.

[funso banjo baby]

Wlad was utterly dominant while being methodical and cautious ie not entertaining. He can't be accused of avoiding anyone but his opps weren't always very good and the three biggest challengers were Solis (who was so fat he broke his leg immediately) Haye ( who was awful) and Povetkin (where Wlad spoiled and bottled it)

Very little compares with the early Tyson career , but thats maybe the point, they were two polar opposite careers. Tyson came out like a train from the age of 16 while Wlad took a long long time to mature into a goat.

[Jaywheel]

The most telling fights against Wlad are the Sanders one and the 1st Peter fight. To claim that Tyson or Frazier would not find that chin because of their smaller size is ridiculous. Especially considering what it took to put them down in the fights they lost. Every punch that connected from Sanders put Wlad down.

Jess Willard probably wouldn't be champ today, but would Charles Martin be in the 40's?, 60's? It's easy to pick weak champs from an era to try and prove a point. Yeah Buddy Baer might struggle with Fury, what happens when Stiverne faces Louis or Marciano?

[Ambling Alp II]

Exactly.

[Ambling Alp II]

If Bowe never fought Holyfield, he should still be rated higher than Klitschko.

The shell of Michael Dokes, who was not only well passed his prime but had battled drug addiction for many years and the tubby (pardon the pun) Tony Tubbs are pretty much the only names of consequence that stick out on Bowe's record. Pinklon Thomas, also, was on the decline because one fight later he was knocked out in one round by Tommy Morrison.

All of those men who fought Riddick Bowe would have lost to the Klitschko brothers. Even in their primes I don't think they would have been able to do much with the Klitschko brothers either. Without the Holyfield fights Bowe has one of the weakest resumes I have ever seen of a world heavyweight champion.

If one is to argue his case for being ranked higher than the Klitschko brothers it has to be on the basis of a hypothetical head-to-head matchup rather than his resume. Because record wise it's simply not there, especially when you consider Vladimir Klitschko was WBO champion 2x's, and the consensus heavyweight champion of the world for 8 years with 20 some odd title defenses.

The over-the-hill trio of Dokes, Tubbs and Thomas were the best that Bowe fought and I would venture to say comfortably that Ruslan Chagaev, Sultan Ibragimov, and David Haye alone were superior wins for Wladimir Klitschko.

Who else does Bowe have? Biggs? Cooper? Hide? I think Peter, Brewster and Rahman either are better wins or are comparable worth. Gonzales? Donald? I think Byrd and Thompson are better wins or comparable worth.

So, I think Alp is pretty wrong about this.

you don't know that everyone that Bowe beat would have lost to the Klitschkos. Sheer speculation. With Waldimir's glass jaw, anything is possible. Always a chance Vitaly would quit or get cut.

I can just as easily say No one either Klitschko ever beat would have beat Bowe.

How desperate to people have to to prop up the Klitschkos? Peter, Brewster and Rahman Ruslan Chagaev, Sultan Ibragimov, and David Haye were supposedly better than Biggs? Cooper? Hide, Gonzales? Donald? Who cares.

In case you missed it, Wald lost to Purritty, Sanders and Brewster. Bowe beat several guys better than Purrity.
Wald would not have survived the Golota fight. He would have been ko'd before winning on a DQ.
Vitaly lost to Chris Byrd. Couldn't get past the 6th round of a well past it Lewis.

If you want to take out Holyfield (always stupid to take out a fighter's biggest win btw) Bowe was still better.

At least he beat the guys that he was supposed to. No embarrassing losses.