If Ali and Louis are #1 and #2, who's #3?

[Jaywheel]

As was the Riddick Bowe from the Holyfield fights. Also, Lewis suffers a little from the same thing Marciano suffers. The bigger names they beat were past it. To me, it's between Foreman, Holyfield, Frazier and Johnson. I rank Lewis, Holmes and Tyson after them.

[margaret thatcher]

how about the bigger names golden jack beat? not only did he have past its who hadnt boxed in 6 years, he also had teenagers and tiny wee lads

[Redback Rasta]

The beating big names is very deceiving.
You have to look at the stages of a guys career. Beating Holyfield and Tyson when he did is not the same as beating them close to their primes. Plus he had two losses to less than great fighters. To lesser degree, he was also fortunate to get the decision against Mercer.
Obviously, there are other things that are a plus for Lewis, and things that are negatives for other fighters. But the beating big names argument is weak.

This is one of the FEW TIMES that I agree with Ambling Alp.

Lennox Lewis caught the great Evander Holyfield in decline, not in his prime. The great Mike Tyson when he came back from jail was a circus to begin with. And those are his two biggest names on his resume.

Tyson nor Holyfield would have never lost to guys like Oliver McCall or Hasim Rahman in their primes. Are you kidding me?

Can you imagine the great Jack Johnson or Muhammad Ali losing to McCall or Rahman in their primes?

Larry Holmes? George Foreman? It's hard to picture that. Very hard.

Tyson was 23 when he lost to Buster Douglas

I doubted that and checked, but sure enough. I guess because Tyson had already had 37 fights, he seemed older.

[Ezzard]

Lewis and Holyfield were brilliant HWs and I rate them highly but the fact they never fought over the 15 round distance at HW is an issue.

[elmersalsa]

The beating big names is very deceiving.
You have to look at the stages of a guys career. Beating Holyfield and Tyson when he did is not the same as beating them close to their primes. Plus he had two losses to less than great fighters. To lesser degree, he was also fortunate to get the decision against Mercer.
Obviously, there are other things that are a plus for Lewis, and things that are negatives for other fighters. But the beating big names argument is weak.

This is one of the FEW TIMES that I agree with Ambling Alp.

Lennox Lewis caught the great Evander Holyfield in decline, not in his prime. The great Mike Tyson when he came back from jail was a circus to begin with. And those are his two biggest names on his resume.

Tyson nor Holyfield would have never lost to guys like Oliver McCall or Hasim Rahman in their primes. Are you kidding me?

Can you imagine the great Jack Johnson or Muhammad Ali losing to McCall or Rahman in their primes?

Larry Holmes? George Foreman? It's hard to picture that. Very hard.

Tyson was 23 when he lost to Buster Douglas

Buster Douglas was a much better quality boxer than Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman combined. That night in Tokyo, Buster would have beaten any other great heavyweight in history. He was great for one night.

[davie]

This is one of the FEW TIMES that I agree with Ambling Alp.

Lennox Lewis caught the great Evander Holyfield in decline, not in his prime. The great Mike Tyson when he came back from jail was a circus to begin with. And those are his two biggest names on his resume.

Tyson nor Holyfield would have never lost to guys like Oliver McCall or Hasim Rahman in their primes. Are you kidding me?

Can you imagine the great Jack Johnson or Muhammad Ali losing to McCall or Rahman in their primes?

Larry Holmes? George Foreman? It's hard to picture that. Very hard.

Tyson was 23 when he lost to Buster Douglas

I doubted that and checked, but sure enough. I guess because Tyson had already had 37 fights, he seemed older.

Don't worry, I Boxreced that myself before posting.

Bit cheeky too as he was technically already past prime

[davie]

This is one of the FEW TIMES that I agree with Ambling Alp.

Lennox Lewis caught the great Evander Holyfield in decline, not in his prime. The great Mike Tyson when he came back from jail was a circus to begin with. And those are his two biggest names on his resume.

Tyson nor Holyfield would have never lost to guys like Oliver McCall or Hasim Rahman in their primes. Are you kidding me?

Can you imagine the great Jack Johnson or Muhammad Ali losing to McCall or Rahman in their primes?

Larry Holmes? George Foreman? It's hard to picture that. Very hard.

Tyson was 23 when he lost to Buster Douglas

Buster Douglas was a much better quality boxer than Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman combined. That night in Tokyo, Buster would have beaten any other great heavyweight in history. He was great for one night.

