Where does Evander Holyfield rank among all time great Heavyweights?

[Jaywheel]

Top 25 of last 50 years could easily exclude Morrison. Here's 28 and I'm not listing many debatable 80's fighters or guys like Rahman or C.Sanders that could also have a claim.

Holyfield
Holmes
Tyson
Lewis
Ali
Wlad
Vitali
Usyk
Fury
Joshua
Bowe
Povetkin
Norton
Byrd
Ruiz
Tua
A.Ruiz
Witherspoon
Valuev
McCall
Wilder
Chagaev
Douglas
Rahman
Moorer
Mercer
M.Spinks
Coetzee

[Controversial]

Norton really doesn't have any particularly great wins either other than the decision over Ali in their 1st bout. His fight with Jimmy Young was extremely close. Other than that the best things he did was lose competitively to Holmes and Ali.

Norton also has less wins and more losses than Morrison, and in spite of having less total fights than Morrison, he was knocked out more often

You're underplaying Norton and overplaying Morrison. Norton fought in the toughest era in HW history. He beat Ali (41-1) who most rate the greatest HW in history (or if not at least top 3).

Holmes (27-0) won by SD, another top 5 HW of all time. A few of Norton's other wins were against top 10 ranked fighters like Quarry and Young.

Morrison's best win was against a 44 year old Foreman and a past it Ruddock who was never the same after losing to Tyson several years earlier (he admitted the Tyson fights ruined him) and hadn't boxed for almost 18 months when he fought Morrison.

Neither of their chins stood up well to big punchers but to suggest Morrison had a better career, or on a par with Norton is stretching it somewhat.

[gilgamesh]

Norton really doesn't have any particularly great wins either other than the decision over Ali in their 1st bout. His fight with Jimmy Young was extremely close. Other than that the best things he did was lose competitively to Holmes and Ali.

Norton also has less wins and more losses than Morrison, and in spite of having less total fights than Morrison, he was knocked out more often

You're underplaying Norton and overplaying Morrison. Norton fought in the toughest era in HW history. He beat Ali (41-1) who most rate the greatest HW in history (or if not at least top 3).

Holmes (27-0) won by SD, another top 5 HW of all time. A few of Norton's other wins were against top 10 ranked fighters like Quarry and Young.

Morrison's best win was against a 44 year old Foreman and a past it Ruddock who was never the same after losing to Tyson several years earlier (he admitted the Tyson fights ruined him) and hadn't boxed for almost 18 months when he fought Morrison.

Neither of their chins stood up well to big punchers but to suggest Morrison had a better career, or on a par with Norton is stretching it somewhat.

I'm not suggesting he was on par with Norton. He had a BETTER career than Norton. Norton beating Ali, Quarry, and Young are about the only impressive performances he ever had. He looks mediocre or downright average in almost every other fight he has.

Like Roy Jones once said about him "He lived to give Ali hell". He was definitely the bane of Ali's existence, but he wasn't all that f*cking effective against all the other Heavyweights of his time aside from Jerry Quarry.

The Jimmy Young fight was extremely close, and could've went either way.

I'll grant you Norton's win over Ali is an All Time Great win, and it SHOULD'VE been enough for him to have a better career than Morrison, but in most of his fights he looks downright average, and not particularly special at all. Morrison on the other hand often wins spectacularly via knockout in exciting fashion.

[gilgamesh]

Top 25 of last 50 years could easily exclude Morrison. Here's 28 and I'm not listing many debatable 80's fighters or guys like Rahman or C.Sanders that could also have a claim.

Holyfield
Holmes
Tyson
Lewis
Ali
Wlad
Vitali
Usyk
Fury
Joshua
Bowe
Povetkin
Norton
Byrd
Ruiz
Tua
A.Ruiz
Witherspoon
Valuev
McCall
Wilder
Chagaev
Douglas
Rahman
Moorer
Mercer
M.Spinks
Coetzee

Now see this is what I mean. Sure you can SAY that Tim Witherspoon or Andy Ruiz or Michael Spinks or Valuev was better than him.

But based on what?

Michael Spinks has a 4-1 record as a Heavyweight.

Tim Witherspoon lost 13 times, and his biggest win is Frank Bruno. Morrison's biggest win is better than that.

Andy Ruiz has 1 big win.

I actually have concrete reasons for why I rank guys where I rank them. I'm not just pulling names out of a hat.

[gilgamesh]

Tommy Morrison has 4 Quality wins to Norton's 3

Tommy Morrison actually WON a World TItle in the ring, and defended it once successfully

Ken Norton on the other hand was gifted a World title, and then promptly lost it in his 1st defense (I do think he was robbed in the 3rd Ali fight though). He never officially Won a World Championship fight.

Tommy Morrison has as many KO wins as Norton has wins period.

Tommy Morrison has 3 losses to Norton's 7 in spite of the fact that he fought 1 more fight than Norton did.

Tommy's got almost everything over Norton. The one thing Norton has is a great win over Muhammad Ali, and I'll grant you that is one hell of a great win, but when mixed with an otherwise career of mostly mediocrity, it's got to be considered more of an anomaly than a true representation of his level.

Any other time he fought with a Heavyweight of that level he lost. Hell for that matter he usually lost when he fought any other Heavyweight 1 notch below that level.

[Controversial]

Norton really doesn't have any particularly great wins either other than the decision over Ali in their 1st bout. His fight with Jimmy Young was extremely close. Other than that the best things he did was lose competitively to Holmes and Ali.

