Delete

[Ambling Alp II]

Agree that Witherspoon's losses late in his career should not count.
However, almost all of his fights against a another good hw he either barely won or lost. He did not standout above Tubbs, Thomas, Page, Dokes etc. or even non WBS champs like Carl Williams or Renaldo Snipes.

Tyson beat a lot of these guys and most of them easily. In the 1990s Tyson beat Bruno in 3 rounds. Tyson himself got older and of course spent more than 3 years away from the sport.

They always say that Bowe only beat Holyfield. But Holyfield was much better than anyone Witherspoon beat. And Bowe showed in the second and third fights that it was a not a fluke. Before reaching his prime, Bowe beat Tubbs.

Holyfield, Tyson, and Bowe were clearly better than Witherspoon or any of the WBS champs. It's ridiculous to argue this.

[keithmoonhangover]

Agree that Witherspoon's losses late in his career should not count.
However, almost all of his fights against a another good hw he either barely won or lost. He did not standout above Tubbs, Thomas, Page, Dokes etc. or even non WBS champs like Carl Williams or Renaldo Snipes.

Tyson beat a lot of these guys and most of them easily. In the 1990s Tyson beat Bruno in 3 rounds. Tyson himself got older and of course spent more than 3 years away from the sport.

They always say that Bowe only beat Holyfield. But Holyfield was much better than anyone Witherspoon beat. And Bowe showed in the second and third fights that it was a not a fluke. Before reaching his prime, Bowe beat Tubbs.

Holyfield, Tyson, and Bowe were clearly better than Witherspoon or any of the WBS champs. It's ridiculous to argue this.

100% agree.

Holmes in 4,
Spinks in 1,
Berbick in 2,
Tubbs in 2.
Williams in 1,
Thomas in 6,
Bruno in 5,
Wide decisions vs Tucker and Smith.

His wins against the boxers of his day were as comprehensive as they could be.

I don't understand all the love for Witherspoon. He couldn't beat Thomas, scraped past Tubbs and was obliterated by Smith.

[Controversial]

Agree that Witherspoon's losses late in his career should not count.
However, almost all of his fights against a another good hw he either barely won or lost. He did not standout above Tubbs, Thomas, Page, Dokes etc. or even non WBS champs like Carl Williams or Renaldo Snipes.

Tyson beat a lot of these guys and most of them easily. In the 1990s Tyson beat Bruno in 3 rounds. Tyson himself got older and of course spent more than 3 years away from the sport.

They always say that Bowe only beat Holyfield. But Holyfield was much better than anyone Witherspoon beat. And Bowe showed in the second and third fights that it was a not a fluke. Before reaching his prime, Bowe beat Tubbs.

Holyfield, Tyson, and Bowe were clearly better than Witherspoon or any of the WBS champs. It's ridiculous to argue this.

100% agree.

Holmes in 4,
Spinks in 1,
Berbick in 2,
Tubbs in 2.
Williams in 1,
Thomas in 6,
Bruno in 5,
Wide decisions vs Tucker and Smith.

His wins against the boxers of his day were as comprehensive as they could be.

I don't understand all the love for Witherspoon. He couldn't beat Thomas, scraped past Tubbs and was obliterated by Smith.

I think like a lot of 80s HWs Witherspoon wasn't the most dedicated. He was thrown in with a 42-0 Holmes after only 15 fights and only lost by SD. Also stopped the normally durable Tillis in one, beat Page, lost a MD to the undefeated Pinklon Thomas but then got wins over Bonecrusher, the undefeated Tubbs and Bruno so no slouch. He claims he threw the Smith rematch when he was stopped in one to get out the Don King contract, whether that's true or not I don't know but that's what he says.

[Ambling Alp II]

I love how people spin things. You point out the loss to Thomas was a majority decision, but you neglected to point out that the win over Page was just by majority decision.
He also barely beat Snipes.

Sorry but the KO1 loss to Smith counts. It happened.

Witherspoon's career clearly was not as good as Bowe or Tyson's. You can make a much better argument that he was not as good as Dokes or Thomas than you could that he was as good as Bowe or Tyson.