Have a word with yourself man

[elmersalsa]

Tyson was 23 when he lost to Buster Douglas

Buster Douglas was a much better quality boxer than Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman combined. That night in Tokyo, Buster would have beaten any other great heavyweight in history. He was great for one night.

Have a word with yourself man

You don't think so? Have you seen the fight? Buster Douglas looked at his very, very best. What a talent!

The problem with him was that he was lazy to train. He didn't had that consistency in winning big fights. For example, he was ahead in my view when he fought Tony Tucker for the vacant IBF World Heavyweight Title. What happened? He ran out of gas. He was boxing beautifully. That's because he never had the spirit and dedication to be great, even though he had excellent skills.

[gilgamesh]

Buster Douglas was a much better quality boxer than Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman combined. That night in Tokyo, Buster would have beaten any other great heavyweight in history. He was great for one night.

Have a word with yourself man

You don't think so? Have you seen the fight? Buster Douglas looked at his very, very best. What a talent!

The problem with him was that he was lazy to train. He didn't had that consistency in winning big fights. For example, he was ahead in my view when he fought Tony Tucker for the vacant IBF World Heavyweight Title. What happened? He ran out of gas. He was boxing beautifully. That's because he never had the spirit and dedication to be great, even though he had excellent skills.

Beating Mike Tyson doesn't mean you were capable of beating anyone ever. The Buster Douglas of Tokyo I can't see beating Muhammad Ali, I can't see him beating George Foreman, I can't see him beating Evander Holyfield, I can't see him beating Riddick Bowe, I can't see him beating Lennox Lewis.

This is not to say he definitely wouldn't, but I'd favor the more well known name in each of those cases.

[Redback Rasta]

This is one of the FEW TIMES that I agree with Ambling Alp.

Lennox Lewis caught the great Evander Holyfield in decline, not in his prime. The great Mike Tyson when he came back from jail was a circus to begin with. And those are his two biggest names on his resume.

Tyson nor Holyfield would have never lost to guys like Oliver McCall or Hasim Rahman in their primes. Are you kidding me?

Can you imagine the great Jack Johnson or Muhammad Ali losing to McCall or Rahman in their primes?

Larry Holmes? George Foreman? It's hard to picture that. Very hard.

Tyson was 23 when he lost to Buster Douglas

Buster Douglas was a much better quality boxer than Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman combined. That night in Tokyo, Buster would have beaten any other great heavyweight in history. He was great for one night.

Douglas was great for one night but that is stretching things. He was not that great.

[elmersalsa]

Have a word with yourself man

You don't think so? Have you seen the fight? Buster Douglas looked at his very, very best. What a talent!

The problem with him was that he was lazy to train. He didn't had that consistency in winning big fights. For example, he was ahead in my view when he fought Tony Tucker for the vacant IBF World Heavyweight Title. What happened? He ran out of gas. He was boxing beautifully. That's because he never had the spirit and dedication to be great, even though he had excellent skills.

Beating Mike Tyson doesn't mean you were capable of beating anyone ever. The Buster Douglas of Tokyo I can't see beating Muhammad Ali, I can't see him beating George Foreman, I can't see him beating Evander Holyfield, I can't see him beating Riddick Bowe, I can't see him beating Lennox Lewis.

This is not to say he definitely wouldn't, but I'd favor the more well known name in each of those cases.

I think in any given night, the Buster Douglas of Tokyo could beat any great heavyweight. I could see it. That jab speed was on point. Or at least give them a hell of a fight. I don't see that with Oliver McCall nor Hasim Rahman, even at their very best, beating a prime Mike Tyson.

I don't think that McCall nor Rahman would have pulled it off in Tokyo that night.

Buster Douglas, if taken the sport seriously, right now we would have been talking about him in the same breath as the other heavyweight greats. He had the talent. He had the size. And certainly had the punch.

[elmersalsa]

Tyson was 23 when he lost to Buster Douglas

Buster Douglas was a much better quality boxer than Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman combined. That night in Tokyo, Buster would have beaten any other great heavyweight in history. He was great for one night.

Douglas was great for one night but that is stretching things. He was not that great.

I have never said that he was great. But, he was good enough and very talented. He had all the tools to be a great heavyweight. He just lacked discipline and dedication.

[gilgamesh]

Buster Douglas was a much better quality boxer than Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman combined. That night in Tokyo, Buster would have beaten any other great heavyweight in history. He was great for one night.

Douglas was great for one night but that is stretching things. He was not that great.

I have never said that he was great. But, he was good enough and very talented. He had all the tools to be a great heavyweight. He just lacked discipline and dedication.

