Tyson

[Cojimar 1946]

You can't just go by age. You also have to factor in how much punishment a fighter has taken. Did you seriously not know this?

Usyk has just 22 fights. In other words, Usyk still has not fought as many fights as Klitschko already he lost to Purrity. He has taken very little punishment. Most people thought the Joshua fights were competitive. Not interested in how you scored them.

Holyfield had a ton of mileage on him by the time he fought Ruiz. He had been in a lot of tough fights against good competition.

Lets see how Usyk looks when has 40 fights. What year will that be?

Holyfield had competive fights with Mercer, Cooper, and old Holmes. In order for a competitive fight with Joshua and Fury to be disqualifying one would have to take the position that those guys are significantly worse than Mercer, old Holmes, and Cooper which seems ridiculous. I'd rate both guys ahead of Moorer who beat Holyfield let alone Cooper and Mercer.

To claim otherwise you have to take the extreme position that the top 5 heavyweights of today are worse than 90s journeyman like Cooper and Ferguson but there's enough overlap between eras to suggest thats not the case. If things were that bad I'd expect even faded versions of Wlad and Povetkin to dominate today

Have you ever seen the Holyfield-Mercer fight? Just kidding. I know that you didn't because it was before your time as a fan and therefore you have no interest in it.

Holyfield-Mercer was a great fight. Better than anything Usyk or Klitschko were ever in.
He clearly won the Cooper fight. Cooper landed one good punch and otherwise it was almost Holyfield.
Holyfield did not look great against Holmes, but he certainly did not look terrible. Holyfield also had several fights in which he was far better than anything Usyk or Klitschko ever. But you have no interest in that.

Yes, if you just look at the bad parts of the guys that you don't like and only the good parts of the guys that you do like, then yes, your favorites will come out on top.

But if you really want rate guys like you should, you have to count all the good, bad, and in between of everyone.

You don't do that.

Usyk has been in plenty of fights with more action and more punches thrown than Holyfield-Mercer
These are the punch stats for Holyfield Mercer
Holyfield 125/363 vs Mercer 109/420

Usyk-Hunter
Usyk 321/905 vs Hunter 190/794

Usyk-Breidis
Usyk 212/848 vs Breidis 195/579

Usyk-Joshua
Usyk 170/712 vs Joshua 124/492

Clearly Usyk has been in plenty of fights with more action than Mercer/Holyfield. Punches thrown is not the sole criteria in what makes a good fight but it's not clear in what way Holyfield-Mercer would qualify as a better fight than many Usyk fights.

[keithmoonhangover]

Holyfield had competive fights with Mercer, Cooper, and old Holmes. In order for a competitive fight with Joshua and Fury to be disqualifying one would have to take the position that those guys are significantly worse than Mercer, old Holmes, and Cooper which seems ridiculous. I'd rate both guys ahead of Moorer who beat Holyfield let alone Cooper and Mercer.

To claim otherwise you have to take the extreme position that the top 5 heavyweights of today are worse than 90s journeyman like Cooper and Ferguson but there's enough overlap between eras to suggest thats not the case. If things were that bad I'd expect even faded versions of Wlad and Povetkin to dominate today

Have you ever seen the Holyfield-Mercer fight? Just kidding. I know that you didn't because it was before your time as a fan and therefore you have no interest in it.

Holyfield-Mercer was a great fight. Better than anything Usyk or Klitschko were ever in.
He clearly won the Cooper fight. Cooper landed one good punch and otherwise it was almost Holyfield.
Holyfield did not look great against Holmes, but he certainly did not look terrible. Holyfield also had several fights in which he was far better than anything Usyk or Klitschko ever. But you have no interest in that.

Yes, if you just look at the bad parts of the guys that you don't like and only the good parts of the guys that you do like, then yes, your favorites will come out on top.

But if you really want rate guys like you should, you have to count all the good, bad, and in between of everyone.

You don't do that.

Usyk has been in plenty of fights with more action and more punches thrown than Holyfield-Mercer
These are the punch stats for Holyfield Mercer
Holyfield 125/363 vs Mercer 109/420

Usyk-Hunter
Usyk 321/905 vs Hunter 190/794

Usyk-Breidis
Usyk 212/848 vs Breidis 195/579

Usyk-Joshua
Usyk 170/712 vs Joshua 124/492

Clearly Usyk has been in plenty of fights with more action than Mercer/Holyfield. Punches thrown is not the sole criteria in what makes a good fight but it's not clear in what way Holyfield-Mercer would qualify as a better fight than many Usyk fights.