[Controversial]

I love how people spin things. You point out the loss to Thomas was a majority decision, but you neglected to point out that the win over Page was just by majority decision.
He also barely beat Snipes.

Sorry but the KO1 loss to Smith counts. It happened.

Witherspoon's career clearly was not as good as Bowe or Tyson's. You can make a much better argument that he was not as good as Dokes or Thomas than you could that he was as good as Bowe or Tyson.

I never said he was, I was replying to the post about Witherspoon effectively being overrated, all I said was he was a decent fighter. He had already beaten Smith too, yes he was stopped in one in the rematch but sometimes that happens at HW, I don’t think that automatically makes him crap. As I said he was like a lot of 80s HWs, often out of shape, inconsistent and lacked dedication, if he had those mastered he would’ve had a much better career

[Ambling Alp II]

I think he was a good fighter. Wasn't great, but certainly, was not crap. Like so many other guys around that time, he was inconsistent.

[Cojimar 1946]

Agree that Witherspoon's losses late in his career should not count.
However, almost all of his fights against a another good hw he either barely won or lost. He did not standout above Tubbs, Thomas, Page, Dokes etc. or even non WBS champs like Carl Williams or Renaldo Snipes.

Tyson beat a lot of these guys and most of them easily. In the 1990s Tyson beat Bruno in 3 rounds. Tyson himself got older and of course spent more than 3 years away from the sport.

They always say that Bowe only beat Holyfield. But Holyfield was much better than anyone Witherspoon beat. And Bowe showed in the second and third fights that it was a not a fluke. Before reaching his prime, Bowe beat Tubbs.

Holyfield, Tyson, and Bowe were clearly better than Witherspoon or any of the WBS champs. It's ridiculous to argue this.

100% agree.

Holmes in 4,
Spinks in 1,
Berbick in 2,
Tubbs in 2.
Williams in 1,
Thomas in 6,
Bruno in 5,
Wide decisions vs Tucker and Smith.

His wins against the boxers of his day were as comprehensive as they could be.

I don't understand all the love for Witherspoon. He couldn't beat Thomas, scraped past Tubbs and was obliterated by Smith.

I don't understand the love for Tyson. He couldn't beat Holyfield, scraped past Ruddock, and was obliterated by Douglas.

And was only on top for 18 months

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Agree that Witherspoon's losses late in his career should not count.
However, almost all of his fights against a another good hw he either barely won or lost. He did not standout above Tubbs, Thomas, Page, Dokes etc. or even non WBS champs like Carl Williams or Renaldo Snipes.

Tyson beat a lot of these guys and most of them easily. In the 1990s Tyson beat Bruno in 3 rounds. Tyson himself got older and of course spent more than 3 years away from the sport.

They always say that Bowe only beat Holyfield. But Holyfield was much better than anyone Witherspoon beat. And Bowe showed in the second and third fights that it was a not a fluke. Before reaching his prime, Bowe beat Tubbs.

Holyfield, Tyson, and Bowe were clearly better than Witherspoon or any of the WBS champs. It's ridiculous to argue this.

100% agree.

Holmes in 4,
Spinks in 1,
Berbick in 2,
Tubbs in 2.
Williams in 1,
Thomas in 6,
Bruno in 5,
Wide decisions vs Tucker and Smith.

His wins against the boxers of his day were as comprehensive as they could be.

I don't understand all the love for Witherspoon. He couldn't beat Thomas, scraped past Tubbs and was obliterated by Smith.

I don't understand the love for Tyson. He couldn't beat Holyfield, scraped past Ruddock, and was obliterated by Douglas.

And was only on top for 18 months

- Mike Tyson: 21 yrs old, 10-0, 8KO in less than 3 years time that included 2 classic KOs of HOFers, consolidating Lineal, Ring, WBA, WBC, IBF titles that brought back Boxing from the Giant Sucking Sound that followed the retirements of Foreman, Frazier, Norton, and Ali.

Not to mention already being the record holder in total purse$ earned with nobody even close to him and Ring's first P4P#1.

Was you and OP still in diapers then? BigBoys now is it?