If you lack discipline and dedication then you DON'T have all the tools. Because those are 2 of the tools you need.

I feel like Buster and Rahman are on a similar level. Both at their very best I'd favor Buster, but I don't think it's a blowout or anything.

Tyson vs McCall would've been pretty interesting. I can't see Tyson losing to McCall, but I can see McCall frustrating him just at the fact that Tyson wouldn't be able to hurt him.

[Redback Rasta]

Buster Douglas was a much better quality boxer than Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman combined. That night in Tokyo, Buster would have beaten any other great heavyweight in history. He was great for one night.

Douglas was great for one night but that is stretching things. He was not that great.

I have never said that he was great. But, he was good enough and very talented. He had all the tools to be a great heavyweight. He just lacked discipline and dedication.

You said he 'was great for one night' in the very post of yours I quoted :lol:

[gilgamesh]

Lewis and Holyfield were brilliant HWs and I rate them highly but the fact they never fought over the 15 round distance at HW is an issue.

Holyfield did fight in a very hard paced 15 rounder though. So I think it's safe to say he proved there that he was capable of it.

Lennox missed out on the 15 rounders by a few years. I don't think 3 extra rounds would've done him any favors.

[elmersalsa]

Douglas was great for one night but that is stretching things. He was not that great.

I have never said that he was great. But, he was good enough and very talented. He had all the tools to be a great heavyweight. He just lacked discipline and dedication.

If you lack discipline and dedication then you DON'T have all the tools. Because those are 2 of the tools you need.

I feel like Buster and Rahman are on a similar level. Both at their very best I'd favor Buster, but I don't think it's a blowout or anything.

Tyson vs McCall would've been pretty interesting. I can't see Tyson losing to McCall, but I can see McCall frustrating him just at the fact that Tyson wouldn't be able to hurt him.

Buster had the physical tools. He was big, strong, had great reach, and could punch. And that fast jab of his was one of heavyweight history very best. Quick, sharp, long and hard jab. He could double and triple off the jab. He was very good. He just lacked discipline. Discipline nor motivation are physical tools.

Put Buster of Tokyo against McCall or Rahman and he gives them a boxing lesson. By a large margin, too.

[gilgamesh]

I have never said that he was great. But, he was good enough and very talented. He had all the tools to be a great heavyweight. He just lacked discipline and dedication.

If you lack discipline and dedication then you DON'T have all the tools. Because those are 2 of the tools you need.

I feel like Buster and Rahman are on a similar level. Both at their very best I'd favor Buster, but I don't think it's a blowout or anything.

Tyson vs McCall would've been pretty interesting. I can't see Tyson losing to McCall, but I can see McCall frustrating him just at the fact that Tyson wouldn't be able to hurt him.

Buster had the physical tools. He was big, strong, had great reach, and could punch. And that fast jab of his was one of heavyweight history very best. Quick, sharp, long and hard jab. He could double and triple off the jab. He was very good. He just lacked discipline. Discipline nor motivation are physical tools.

Put Buster of Tokyo against McCall or Rahman and he gives them a boxing lesson. By a large margin, too.

Haven't you ever heard the Great trainers say "Boxing is 10% Physical and 90% Mental" or something along those lines. I may be getting the exact figures wrong, but I know Mental was the heavier thing.

Point is, If you don't have the Mentality to want to train as hard as you can to get the very best out of yourself consistently. There isn't a Universe in which you could be great.

You either have that mentality or you don't. Very, very, very, very, very few people have the kinda drive it takes to even accomplish what Buster achieved in Tokyo. Only absolute Legends among men can achieve the status of true All Time Greats.

By the standard of mere Mortals. Buster Douglas IS great, and achieved more than most men ever will.

Lacking discipline though does indeed mean he could never be an ATG. Maybe in any era he could've mustered up the will to train his ass off, and be as great as he was that night in Tokyo. But once he has the success, and he has the money, can he do it again?

His career says no. In fact, his career basically shows he didn't even really WANT to fight. He worked his ass off, and achieved what he achieved. As soon as he had a large amount of money, he had what he wanted out of this business, and found something else to do with his life. A guy with that mentality isn't ever going to be capable of being an ATG. You have to be cut from a different cloth than that. A different mentality.

[elmersalsa]

If you lack discipline and dedication then you DON'T have all the tools. Because those are 2 of the tools you need.

I feel like Buster and Rahman are on a similar level. Both at their very best I'd favor Buster, but I don't think it's a blowout or anything.