Have you watched the fight from start to finish?

[Cojimar 1946]

As we both said, fighters can only beat who there is to beat. Overall Lewis' resume is better than Klitschko and his losses were both avenged and they were not to journeymen. You can argue all day about this opponent is better than that opponent but Holyfield alone is better than pretty much everyone Klitschko beat. If Lewis and Wlad fought Lewis would've beaten him as well. I don't hate on Klitschko like some, I'm not a massive fan but he was successful and you don't stay world champ and defend as many times as he did if he wasn't doing something right.
[/quote]

The version of Holyfield that Lewis faced, couldn't fight at a high pace and was only able to throw circa 40 punches a round. He had stamina problems and fought in spurts. Plenty of Wlad opponents are capable of setting a pace Holyfield can't keep up with and as Holyfield's not a huge puncher it seems extremely unlikely he stops everybody. Given the version of Holyfield were talking about it seems like a winnable fight.

[elmersalsa]

As we both said, fighters can only beat who there is to beat. Overall Lewis' resume is better than Klitschko and his losses were both avenged and they were not to journeymen. You can argue all day about this opponent is better than that opponent but Holyfield alone is better than pretty much everyone Klitschko beat. If Lewis and Wlad fought Lewis would've beaten him as well. I don't hate on Klitschko like some, I'm not a massive fan but he was successful and you don't stay world champ and defend as many times as he did if he wasn't doing something right.

The version of Holyfield that Lewis faced, couldn't fight at a high pace and was only able to throw circa 40 punches a round. He had stamina problems and fought in spurts. Plenty of Wlad opponents are capable of setting a pace Holyfield can't keep up with and as Holyfield's not a huge puncher it seems extremely unlikely he stops everybody. Given the version of Holyfield were talking about it seems like a winnable fight.
[/quote]

The Evander Holyfield that fought George Foreman and Riddick Bowe I and II, beats any version of Lennox Lewis.

Lewis caught Holyfield shopworn from previous grueling fights:(Dwight Qawi, Mike Tyson, Michael Dokes, Riddick Bowe, Bert Cooper, Alex Stewart, etc.)

I don't rate Lennox Lewis that highly. He is above Tyson in the heavyweight rankings, but not by much.
,

[keithmoonhangover]

As we both said, fighters can only beat who there is to beat. Overall Lewis' resume is better than Klitschko and his losses were both avenged and they were not to journeymen. You can argue all day about this opponent is better than that opponent but Holyfield alone is better than pretty much everyone Klitschko beat. If Lewis and Wlad fought Lewis would've beaten him as well. I don't hate on Klitschko like some, I'm not a massive fan but he was successful and you don't stay world champ and defend as many times as he did if he wasn't doing something right.

The version of Holyfield that Lewis faced, couldn't fight at a high pace and was only able to throw circa 40 punches a round. He had stamina problems and fought in spurts. Plenty of Wlad opponents are capable of setting a pace Holyfield can't keep up with and as Holyfield's not a huge puncher it seems extremely unlikely he stops everybody. Given the version of Holyfield were talking about it seems like a winnable fight.

You've got a bit an obsession with punch stats, haven't you. Well, this might come as news to you, but boxer's punch output is often dictated by their opponent or strategy for each fight. And just to clarify, a boxer doesn't get into the ring hoping to throw a lot of punches, he's there to try and win the fight. Plus, if you think you aren't going to land in certain situations, you probably won't throw. In short, you need to get off the Compubox stats and actually watch the fights.

[Cojimar 1946]

As we both said, fighters can only beat who there is to beat. Overall Lewis' resume is better than Klitschko and his losses were both avenged and they were not to journeymen. You can argue all day about this opponent is better than that opponent but Holyfield alone is better than pretty much everyone Klitschko beat. If Lewis and Wlad fought Lewis would've beaten him as well. I don't hate on Klitschko like some, I'm not a massive fan but he was successful and you don't stay world champ and defend as many times as he did if he wasn't doing something right.