[keithmoonhangover]

Agree that Witherspoon's losses late in his career should not count.
However, almost all of his fights against a another good hw he either barely won or lost. He did not standout above Tubbs, Thomas, Page, Dokes etc. or even non WBS champs like Carl Williams or Renaldo Snipes.

Tyson beat a lot of these guys and most of them easily. In the 1990s Tyson beat Bruno in 3 rounds. Tyson himself got older and of course spent more than 3 years away from the sport.

They always say that Bowe only beat Holyfield. But Holyfield was much better than anyone Witherspoon beat. And Bowe showed in the second and third fights that it was a not a fluke. Before reaching his prime, Bowe beat Tubbs.

Holyfield, Tyson, and Bowe were clearly better than Witherspoon or any of the WBS champs. It's ridiculous to argue this.

100% agree.

Holmes in 4,
Spinks in 1,
Berbick in 2,
Tubbs in 2.
Williams in 1,
Thomas in 6,
Bruno in 5,
Wide decisions vs Tucker and Smith.

His wins against the boxers of his day were as comprehensive as they could be.

I don't understand all the love for Witherspoon. He couldn't beat Thomas, scraped past Tubbs and was obliterated by Smith.

I don't understand the love for Tyson. He couldn't beat Holyfield, scraped past Ruddock, and was obliterated by Douglas.

And was only on top for 18 months

It's not love. The guys a rapist, I don't like him, but that has no effect on my opinion of his place in boxing history. He completely dominated two hall of famers, on of which was the undefeated lineal heavyweight champion of the world. The other was, four years later, was still good enough to take rounds off a peak Holyfield.

Tyson lost to Buster Douglas fair an square, but the losses after four years out aren't measuring him at his peak.

[Cojimar 1946]

100% agree.

Holmes in 4,
Spinks in 1,
Berbick in 2,
Tubbs in 2.
Williams in 1,
Thomas in 6,
Bruno in 5,
Wide decisions vs Tucker and Smith.

His wins against the boxers of his day were as comprehensive as they could be.

I don't understand all the love for Witherspoon. He couldn't beat Thomas, scraped past Tubbs and was obliterated by Smith.

I don't understand the love for Tyson. He couldn't beat Holyfield, scraped past Ruddock, and was obliterated by Douglas.

And was only on top for 18 months

It's not love. The guys a rapist, I don't like him, but that has no effect on my opinion of his place in boxing history. He completely dominated two hall of famers, on of which was the undefeated lineal heavyweight champion of the world. The other was, four years later, was still good enough to take rounds off a peak Holyfield.

Tyson lost to Buster Douglas fair an square, but the losses after four years out aren't measuring him at his peak.

Holmes was well past his prime and Spinks was almost totally unproven at heavyweight. Plenty of guys would have beaten them. Put Wlad or Vitali in vs either and I would expect a brutal beat down.
Holyfield lost rounds to lots of guys he was incredibly inconsistent and lacks a big punch to blow guys out early.

Tyson seems overrated for a guy who was the clear number 1 for only 18 months and for whatever reason failed to beat his two most dangerous contemporaries in Holyfield and Lewis both of whom admittedly are overrated themselves.

[Cojimar 1946]

Agree that Witherspoon's losses late in his career should not count.
However, almost all of his fights against a another good hw he either barely won or lost. He did not standout above Tubbs, Thomas, Page, Dokes etc. or even non WBS champs like Carl Williams or Renaldo Snipes.

Tyson beat a lot of these guys and most of them easily. In the 1990s Tyson beat Bruno in 3 rounds. Tyson himself got older and of course spent more than 3 years away from the sport.

They always say that Bowe only beat Holyfield. But Holyfield was much better than anyone Witherspoon beat. And Bowe showed in the second and third fights that it was a not a fluke. Before reaching his prime, Bowe beat Tubbs.

Holyfield, Tyson, and Bowe were clearly better than Witherspoon or any of the WBS champs. It's ridiculous to argue this.

It appears most of his wins were pretty clear cut with only the Carl Williams win being close/controversial. There doesn't seem to be controversy over Smith 1, Tubbs, or Page and he stopped Bruno so no controversy there. I would say wins over Smith, Page, Tubbs, Bruno, and Williams is a deeper resume than any of these other guys. Thomas might have been of similar level but not the other guys.

