Who Are Your #1 and #2 Heavyweights Of All Time?

[goose 5]

Great thread ! You guys are making terrific arguments and counter arguments.

[p4p1]

If you're gonna go that route. I feel I must point out that Ali wouldn't have lost to McCall or Rahman if he'd fought them both 10 times.

The rematches showed the true levels of Lewis, McCall and Rahman. If to go this way, you can find holes in anybody's career. I also doubt Lewis performing so sh1tty against Doug Jones.

Ali beat Doug Jones.

Lewis had a similar performance to the Doug Jones one with Ray Mercer. A close, hard fought win. Happens to all of 'em.

I agree Lewis showed his superiority in the rematches with McCall and Rahman. That being said, Ali would've never needed a rematch. Rahman and McCall COULDN'T beat Ali. Even if it's 1976 Ali, post Thrilla.

I think it is worth mentioning that at the same age as Ali was when he fought Jones, Lewis was still and amatuer and had just got rolled out of the second round at the Olympics.

[p4p1]

1. Larry Holmes
2. Muhammad Ali

In my opinion everything that Muhammad Ali could do Larry Holmes did it better. He had a far better jab than Muhammad Ali did. He actually could box and punch. Larry also didn't do a lot of unnecessary movements like Muhammad Ali did, bouncing around the ring he could stand in the middle of the ring like Jack Johnson and control the action. Larry Holmes couldn't be psyched out, so I know none of Muhammad Ali's mind games wouldn't have worked against Larry. Larry Holmes was in my mind more dedicated than Muhammad Ali because his work schedule was greater than Muhammad Ali's.

The only knock against Larry Holmes was that there was not that many good or great challengers in his time, but he beat Earnie Shavers twice as well as Ken Norton and he defeated future champions Mike Weaver and Bonecrusher Smith and Trevor Berbick. I have little doubt in my mind he could have fought and defeated the same men that Muhammad Ali did like Frazier and Foreman.

Larry Holmes didn't beat Frazier, Liston or Foreman though did he? That's 3 guys who are Top 10 Heavyweights right there Ali beat them.

Nothing Holmes ever did can eclipse that.

I do personally have Holmes at #3, and I do think he had the ability to be as accomplished as Ali. He just didn't have the opposition.

No but on the basis of everything that he did and there are many examples of his prime on film in which I think he did everything better than Muhammad Ali did and considering the man learned everything basically from Muhammad Ali he took what he learned and tweaked it and made it better. So from my personal opinion he could have beaten Joe Frazier or George Foreman or anyone else that Muhammad Ali ever fought.

If we are going strictly on the basis of who has the best record against the best opposition then you would have Muhammad Ali at number one but that wasn't the question... the question was who do you rate as number one and I rate Larry Holmes as number one because I believe Larry Holmes could have beaten Muhammad Ali and defeated everyone else that Muhammad Ali ever fought.

Homes won a close SD against Norton who was 35 at the time. Holmes was 29 and absolutely in his prime. Can you be so sure that Holmes could have beaten a 30 year old Norton? The evidence might point to no.

[oogiebe]

Ali
Lennox Lewis

[DrDuke]

Larry Holmes didn't beat Frazier, Liston or Foreman though did he? That's 3 guys who are Top 10 Heavyweights right there Ali beat them.

Nothing Holmes ever did can eclipse that.

I do personally have Holmes at #3, and I do think he had the ability to be as accomplished as Ali. He just didn't have the opposition.

No but on the basis of everything that he did and there are many examples of his prime on film in which I think he did everything better than Muhammad Ali did and considering the man learned everything basically from Muhammad Ali he took what he learned and tweaked it and made it better. So from my personal opinion he could have beaten Joe Frazier or George Foreman or anyone else that Muhammad Ali ever fought.

If we are going strictly on the basis of who has the best record against the best opposition then you would have Muhammad Ali at number one but that wasn't the question... the question was who do you rate as number one and I rate Larry Holmes as number one because I believe Larry Holmes could have beaten Muhammad Ali and defeated everyone else that Muhammad Ali ever fought.