The version of Holyfield that Lewis faced, couldn't fight at a high pace and was only able to throw circa 40 punches a round. He had stamina problems and fought in spurts. Plenty of Wlad opponents are capable of setting a pace Holyfield can't keep up with and as Holyfield's not a huge puncher it seems extremely unlikely he stops everybody. Given the version of Holyfield were talking about it seems like a winnable fight.

You've got a bit an obsession with punch stats, haven't you. Well, this might come as news to you, but boxer's punch output is often dictated by their opponent or strategy for each fight. And just to clarify, a boxer doesn't get into the ring hoping to throw a lot of punches, he's there to try and win the fight. Plus, if you think you aren't going to land in certain situations, you probably won't throw. In short, you need to get off the Compubox stats and actually watch the fights.

Holyfield at that point in his career couldn't fight at a high pace as demonstrated in numerous fights. Nothing to do with the opponent.

How do you reconcile this version of Holyfield being a great win for Lewis and better than anyone Wlad fought with his close/controversial fight with Ruiz immediately afterwards? Is Ruiz now better than anyone Wlad beat? What about Roy Jones who beat Ruiz in his sole heavyweight fight? Is he a better heavyweight than anyone Wlad beat?

[keithmoonhangover]

As we both said, fighters can only beat who there is to beat. Overall Lewis' resume is better than Klitschko and his losses were both avenged and they were not to journeymen. You can argue all day about this opponent is better than that opponent but Holyfield alone is better than pretty much everyone Klitschko beat. If Lewis and Wlad fought Lewis would've beaten him as well. I don't hate on Klitschko like some, I'm not a massive fan but he was successful and you don't stay world champ and defend as many times as he did if he wasn't doing something right.

The version of Holyfield that Lewis faced, couldn't fight at a high pace and was only able to throw circa 40 punches a round. He had stamina problems and fought in spurts. Plenty of Wlad opponents are capable of setting a pace Holyfield can't keep up with and as Holyfield's not a huge puncher it seems extremely unlikely he stops everybody. Given the version of Holyfield were talking about it seems like a winnable fight.

You've got a bit an obsession with punch stats, haven't you. Well, this might come as news to you, but boxer's punch output is often dictated by their opponent or strategy for each fight. And just to clarify, a boxer doesn't get into the ring hoping to throw a lot of punches, he's there to try and win the fight. Plus, if you think you aren't going to land in certain situations, you probably won't throw. In short, you need to get off the Compubox stats and actually watch the fights.

Nothing to do with the opponent.

You're saying that the opponent has no effect on a boxer's punch output? Just a simple yes or no will suffice.

[Cojimar 1946]

You've got a bit an obsession with punch stats, haven't you. Well, this might come as news to you, but boxer's punch output is often dictated by their opponent or strategy for each fight. And just to clarify, a boxer doesn't get into the ring hoping to throw a lot of punches, he's there to try and win the fight. Plus, if you think you aren't going to land in certain situations, you probably won't throw. In short, you need to get off the Compubox stats and actually watch the fights.

Nothing to do with the opponent.

You're saying that the opponent has no effect on a boxer's punch output? Just a simple yes or no will suffice.

It does but Holyfield didn't fight at a high pace against any of his opponents at this stage which suggests he'd simply lost the ability to fight at a high pace.

[keithmoonhangover]

Nothing to do with the opponent.

You're saying that the opponent has no effect on a boxer's punch output? Just a simple yes or no will suffice.

It does.

I rest my case.

[Cojimar 1946]

You're saying that the opponent has no effect on a boxer's punch output? Just a simple yes or no will suffice.

It does.

I rest my case.

How is that version of Holyfield better than Wlad's opposition or Usyks for that matter?

How do you reconcile this version of Holyfield being a great win for Lewis and better than anyone Wlad fought with his close/controversial fight with Ruiz immediately afterwards? Is Ruiz now better than anyone Wlad beat? What about Roy Jones who beat Ruiz in his sole heavyweight fight? Is he a better heavyweight than anyone Wlad beat?

Same with Tyson, what wins of his do you consider better than Usyk/Wlads and why?

[Cojimar 1946]

Agree that we all guilty of picking out favorites from time to time. However, most of us don't pick our favorites over guys who were clearly better.