Your best win is only one aspect of rating someone. If it was all that mattered Ken Norton would be ahead of Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano.
Likewise if losses were all that mattered than Floyd Mayweather would have to be the greatest of all time.

[Ambling Alp II]

No they were not clearcut. Witherspoon barely beat Page and Tubbs. The fight with Snipes could have been scored the other way as well.
No, your biggest win is not the only factor when rating fighters. however, it is the biggest factor. You also have to look at losses. Bowe had the big fights with Holyfield and no bad losses. That does not make him the best of all time of course. However, it puts him well ahead of Tim Witherspoon.
you mentioned Galss jaw and his brother. Wladimir has three embarrassing losses. His brother has no decent wins at all. Sayin g that would destroy anyone decent is quite a stretch since they never did it in real life.

And you can keep saying that Tyson as only on top for 18 months, but that doesn't make it so. He was regarded as the top hw for a lot longer than that. So stop saying it.

bottom line is that Tyson and Bowe were a lot better than Witherspoon. Witherspoon did not stand out from Thomas, Dokes, smith, Page etc.

[keithmoonhangover]

Spinks was almost totally unproven at heavyweight.

You mean apart from beating Larry Holmes twice.

[Cojimar 1946]

Spinks was almost totally unproven at heavyweight.

You mean apart from beating Larry Holmes twice.

A Holmes who was blatantly ducking the best and most feel lost to Carl Williams.
I'd have to see a whole lot more from Spinks at heavyweight to consider beating him a great win. A win over a faded champ doesn't make you a great heavyweight. If Spinks beats Tucker, Thomas, Ruddock, and Bruno then we could start talking about it as a great win but he didn't.

Leon Spinks beat a faded Ali but I don't view Coetzee's win over him as a huge accomplishment.

[Cojimar 1946]

No they were not clearcut. Witherspoon barely beat Page and Tubbs. The fight with Snipes could have been scored the other way as well.
No, your biggest win is not the only factor when rating fighters. however, it is the biggest factor. You also have to look at losses. Bowe had the big fights with Holyfield and no bad losses. That does not make him the best of all time of course. However, it puts him well ahead of Tim Witherspoon.
you mentioned Galss jaw and his brother. Wladimir has three embarrassing losses. His brother has no decent wins at all. Sayin g that would destroy anyone decent is quite a stretch since they never did it in real life.

And you can keep saying that Tyson as only on top for 18 months, but that doesn't make it so. He was regarded as the top hw for a lot longer than that. So stop saying it.

bottom line is that Tyson and Bowe were a lot better than Witherspoon. Witherspoon did not stand out from Thomas, Dokes, smith, Page etc.

Bowe barely fought anyone aside from Holyfield himself so had less opportunity for bad losses. Obviously it's more difficult to suffer bad losses when you refuse to fight top contenders. However, I would say the Golota fights are bad regardless of official results given he was losing both fights even prior to the low blows and was dropped in fight 2 prior to any low punches being thrown. If Wlads losses to Brewster and Sanders are bad I would reasonably think Holyfield's losses to Moorer and Bowe are bad by the same criteria given in both cases the winners accomplished very little in their careers outside beating Wlad/Holyfield. It seems like a clear case of bias.

The top 1990s heavyweights were extremely inconsistent and you have people trying to hype up everyone they lost/struggled with as being great but objectively it seems more likely they were overrated/inconsistent. If Bowe, Moorer, McCall, and Rahman were great fighters one would have expected them to have better careers outside their upset wins.

[apollo creed]

Mike was struggling in the 90's against top HWs. King was a wizard in cherrypicking the right fights for Mike to build up his hype.

Imagine how hard would've been for Mike to compete vs Klitschkos, Fury, AJ, Usyk!

[keithmoonhangover]

Spinks was almost totally unproven at heavyweight.

You mean apart from beating Larry Holmes twice.