Homes won a close SD against Norton who was 35 at the time. Holmes was 29 and absolutely in his prime. Can you be so sure that Holmes could have beaten a 30 year old Norton? The evidence might point to no.

Talking about Norton, our boi Muh deserved the 1-2 score in their trilogy, 0-3 by some opinions.

[gilgamesh]

I don't think so. His first career certainly did not put him top 5. You can make a case for all of them being top 10, sure. Not arguing with that. Just it's also fair enough for them not to be.

If his First career is all there was. No he's not Top 5. Considering he's the only person in the history of the whole goddamn sport to have done what he did in the 90's. Yeah he's Top 5.

His only win of note was Moorer. A fine win but that doesn't make him a lock for top 5 if he's not already a lock.

The very fact that he even got a title shot after a 10 year retirement would be enough to put him at Top 5, but he didn't just get it. He won it.

[gilgamesh]

1. Larry Holmes
2. Muhammad Ali

In my opinion everything that Muhammad Ali could do Larry Holmes did it better. He had a far better jab than Muhammad Ali did. He actually could box and punch. Larry also didn't do a lot of unnecessary movements like Muhammad Ali did, bouncing around the ring he could stand in the middle of the ring like Jack Johnson and control the action. Larry Holmes couldn't be psyched out, so I know none of Muhammad Ali's mind games wouldn't have worked against Larry. Larry Holmes was in my mind more dedicated than Muhammad Ali because his work schedule was greater than Muhammad Ali's.

The only knock against Larry Holmes was that there was not that many good or great challengers in his time, but he beat Earnie Shavers twice as well as Ken Norton and he defeated future champions Mike Weaver and Bonecrusher Smith and Trevor Berbick. I have little doubt in my mind he could have fought and defeated the same men that Muhammad Ali did like Frazier and Foreman.

Larry Holmes didn't beat Frazier, Liston or Foreman though did he? That's 3 guys who are Top 10 Heavyweights right there Ali beat them.

Nothing Holmes ever did can eclipse that.

I do personally have Holmes at #3, and I do think he had the ability to be as accomplished as Ali. He just didn't have the opposition.

No but on the basis of everything that he did and there are many examples of his prime on film in which I think he did everything better than Muhammad Ali did and considering the man learned everything basically from Muhammad Ali he took what he learned and tweaked it and made it better. So from my personal opinion he could have beaten Joe Frazier or George Foreman or anyone else that Muhammad Ali ever fought.

If we are going strictly on the basis of who has the best record against the best opposition then you would have Muhammad Ali at number one but that wasn't the question... the question was who do you rate as number one and I rate Larry Holmes as number one because I believe Larry Holmes could have beaten Muhammad Ali and defeated everyone else that Muhammad Ali ever fought.

To me that makes your ranking all but meaningless. You can't rank people on what if's and maybe's.

You can only rank 'em on what is.

If Larry Holmes had fought Foreman and Frazier he could've beaten 'em you say. Yeah, well if my Aunt had a D*ck she'd be my Uncle, but she doesn't, and she ain't.

The main reason why you can't rank someone on Hypothetical "I think they could've beaten" type stuff, is that...maybe you're wrong. Maybe Foreman and Frazier would've knocked out Holmes.

We'll never know.

I thought Wilder was gonna knock out Fury the 1st time they fought...but he didn't.

I thought Chris Arreola was gonna beat the sh*t out of Bermane Stiverne when they fought....but he didn't.

We can all be wrong any time, and when we're talking about Holmes vs any of the Top Heavyweights that Ali fought. The chances that we could be wrong on the result are high.

I think you'd agree that if Holmes had been prime, and had been going up against Frazier or Foreman those fights would've been pick 'em fights amongst the Boxing experts right?

So if that's the case, we certainly can't claim he'd beat those guys as a foregone conclusion.

[Ezzard]

If his First career is all there was. No he's not Top 5. Considering he's the only person in the history of the whole goddamn sport to have done what he did in the 90's. Yeah he's Top 5.