Yes, you can find faults with Ali, Louis or whomever.

Agree, that you can only beat the best that are available. ho
With Klitschko, he ducked Lennox Lewis. They were the top hws for three years. that fight should have happened. He should not get a free pass for this, but always does.

Agree, that you can only beat the best that are available. but that doesn't mean that you are great because you dominated a weak era. It just means that you are the best of a weak era.

You have to weigh the wins and losses of a fighter. Have to consider how close to the prime the fighter was as well as his opponents. to a lesser degree, you have to consider how competitive the fights were.

For Klitschko you have a guy that beat Bhris Byrd. and lost to Purrity, Sanders, and Brewster. Badly.
Then he beat a lot of weak opponents over the course of several years. That isn't enough to rate him among the truly great heavyweights, i.e. nowhere near the top 10. Not even close.

All the greats beat better opponents and didn't have three embarrassing losses against weak competition.

Yes, you can compare fighters form different eras. You can compare fighters from the 1990s to the 1980s. you can compare the 1980s to the 190s to the 1970s. therefore you can compare the 1990s to the 1970s, and so on. You just have to think more. It's not rocket science.

If an aging fat Foreman and Moorer becoming champs isn't indicative of a poor era than what is? That's about the most damning indictment of an era I can imagine short of a champ losing to Butterbean.

[keithmoonhangover]

It does.

I rest my case.

How is that version of Holyfield better than Wlad's opposition or Usyks for that matter?

How do you reconcile this version of Holyfield being a great win for Lewis and better than anyone Wlad fought with his close/controversial fight with Ruiz immediately afterwards? Is Ruiz now better than anyone Wlad beat? What about Roy Jones who beat Ruiz in his sole heavyweight fight? Is he a better heavyweight than anyone Wlad beat?

Same with Tyson, what wins of his do you consider better than Usyk/Wlads and why?

Tyson beat two hall of famers, one of which was the undefeated lineal heavyweight champion of the world. Remind me, how many first ballot hall of famers did Wlad beat?

[Cojimar 1946]

I rest my case.

How is that version of Holyfield better than Wlad's opposition or Usyks for that matter?

How do you reconcile this version of Holyfield being a great win for Lewis and better than anyone Wlad fought with his close/controversial fight with Ruiz immediately afterwards? Is Ruiz now better than anyone Wlad beat? What about Roy Jones who beat Ruiz in his sole heavyweight fight? Is he a better heavyweight than anyone Wlad beat?

Same with Tyson, what wins of his do you consider better than Usyk/Wlads and why?

Tyson beat two hall of famers, one of which was the undefeated lineal heavyweight champion of the world. Remind me, how many first ballot hall of famers did Wlad beat?

Unfortunately Spinks did very little at heavyweight and Holmes was 38 and far past prime. Those aren't impressive wins given the circumstances. We don't get to count Spinks light heavyweight achievements when rating him at heavy and we can't credit Tyson with beating a 1978 Holmes when he fought him in 1988.

I see Haye and Byrd getting into the HOF, maybe Mormeck and Povetkin as well.

Usyk beat Fury and Bredis and I'd be shocked if they didn't get in the HOF

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Agree that we all guilty of picking out favorites from time to time. However, most of us don't pick our favorites over guys who were clearly better.

Yes, you can find faults with Ali, Louis or whomever.

Agree, that you can only beat the best that are available. ho
With Klitschko, he ducked Lennox Lewis. They were the top hws for three years. that fight should have happened. He should not get a free pass for this, but always does.

Agree, that you can only beat the best that are available. but that doesn't mean that you are great because you dominated a weak era. It just means that you are the best of a weak era.

You have to weigh the wins and losses of a fighter. Have to consider how close to the prime the fighter was as well as his opponents. to a lesser degree, you have to consider how competitive the fights were.

For Klitschko you have a guy that beat Bhris Byrd. and lost to Purrity, Sanders, and Brewster. Badly.
Then he beat a lot of weak opponents over the course of several years. That isn't enough to rate him among the truly great heavyweights, i.e. nowhere near the top 10. Not even close.

All the greats beat better opponents and didn't have three embarrassing losses against weak competition.