A Holmes who was blatantly ducking the best and most feel lost to Carl Williams.
I'd have to see a whole lot more from Spinks at heavyweight to consider beating him a great win. A win over a faded champ doesn't make you a great heavyweight. If Spinks beats Tucker, Thomas, Ruddock, and Bruno then we could start talking about it as a great win but he didn't.

Leon Spinks beat a faded Ali but I don't view Coetzee's win over him as a huge accomplishment.

Spinks didn't beat them, but Tyson did.

What's your point exactly? Witherspoon was better then Tyson?

[apollo creed]

We could argue a lot but the truth is Tyson didn't beat no top-notch champion. Lennox, Holy beat him and most probably Bowe would've beat him too.

[keithmoonhangover]

We could argue a lot but the truth is Tyson didn't beat no top-notch champion. Lennox, Holy beat him and most probably Bowe would've beat him too.

He beat the lineal heavyweight champion of the world, a guy who had back-to-back wins over the previous lineal champion. To ignore that or minimize it, is just plain stupid. It ain't Tyson's fault that he blasted the guy out in a round, the same guy that was four inches taller than him and was only outweighed by 6 ibs. Going into the fight, numerous boxing experts picked Spinks to win and there's a reason for that, he was a top heavyweight and only 31 years old.

[Ambling Alp II]

Agreed. Nobody is saying that Tyson was the best hw of all time. However, he was much better than Witherspoon or the Klitschko's or most of these other guys that have mentioned. He was a borderline Top 10 hw of all time; certainly top 15. He beat enough very good hws to prove that.

[Ambling Alp II]

No they were not clearcut. Witherspoon barely beat Page and Tubbs. The fight with Snipes could have been scored the other way as well.
No, your biggest win is not the only factor when rating fighters. however, it is the biggest factor. You also have to look at losses. Bowe had the big fights with Holyfield and no bad losses. That does not make him the best of all time of course. However, it puts him well ahead of Tim Witherspoon.
you mentioned Galss jaw and his brother. Wladimir has three embarrassing losses. His brother has no decent wins at all. Sayin g that would destroy anyone decent is quite a stretch since they never did it in real life.

And you can keep saying that Tyson as only on top for 18 months, but that doesn't make it so. He was regarded as the top hw for a lot longer than that. So stop saying it.

bottom line is that Tyson and Bowe were a lot better than Witherspoon. Witherspoon did not stand out from Thomas, Dokes, smith, Page etc.

Bowe barely fought anyone aside from Holyfield himself so had less opportunity for bad losses. Obviously it's more difficult to suffer bad losses when you refuse to fight top contenders. However, I would say the Golota fights are bad regardless of official results given he was losing both fights even prior to the low blows and was dropped in fight 2 prior to any low punches being thrown. If Wlads losses to Brewster and Sanders are bad I would reasonably think Holyfield's losses to Moorer and Bowe are bad by the same criteria given in both cases the winners accomplished very little in their careers outside beating Wlad/Holyfield. It seems like a clear case of bias.

The top 1990s heavyweights were extremely inconsistent and you have people trying to hype up everyone they lost/struggled with as being great but objectively it seems more likely they were overrated/inconsistent. If Bowe, Moorer, McCall, and Rahman were great fighters one would have expected them to have better careers outside their upset wins.

Bowe's best opponent was obivously Holyfield, But he beat, not once but twice. Ahd lost in a great fight in their second by a very close decision that could have gone his way. He beat Tubbs when he was inexperienced. Stopped Seldon in the first round. At a certain you have to actually watch the fights and see his ability. And Bowe did not avoid anyone. He signed to Lennox Lewis. He was set to fight Mercer as well, but Mercer was upset by Ferguson.

You are comparing Klitschko losses to Brewster and Sanders to Holyfield's losses to Bowe and Moorer? How stupid can you be?
Brewster and Sanders were not even ranked in the top 10 when Klitschko got beat by them. Moorer and Bowe were highly ranked contenders.
Klitschko suffered embarrassing knockouts. Holyfield lost to Bowe in a great fight and the loss to Moorer was close.
Klitschko also somehow got stopped by Ross Purrity as well.