His only win of note was Moorer. A fine win but that doesn't make him a lock for top 5 if he's not already a lock.

The very fact that he even got a title shot after a 10 year retirement would be enough to put him at Top 5, but he didn't just get it. He won it.

Don't agree. He got the shot by beating a long line of unranked fighters to build up momentum. He was very carefully matched. He was seen as low risk high reward by the top fighters.

His performance in losing to Holy was way better than most expected and he proved a point that night, But getting the shot wasn't a big achievement. He then lost to Morrison and got another crack at the title in his very next fight.

Great achievement to win it.

[Ezzard]

Larry Holmes didn't beat Frazier, Liston or Foreman though did he? That's 3 guys who are Top 10 Heavyweights right there Ali beat them.

Nothing Holmes ever did can eclipse that.

I do personally have Holmes at #3, and I do think he had the ability to be as accomplished as Ali. He just didn't have the opposition.

No but on the basis of everything that he did and there are many examples of his prime on film in which I think he did everything better than Muhammad Ali did and considering the man learned everything basically from Muhammad Ali he took what he learned and tweaked it and made it better. So from my personal opinion he could have beaten Joe Frazier or George Foreman or anyone else that Muhammad Ali ever fought.

If we are going strictly on the basis of who has the best record against the best opposition then you would have Muhammad Ali at number one but that wasn't the question... the question was who do you rate as number one and I rate Larry Holmes as number one because I believe Larry Holmes could have beaten Muhammad Ali and defeated everyone else that Muhammad Ali ever fought.

To me that makes your ranking all but meaningless. You can't rank people on what if's and maybe's.

You can only rank 'em on what is.

If Larry Holmes had fought Foreman and Frazier he could've beaten 'em you say. Yeah, well if my Aunt had a D*ck she'd be my Uncle, but she doesn't, and she ain't.

The main reason why you can't rank someone on Hypothetical "I think they could've beaten" type stuff, is that...maybe you're wrong. Maybe Foreman and Frazier would've knocked out Holmes.

We'll never know.

I thought Wilder was gonna knock out Fury the 1st time they fought...but he didn't.

I thought Chris Arreola was gonna beat the sh*t out of Bermane Stiverne when they fought....but he didn't.

We can all be wrong any time, and when we're talking about Holmes vs any of the Top Heavyweights that Ali fought. The chances that we could be wrong on the result are high.

I think you'd agree that if Holmes had been prime, and had been going up against Frazier or Foreman those fights would've been pick 'em fights amongst the Boxing experts right?

So if that's the case, we certainly can't claim he'd beat those guys as a foregone conclusion.

Agree, impossible to know. But a lot of fun talking about it. I always think that you need to have beaten enough good names to get into the debate but after that there's more to it than who you beat or who you might have beaten,

[elmersalsa]

Who ya got?

For me it's......

1. Ali
2. Louis

The same is for me. And also to many people.

[elmersalsa]

No but on the basis of everything that he did and there are many examples of his prime on film in which I think he did everything better than Muhammad Ali did and considering the man learned everything basically from Muhammad Ali he took what he learned and tweaked it and made it better. So from my personal opinion he could have beaten Joe Frazier or George Foreman or anyone else that Muhammad Ali ever fought.

If we are going strictly on the basis of who has the best record against the best opposition then you would have Muhammad Ali at number one but that wasn't the question... the question was who do you rate as number one and I rate Larry Holmes as number one because I believe Larry Holmes could have beaten Muhammad Ali and defeated everyone else that Muhammad Ali ever fought.

Homes won a close SD against Norton who was 35 at the time. Holmes was 29 and absolutely in his prime. Can you be so sure that Holmes could have beaten a 30 year old Norton? The evidence might point to no.

Talking about Norton, our boi Muh deserved the 1-2 score in their trilogy, 0-3 by some opinions.

I believe that Ken Norton beat the great Muhammad Ali 3 times. I am an Ali's fan. I think that Ali is the greatest heavyweight ever and a top 5 all-time pound per pound great fighter, but he lost to Norton 3 times and he never beat the great Smokin' Joe Frazier in Frazier's prime.