Yes, you can compare fighters form different eras. You can compare fighters from the 1990s to the 1980s. you can compare the 1980s to the 190s to the 1970s. therefore you can compare the 1990s to the 1970s, and so on. You just have to think more. It's not rocket science.

If an aging fat Foreman and Moorer becoming champs isn't indicative of a poor era than what is? That's about the most damning indictment of an era I can imagine short of a champ losing to Butterbean

- Poor Alpsy continues his losing streak on the wrong side of history after supporting the most vacuous Dem Prez Candidates in history, this after the Dems pulled a coup by beating down Ol'Slo'Joe into retirement.

Let us not forget former hvy single belt holder tubby Lar who never beat a standing champ having won his title in the ring challenging 4 rd Heavy boxer Butterbean because Bean was commanding bigger purses

In the 10 round fight, Bean was slowly reeling in Lar, mocking him in the last half of the fight for running. Last round, Lar tries to pull the proverbial sucker punch on Bean who anticipated with his own counter that knocked Lar down. So in Lar's last moments of his ill advised comeback, he has to beat the count while running away from a 350 lb 4 rd celebrity boxer and the ref while sliding on the ropes to keep from falling over again as the final bell rang.

50 something Mike Tyson recently ignited the boxing world by just tearing up a heavybag such that he secured a lucrative purse and PPV cut by going the distance with Jake Paul who is making more $$$ in boxing than anyone not named AJ or Usyk.

Only George Foreman could maintain that level of boxing respect from fans. When this thread is pulled up 20 years from now with all the major players of the Kbros/AJ era elected to the HOF which may well be bought out by Turki as he did The Ring, the poor deceased soft lads currently fluffing up their their makeovers will be seen for the vacuous era they self created...yeah...

[keithmoonhangover]

How is that version of Holyfield better than Wlad's opposition or Usyks for that matter?

How do you reconcile this version of Holyfield being a great win for Lewis and better than anyone Wlad fought with his close/controversial fight with Ruiz immediately afterwards? Is Ruiz now better than anyone Wlad beat? What about Roy Jones who beat Ruiz in his sole heavyweight fight? Is he a better heavyweight than anyone Wlad beat?

Same with Tyson, what wins of his do you consider better than Usyk/Wlads and why?

Tyson beat two hall of famers, one of which was the undefeated lineal heavyweight champion of the world. Remind me, how many first ballot hall of famers did Wlad beat?

Unfortunately Spinks did very little at heavyweight and Holmes was 38 and far past prime. Those aren't impressive wins given the circumstances. We don't get to count Spinks light heavyweight achievements when rating him at heavy and we can't credit Tyson with beating a 1978 Holmes when he fought him in 1988.

I see Haye and Byrd getting into the HOF, maybe Mormeck and Povetkin as well.

Usyk beat Fury and Bredis and I'd be shocked if they didn't get in the HOF

Are Haye, Byrd, Mormeck and Povetkin first ballot hall of famers?

[Cojimar 1946]

Tyson beat two hall of famers, one of which was the undefeated lineal heavyweight champion of the world. Remind me, how many first ballot hall of famers did Wlad beat?

Unfortunately Spinks did very little at heavyweight and Holmes was 38 and far past prime. Those aren't impressive wins given the circumstances. We don't get to count Spinks light heavyweight achievements when rating him at heavy and we can't credit Tyson with beating a 1978 Holmes when he fought him in 1988.

I see Haye and Byrd getting into the HOF, maybe Mormeck and Povetkin as well.

Usyk beat Fury and Bredis and I'd be shocked if they didn't get in the HOF

Are Haye, Byrd, Mormeck and Povetkin first ballot hall of famers?

not first ballot but they are likely to get in. It seems like a strange argument given Wlad/Usyk appear to have beaten better heavyweights than Spinks and 1988 Holmes.

Why should Spinks light heavy accomplishments have any bearing on Tyson's win or Holmes accomplishments as a younger man that the version Tyson faced couldn't replicate? Tyson didn't fight a prime Holmes or fight Spinks at light heavyweight so where do their HOF accomplishments matter here?

[Ambling Alp II]

Cojimar, keithmoonhangover asked you if you had seen the Holyfield-Mercer fight. You did not answer the question. Have you seen it or not?