Again, watch the fights sometime. Watch Klitschko get humiliated by Ross Purrity. Then watch Holyfield against Moorer. See who looks better.
Watch Klitschko get embarrassed against Brewster. Then watch Holyfield lose to Bowe in their first fight. See who looks better.
Start using some common sense.

[apollo creed]

We could argue a lot but the truth is Tyson didn't beat no top-notch champion. Lennox, Holy beat him and most probably Bowe would've beat him too.

He beat the lineal heavyweight champion of the world, a guy who had back-to-back wins over the previous lineal champion. To ignore that or minimize it, is just plain stupid. It ain't Tyson's fault that he blasted the guy out in a round, the same guy that was four inches taller than him and was only outweighed by 6 ibs. Going into the fight, numerous boxing experts picked Spinks to win and there's a reason for that, he was a top heavyweight and only 31 years old.

Stop it. Its all about the talent pool and the level of competition in boxing. The 90's HW era was a better boxing era in terms of competitiveness than the mid of the 80's! Mike got reality checked when he met Buster, Holy and Lennox!

David Tua would've ktfo Spinks too. Actually Tua would've been a nightmare for Tyson too.

[keithmoonhangover]

We could argue a lot but the truth is Tyson didn't beat no top-notch champion. Lennox, Holy beat him and most probably Bowe would've beat him too.

He beat the lineal heavyweight champion of the world, a guy who had back-to-back wins over the previous lineal champion. To ignore that or minimize it, is just plain stupid. It ain't Tyson's fault that he blasted the guy out in a round, the same guy that was four inches taller than him and was only outweighed by 6 ibs. Going into the fight, numerous boxing experts picked Spinks to win and there's a reason for that, he was a top heavyweight and only 31 years old.

Stop it. Its all about the talent pool and the level of competition in boxing. The 90's HW era was a better boxing era in terms of competitiveness than the mid of the 80's! Mike got reality checked when he met Buster, Holy and Lennox!

David Tua would've ktfo Spinks too. Actually Tua would've been a nightmare for Tyson too.

But Tua didn't fight either of them, that's just speculation. I'm dealing in cold hard facts. Tyson beat two hall of famer and he didn't just beat them, he obliterated them.

[apollo creed]

He beat the lineal heavyweight champion of the world, a guy who had back-to-back wins over the previous lineal champion. To ignore that or minimize it, is just plain stupid. It ain't Tyson's fault that he blasted the guy out in a round, the same guy that was four inches taller than him and was only outweighed by 6 ibs. Going into the fight, numerous boxing experts picked Spinks to win and there's a reason for that, he was a top heavyweight and only 31 years old.

Stop it. Its all about the talent pool and the level of competition in boxing. The 90's HW era was a better boxing era in terms of competitiveness than the mid of the 80's! Mike got reality checked when he met Buster, Holy and Lennox!

David Tua would've ktfo Spinks too. Actually Tua would've been a nightmare for Tyson too.

But Tua didn't fight either of them, that's just speculation. I'm dealing in cold hard facts. Tyson beat two hall of famer and he didn't just beat them, he obliterated them.

Tua went 12 rds with Lennox, Mike was KO'ed by Lennox. Tua was so hard to be beaten. He was like a freight train. I have no doubt that 90's Tua would give to any version of Mike a very hard fight.

[Controversial]

Stop it. Its all about the talent pool and the level of competition in boxing. The 90's HW era was a better boxing era in terms of competitiveness than the mid of the 80's! Mike got reality checked when he met Buster, Holy and Lennox!

David Tua would've ktfo Spinks too. Actually Tua would've been a nightmare for Tyson too.

But Tua didn't fight either of them, that's just speculation. I'm dealing in cold hard facts. Tyson beat two hall of famer and he didn't just beat them, he obliterated them.

Tua went 12 rds with Lennox, Mike was KO'ed by Lennox. Tua was so hard to be beaten. He was like a freight train. I have no doubt that 90's Tua would give to any version of Mike a very hard fight.

Tyson was way past his best when he fought Lewis, he must've been 36/37. Tua was in his prime years when he fought him. Tua didn't have that many good wins either, his best was his quick KO of Moorer. Other than that he beat Ruiz and Rahman (they fought to a draw in the rematch) so his record wasn't that great.