[gp.]

If his First career is all there was. No he's not Top 5. Considering he's the only person in the history of the whole goddamn sport to have done what he did in the 90's. Yeah he's Top 5.

His only win of note was Moorer. A fine win but that doesn't make him a lock for top 5 if he's not already a lock.

The very fact that he even got a title shot after a 10 year retirement would be enough to put him at Top 5, but he didn't just get it. He won it.

I don't see that at all. Being decent whern old after a long layoff isn't what makes you great. His second career barely put him in the top 5 active heavyweights.

You have to judge his greatness from what he was at his best. If you are are going to take into account handicaps and say he was good for someone so old, the greatest heavyweight could be guys who didn't achieve much but were great for someone so small, or someone so slow.

[gilgamesh]

His only win of note was Moorer. A fine win but that doesn't make him a lock for top 5 if he's not already a lock.

The very fact that he even got a title shot after a 10 year retirement would be enough to put him at Top 5, but he didn't just get it. He won it.

I don't see that at all. Being decent whern old after a long layoff isn't what makes you great. His second career barely put him in the top 5 active heavyweights.

You have to judge his greatness from what he was at his best. If you are are going to take into account handicaps and say he was good for someone so old, the greatest heavyweight could be guys who didn't achieve much but were great for someone so small, or someone so slow.

Ok. At his best he blew away Joe Frazier and Ken Norton like they were helpless children.

Yeah he's Top 5.

[gp.]

The very fact that he even got a title shot after a 10 year retirement would be enough to put him at Top 5, but he didn't just get it. He won it.

I don't see that at all. Being decent whern old after a long layoff isn't what makes you great. His second career barely put him in the top 5 active heavyweights.

You have to judge his greatness from what he was at his best. If you are are going to take into account handicaps and say he was good for someone so old, the greatest heavyweight could be guys who didn't achieve much but were great for someone so small, or someone so slow.

Ok. At his best he blew away Joe Frazier and Ken Norton like they were helpless children.

Yeah he's Top 5.

I don't disgree, I just say you should base that on the first incarnation and ignore the second.

[gilgamesh]

I don't see that at all. Being decent whern old after a long layoff isn't what makes you great. His second career barely put him in the top 5 active heavyweights.

You have to judge his greatness from what he was at his best. If you are are going to take into account handicaps and say he was good for someone so old, the greatest heavyweight could be guys who didn't achieve much but were great for someone so small, or someone so slow.

Ok. At his best he blew away Joe Frazier and Ken Norton like they were helpless children.

Yeah he's Top 5.

I don't disgree, I just say you should base that on the first incarnation and ignore the second.

His achievements in his 2nd reign add to his legacy. Are they as impressive as the stuff he did in the 70's? Of course not.

But it adds to his legacy because nobody else has ever done that. NOBODY ELSE.

[oogiebe]

Ok. At his best he blew away Joe Frazier and Ken Norton like they were helpless children.

Yeah he's Top 5.

I don't disgree, I just say you should base that on the first incarnation and ignore the second.

His achievements in his 2nd reign add to his legacy. Are they as impressive as the stuff he did in the 70's? Of course not.

But it adds to his legacy because nobody else has ever done that. NOBODY ELSE.

Seriously. George's total body of work is uniquely great.

[Ambling Alp II]

Larry Holmes didn't beat Frazier, Liston or Foreman though did he? That's 3 guys who are Top 10 Heavyweights right there Ali beat them.

Nothing Holmes ever did can eclipse that.

I do personally have Holmes at #3, and I do think he had the ability to be as accomplished as Ali. He just didn't have the opposition.

No but on the basis of everything that he did and there are many examples of his prime on film in which I think he did everything better than Muhammad Ali did and considering the man learned everything basically from Muhammad Ali he took what he learned and tweaked it and made it better. So from my personal opinion he could have beaten Joe Frazier or George Foreman or anyone else that Muhammad Ali ever fought.