Tyson vs McCall would've been pretty interesting. I can't see Tyson losing to McCall, but I can see McCall frustrating him just at the fact that Tyson wouldn't be able to hurt him.

Buster had the physical tools. He was big, strong, had great reach, and could punch. And that fast jab of his was one of heavyweight history very best. Quick, sharp, long and hard jab. He could double and triple off the jab. He was very good. He just lacked discipline. Discipline nor motivation are physical tools.

Put Buster of Tokyo against McCall or Rahman and he gives them a boxing lesson. By a large margin, too.

Haven't you ever heard the Great trainers say "Boxing is 10% Physical and 90% Mental" or something along those lines. I may be getting the exact figures wrong, but I know Mental was the heavier thing.

Point is, If you don't have the Mentality to want to train as hard as you can to get the very best out of yourself consistently. There isn't a Universe in which you could be great.

You either have that mentality or you don't. Very, very, very, very, very few people have the kinda drive it takes to even accomplish what Buster achieved in Tokyo. Only absolute Legends among men can achieve the status of true All Time Greats.

By the standard of mere Mortals. Buster Douglas IS great, and achieved more than most men ever will.

Lacking discipline though does indeed mean he could never be an ATG. Maybe in any era he could've mustered up the will to train his ass off, and be as great as he was that night in Tokyo. But once he has the success, and he has the money, can he do it again?

His career says no. In fact, his career basically shows he didn't even really WANT to fight. He worked his ass off, and achieved what he achieved. As soon as he had a large amount of money, he had what he wanted out of this business, and found something else to do with his life. A guy with that mentality isn't ever going to be capable of being an ATG. You have to be cut from a different cloth than that. A different mentality.

I said that he was lazy as fuuckk. Mental aptitude to be great is not a physical tool. Boxing to be great you gotta have heart, will and determination plus physical tools. Buster Douglas lacked the mental part. But, the physical part, he was unbelievable. That jab of his was better than many true all-time pound per pound great boxers of any weight class.

He had the speed, the ring IQ and the ability. He just flat out didn't like to train nor fight.

[gilgamesh]

It's like you think if you speak last you're correct

Physical tools only take you so far if you don't have the discipline and will power to consistently apply them.

[Jaywheel]

Douglas fought really well that night, but it's not as if it was the best HW performance ever or the best version of Tyson that night either. I'd favor everyguy that gil named over Douglas too and I'm certain that this performance of Douglas doesn't get him a win vs peak Frazier as well.

[DrDuke]

Lewis was better than both.

Louis has a bunch ahead of him.

[Ambling Alp II]

Douglas fought really well that night, but it's not as if it was the best HW performance ever or the best version of Tyson that night either. I'd favor everyguy that gil named over Douglas too and I'm certain that this performance of Douglas doesn't get him a win vs peak Frazier as well.

Not sure how we we wound up talking about where Douglas should be ranked. Don;t think anyone thinks he is the #3 guy behind Ali and Louis.
He did fight a great fight against Tyson, and would have beaten almost anyone on that night. Obviously, he didn't do that throughout his career. However, he does have some decent wins over guys like Berbick, McCall and Page.

The fight hurt Tyson's ranking more than anything. For much of the fight, he seemed listless. He wins this fight, Tyson would not be that far behind the guys that you can argue should be #3, i.e. Foreman, Johnson, Holyfield, Lewis, Frazier, and Holmes.

[gilgamesh]

Yeah if Tyson had beaten Douglas he'd definitely be a Rock solid Top 10 Heavyweight if nothing else.

I'm not sure where Buster entered the conversation either. He wouldn't be an all time Top 20 Heavyweight.

[oogiebe]

Lennox Lewis. If not #2.

[cfang]

I am going for foreman. In the past I've always put johnson at 3, holmes at 4. johnson I pick as he faced significant adversity and was superior to everyone in his day (despite what some posters say). However, when all is said an done I go for Foreman at number 3. His comeback from the 70s era to the 90s era is unprecedented. Also if anyone has any doubt that some previous eras are better than later ones, then he is the proof. 81-76 (68) is a superb record. He is without doubt number 3 in my eyes.

So then johnson, holmes then after that evander, lennox so that's 7 - then probably Liston, Tyson and Wlad make my top ten. Rocky and Dempsey I don't rate as highly they are in the 10-15 bracket. Ofc they'd give anyone in history a test but both just don't have as deep records as the others ahead of them in my view. Only a handful of defences each.