[keithmoonhangover]

Unfortunately Spinks did very little at heavyweight and Holmes was 38 and far past prime. Those aren't impressive wins given the circumstances. We don't get to count Spinks light heavyweight achievements when rating him at heavy and we can't credit Tyson with beating a 1978 Holmes when he fought him in 1988.

I see Haye and Byrd getting into the HOF, maybe Mormeck and Povetkin as well.

Usyk beat Fury and Bredis and I'd be shocked if they didn't get in the HOF

Are Haye, Byrd, Mormeck and Povetkin first ballot hall of famers?

not first ballot

Why do you think Holmes and Spinks were first ballot inductees and Haye, Byrd, Mormeck and Povetkin weren't?

[Cojimar 1946]

Cojimar, keithmoonhangover asked you if you had seen the Holyfield-Mercer fight. You did not answer the question. Have you seen it or not?

Yes, I didn't find it very compelling though and kept zoning out. Maybe it will be better if I rewatch it. Wasn't as compelling as Bowe-Golota or Hunter-Zolkin. Was entertaining when Mercer got dropped and when he tackled Holyfield in the last round.

Mercer seemed to tire late which may have cost him the fight

[Ambling Alp II]

Mercer-Holyfield was not compelling. Ok, it is official. You don't know anything about the sport.
All you do is cherry pick things that favor your guys.

[Cojimar 1946]

Mercer-Holyfield was not compelling. Ok, it is official. You don't know anything about the sport.
All you do is cherry pick things that favor your guys.

Some parts were compelling, others were not. I don't rate it as highly as some other 90s heavyweight bouts, fine if you disagree.

Are there any 90s heavyweights who cracked the top 10 who you don't rate over Dubois, Fury, Joshua? Do you have them beating Norris, Hunter, Zolkin, Bruno, Mercer, just curious. Mercer is among the less accomplished guys to break into the top 10 during the 1990s so by suggesting he's a harder task than Fury and company it gives the impression that you rate literally everybody who cracked the top 10 over the best heavyweights today barring Usyk.

[keithmoonhangover]

Are Haye, Byrd, Mormeck and Povetkin first ballot hall of famers?

not first ballot

Why do you think Holmes and Spinks were first ballot inductees and Haye, Byrd, Mormeck and Povetkin weren't?

Well.....

[Ambling Alp II]

Can't wait for the answer.

[Ambling Alp II]

Mercer-Holyfield was not compelling. Ok, it is official. You don't know anything about the sport.
All you do is cherry pick things that favor your guys.

Some parts were compelling, others were not. I don't rate it as highly as some other 90s heavyweight bouts, fine if you disagree.

Are there any 90s heavyweights who cracked the top 10 who you don't rate over Dubois, Fury, Joshua? Do you have them beating Norris, Hunter, Zolkin, Bruno, Mercer, just curious. Mercer is among the less accomplished guys to break into the top 10 during the 1990s so by suggesting he's a harder task than Fury and company it gives the impression that you rate literally everybody who cracked the top 10 over the best heavyweights today barring Usyk.

A fighter can break into the Top 10 for a short period of time and not be that good. He fights someone good and gets exposed. Nobody thinks that Norris, Hunter, or Zolkin were anywhere near the Top 10 for the decade.

But yes, I think Mercer and Bruno, were better than Tyson Fury. Are they Top 10 for the decade? Arguable. They weren't perfect. Mercer has some performances that weren't good. Bruno has several big fights, won some and lost some.

Of course, since they were before your time, you are going to just focus on losses/bad performances and pretend the big wins/good performances did not happen. That is what you do.

i

[Jakub079]

I don't care what people say, Mike Tyson was a great fighter. Probably, top 15 at heavyweight and a top 100 all time pound per pound great. His contributions to the game will always be recognized as his influence and and historical impact on the sport of boxing was second to none.

To be honest, I think that he is terribly underrated today in terms of history (not to be confused with fame). Realistically, he is probably top 5, but his PR is terrible, there is no boxer whose achievements would be more deprecated, but if you think about it, this is a trend caused by his terrible relations with publicists starting with Bert Sugar, Larry Merchant, Teddy Atlas etc. Trainers, his rivals and professionals usually rate him much, much higher