If we are going strictly on the basis of who has the best record against the best opposition then you would have Muhammad Ali at number one but that wasn't the question... the question was who do you rate as number one and I rate Larry Holmes as number one because I believe Larry Holmes could have beaten Muhammad Ali and defeated everyone else that Muhammad Ali ever fought.

To me that makes your ranking all but meaningless. You can't rank people on what if's and maybe's.

You can only rank 'em on what is.

If Larry Holmes had fought Foreman and Frazier he could've beaten 'em you say. Yeah, well if my Aunt had a D*ck she'd be my Uncle, but she doesn't, and she ain't.

The main reason why you can't rank someone on Hypothetical "I think they could've beaten" type stuff, is that...maybe you're wrong. Maybe Foreman and Frazier would've knocked out Holmes.

We'll never know.

I thought Wilder was gonna knock out Fury the 1st time they fought...but he didn't.

I thought Chris Arreola was gonna beat the sh*t out of Bermane Stiverne when they fought....but he didn't.

We can all be wrong any time, and when we're talking about Holmes vs any of the Top Heavyweights that Ali fought. The chances that we could be wrong on the result are high.

I think you'd agree that if Holmes had been prime, and had been going up against Frazier or Foreman those fights would've been pick 'em fights amongst the Boxing experts right?

So if that's the case, we certainly can't claim he'd beat those guys as a foregone conclusion.

Good point about rating people on what actually happened. Too often we off on tangents and rate people on how we think they would have done against so and so.

For the most part, we should rate fighters on the best fighters that they beat, and weight them against all of their losses. Taking into consideration how close to a fighter is to his prime as well as his opponents when a fight took place.
(For example, the version of Evander Holyfield that Lennox Lewis fought was way past his best and doesn't mean much.)

To a lesser extent we should look at the competitiveness of fights as well.

[oogiebe]

No but on the basis of everything that he did and there are many examples of his prime on film in which I think he did everything better than Muhammad Ali did and considering the man learned everything basically from Muhammad Ali he took what he learned and tweaked it and made it better. So from my personal opinion he could have beaten Joe Frazier or George Foreman or anyone else that Muhammad Ali ever fought.

If we are going strictly on the basis of who has the best record against the best opposition then you would have Muhammad Ali at number one but that wasn't the question... the question was who do you rate as number one and I rate Larry Holmes as number one because I believe Larry Holmes could have beaten Muhammad Ali and defeated everyone else that Muhammad Ali ever fought.

To me that makes your ranking all but meaningless. You can't rank people on what if's and maybe's.

You can only rank 'em on what is.

If Larry Holmes had fought Foreman and Frazier he could've beaten 'em you say. Yeah, well if my Aunt had a D*ck she'd be my Uncle, but she doesn't, and she ain't.

The main reason why you can't rank someone on Hypothetical "I think they could've beaten" type stuff, is that...maybe you're wrong. Maybe Foreman and Frazier would've knocked out Holmes.

We'll never know.

I thought Wilder was gonna knock out Fury the 1st time they fought...but he didn't.

I thought Chris Arreola was gonna beat the sh*t out of Bermane Stiverne when they fought....but he didn't.

We can all be wrong any time, and when we're talking about Holmes vs any of the Top Heavyweights that Ali fought. The chances that we could be wrong on the result are high.

I think you'd agree that if Holmes had been prime, and had been going up against Frazier or Foreman those fights would've been pick 'em fights amongst the Boxing experts right?

So if that's the case, we certainly can't claim he'd beat those guys as a foregone conclusion.

Good point about rating people on what actually happened. Too often we off on tangents and rate people on how we think they would have done against so and so.

For the most part, we should rate fighters on the best fighters that they beat, and weight them against all of their losses. Taking into consideration how close to a fighter is to his prime as well as his opponents when a fight took place.
(For example, the version of Evander Holyfield that Lennox Lewis fought was way past his best and doesn't mean much.)

To a lesser extent we should look at the competitiveness of fights as well.

1. I wouldn't say Holy was 'way past his prime' when he lost to Lewis.
2. It doesn't mean Lewis wouldn't have beaten him 3 years earlier
3. There are a lot of ways to rank fighters from different eras. One way isn't necessarily better or worse than the other
4. Eye test tells us more than anything about strengths and weaknesses and to a certain extent intangible
5. Ultimately one could easily go down a rabbit hole when rating fighters who never faced one another or from different eras.

[Flump]

Who ya got?

For me it's......

1. Ali
2. Louis

Agree

[gilgamesh]

To me that makes your ranking all but meaningless. You can't rank people on what if's and maybe's.

You can only rank 'em on what is.

If Larry Holmes had fought Foreman and Frazier he could've beaten 'em you say. Yeah, well if my Aunt had a D*ck she'd be my Uncle, but she doesn't, and she ain't.

The main reason why you can't rank someone on Hypothetical "I think they could've beaten" type stuff, is that...maybe you're wrong. Maybe Foreman and Frazier would've knocked out Holmes.

We'll never know.

I thought Wilder was gonna knock out Fury the 1st time they fought...but he didn't.

I thought Chris Arreola was gonna beat the sh*t out of Bermane Stiverne when they fought....but he didn't.

We can all be wrong any time, and when we're talking about Holmes vs any of the Top Heavyweights that Ali fought. The chances that we could be wrong on the result are high.

I think you'd agree that if Holmes had been prime, and had been going up against Frazier or Foreman those fights would've been pick 'em fights amongst the Boxing experts right?

So if that's the case, we certainly can't claim he'd beat those guys as a foregone conclusion.

Good point about rating people on what actually happened. Too often we off on tangents and rate people on how we think they would have done against so and so.

For the most part, we should rate fighters on the best fighters that they beat, and weight them against all of their losses. Taking into consideration how close to a fighter is to his prime as well as his opponents when a fight took place.
(For example, the version of Evander Holyfield that Lennox Lewis fought was way past his best and doesn't mean much.)

To a lesser extent we should look at the competitiveness of fights as well.

1. I wouldn't say Holy was 'way past his prime' when he lost to Lewis.
2. It doesn't mean Lewis wouldn't have beaten him 3 years earlier
3. There are a lot of ways to rank fighters from different eras. One way isn't necessarily better or worse than the other
4. Eye test tells us more than anything about strengths and weaknesses and to a certain extent intangible
5. Ultimately one could easily go down a rabbit hole when rating fighters who never faced one another or from different eras.

The Holyfield that fought Lewis was just ever so slightly past his very best, but still very formidable. Guys don't go from being prime to being shot overnight. There's a lot of inbetween that they linger at for a while. Holyfield was still a pretty solid fighter all the way up until 2002 I'd say.

Going 1-1-1 against Ruiz in 2000 and 2001 isn't the greatest results, but considering that Ruiz had a surprising amount of success, and was smack dab in the middle of his prime it's not bad. (for the record I'd give the nod to Holy on their draw in the 3rd fight personally)

And he got the win over Hasim Rahman in 2002 in what I felt like was one of Holyfield's last World Class opponents. Rahman still had a pretty noteworthy run at or near the top left in him at this time, but he couldn't beat Old Man Holyfield that night.

Next fight after that though Holyfield loses to Byrd, then Toney the year after, then Larry Donald, and it's pretty clear from there that he's pretty well washed up from there. Even then he still managed to have some respectable performances in his later years.

[Ambling Alp II]

Maybe 70% of what he once was, and that's pushing it. You could see him declining by the 3rd Bowe fight.

Everything points to him being well past it by the time he fought Lewis. Maybe 70% of what he once was, and that's pushing it. You could see him declining by the 3rd Bowe fight.
-He was 36 years old.
-He had taken a ton of punishment in his career.
-He looked bad in his previous fight.
-In the Lewis fight itself, he did next to nothing. (Not that Lewis did a lot himself.) His hand speed had greatly declined, and he simply couldn't fight hard for longer periods of time. anymore.

He looked awful in the Ruiz fights.

Maybe Lewis would have beaten Holyfield three years earlier. Who knows. It didn't happen though.
There are many ways to rate fighters from different eras. Some are good and some are not. i
There is certainly something to the eye test. (Assuming you have good video) The key is that you have to watch a guy a lot, and against quality opponents. . Felix Trinidad looks great ins some fights and not so much. Or a guy looks great against a weak a opponent but much worse against a quality opponent.
Sure you go down a rabbit hole. Course you can do that with a lot of things.

[gilgamesh]

Maybe 70% of what he once was, and that's pushing it. You could see him declining by the 3rd Bowe fight.

Everything points to him being well past it by the time he fought Lewis. Maybe 70% of what he once was, and that's pushing it. You could see him declining by the 3rd Bowe fight.
-He was 36 years old.
-He had taken a ton of punishment in his career.
-He looked bad in his previous fight.
-In the Lewis fight itself, he did next to nothing. (Not that Lewis did a lot himself.) His hand speed had greatly declined, and he simply couldn't fight hard for longer periods of time. anymore.

He looked awful in the Ruiz fights.

Maybe Lewis would have beaten Holyfield three years earlier. Who knows. It didn't happen though.
There are many ways to rate fighters from different eras. Some are good and some are not. i
There is certainly something to the eye test. (Assuming you have good video) The key is that you have to watch a guy a lot, and against quality opponents. . Felix Trinidad looks great ins some fights and not so much. Or a guy looks great against a weak a opponent but much worse against a quality opponent.
Sure you go down a rabbit hole. Course you can do that with a lot of things.

He had a medical issue for the 3rd Bowe fight though. Just like the 1st Moorer fight. When he first said those things they sounded like excuses, but considering the performances that came out of him in 1996 and 1997 I think there's probably truth to the claim that he had something ailing him on those nights.

It would be interesting to know if they were just excuses or legit something wrong. Like say you put the Holyfield from the 1st Moorer fight up against Mike Tyson. What happens?

Interesting to ponder.

But yeah when you watch a lot of guy it can definitely help you in predicting who you think would win and why. For instance some guys have stylistic tendencies that would play into the strengths of someone else. There's a lot of subtleties and nuances in the fight game. A lot of different ways to arrive at the same goal.

[gp.]

Ok. At his best he blew away Joe Frazier and Ken Norton like they were helpless children.

Yeah he's Top 5.

I don't disgree, I just say you should base that on the first incarnation and ignore the second.

His achievements in his 2nd reign add to his legacy. Are they as impressive as the stuff he did in the 70's? Of course not.

But it adds to his legacy because nobody else has ever done that. NOBODY ELSE.

Well that's the point of disagreement. I don't care that he was a top 20 active heavyweight in his 40s. It's irrelevant. If that's all he had had ever done it doesn't matter. It doesnt make you an all time great. Most don't try.

Washe great in his prime? Yes.

[gilgamesh]

I don't disgree, I just say you should base that on the first incarnation and ignore the second.

His achievements in his 2nd reign add to his legacy. Are they as impressive as the stuff he did in the 70's? Of course not.

But it adds to his legacy because nobody else has ever done that. NOBODY ELSE.

Well that's the point of disagreement. I don't care that he was a top 20 active heavyweight in his 40s. It's irrelevant. If that's all he had had ever done it doesn't matter. It doesnt make you an all time great. Most don't try.

Washe great in his prime? Yes.

He was the Heavyweight Champion of the World in his 40's dude.

Nobody else in the history of the sport in ANY weight class, has ever regained the World Title 20 years after losing it. If you don't wanna give him credit for that, fine.

I on the other hand, can recognize something special when I see it happen. It's really not hard when it never happens again, and never happened before

[Ambling Alp II]

I think he deserves credit for winning the title again, when he obviously way past his best. It was an amazing journey. (It is also a good indication that the heavyweights of his prime were even better than the hws of his 40s.) Having said that, when I rate Foreman, the fights from when he was in his 40s shouldn't be a major factor when rating him. .ie, his losses and/or mediocre performances from this time shouldn't be held against him.

Foreman had fights with Frazier, Norton, Ali, Lyle, and Young. That is a lot to go on.