Norton also has less wins and more losses than Morrison, and in spite of having less total fights than Morrison, he was knocked out more often

You're underplaying Norton and overplaying Morrison. Norton fought in the toughest era in HW history. He beat Ali (41-1) who most rate the greatest HW in history (or if not at least top 3).

Holmes (27-0) won by SD, another top 5 HW of all time. A few of Norton's other wins were against top 10 ranked fighters like Quarry and Young.

Morrison's best win was against a 44 year old Foreman and a past it Ruddock who was never the same after losing to Tyson several years earlier (he admitted the Tyson fights ruined him) and hadn't boxed for almost 18 months when he fought Morrison.

Neither of their chins stood up well to big punchers but to suggest Morrison had a better career, or on a par with Norton is stretching it somewhat.

I'm not suggesting he was on par with Norton. He had a BETTER career than Norton. Norton beating Ali, Quarry, and Young are about the only impressive performances he ever had. He looks mediocre or downright average in almost every other fight he has.

Like Roy Jones once said about him "He lived to give Ali hell". He was definitely the bane of Ali's existence, but he wasn't all that f*cking effective against all the other Heavyweights of his time aside from Jerry Quarry.

The Jimmy Young fight was extremely close, and could've went either way.

I'll grant you Norton's win over Ali is an All Time Great win, and it SHOULD'VE been enough for him to have a better career than Morrison, but in most of his fights he looks downright average, and not particularly special at all. Morrison on the other hand often wins spectacularly via knockout in exciting fashion.

Wow Morrison had a better career than Norton? Im not even gonna bother responding if you think that lol

[gilgamesh]

I KNOW it. I don't think it.

There ain't no argument you could make. Norton lost competitively against great fighters is the best argument you got. So Norton should be rated higher for losing. Would be your and everyone's argument, you know why I know that? Because there isn't a better one.

[gilgamesh]

All of you guys like to pull the "I'm not even gonna dignify that with a response" card whenever you have no argument. It's pretty see through.

"I'm not even gonna dignify that with a response" is Boxrec code for "I'm wrong, but I'll never admit it"

If you had a better argument you'd make it. You don't because you can't. I know it, and you know it.

[Jaywheel]

Morrison won the then meaningless WBO belt by running away from and old Foreman who could barely scrape by the undeserving challenger Schulz. He proceeded to defend it once against mighty Tomashek only to get crushed in 1 against cab driver Bentt. Got destroyeded by Lewis and Mercer and went life and death with Carl Williams and Joe Hipp. He had a good left hook.

Witherspoon beat Bruno, Tubbs, Tillis, Page for the WBC belt, and lost a close fight with Holmes. He even did beat Carl Williams more easily than Morrison too!!

I too won't even bother adressing Norton. Beating Ali, Quarry and Young are the only 3 impressive performances of Norton? Every single one of those trumps anything Morrison has ever done.

You keep on claiming certainty on things and keep on backing them up by that ridiculous ranking system of yours.

[gilgamesh]

And you guys keep looking at Stat sheets, and not watching the fights.

I watched the fights.

Witherspoon looks like sh*t in a lot of his fights. Like a lot, a lot of 'em. He wins by devastating KO from time to time otherwise often looks mediocre as sh*t.

His fights with Greg Page and Tony Tubbs are not particularly special in any way. They're just average title fights. 2 guys that were decent Top 5 Heavies at the time fighting it out for a belt that wasn't the real belt.

Tim Witherspoon lost 10 more fights than Morrison did, and his biggest win isn't as big as Morrison's biggest win. He's got no case whatsoever. At least with Norton it's somewhat of a debate, saying Witherspoon was better than Morrison is just flat out ridiculous.

[Jaywheel]

So wrong yet so condescending. Oh so Witherspoon was inconsistent, so knowledgeable..

Witherspoon started his career in 1979. By 1992 he only had 3 losses. 9 of the 13 losses came in 1996 or later.

But we all know that you don't put perspective into when the fights are happening in the career of the fighter.

Beating Foreman is the greatest win of Morrison's career and is a good win. You make it as if was against 1975 Foreman when it's in fact against Grill George who wouldn't fight Tucker or rematch Schulz.

And so what if is Spinks 4-1 as a heavy? 2 of those wins are against a defending undefeated champ considered top 5 all time by most. And also Gerry Cooney. Easily trumps Morrison's career.

And even if you remove Witherspoon, they're is still 27 names I listed. Ok maybe Andy Ruiz too. You said it was impossible to come up with 25 better heavuweights than Morrison in the past 50 years. It's not.

[gilgamesh]

You wanna criticize me for developing and using my system to justify my arguments. What are you using to justify your arguments?

What is your opinion based on except a knee jerk reaction?

Before I watched all of their fights. I probably would've told ya that Ken Norton and Tim Witherspoon were better than Morrison too, but I would've been speaking out of ignorance because I wouldn't know what I didn't know.

Old Man Foreman even if you took all of his 70's accomplishments away, and left Foreman only with his record from 1987 onward, he had a better career than Tim Witherspoon in my opinion, and I'm pretty sure the results are there to show it, but I haven't the time right now to get into it.

[gilgamesh]

See...you just said one of Spinks' big wins as a Heavyweight is Cooney. Foreman also beat Cooney, easier in fact...and then Morrison beat Foreman.

Foreman in his very next bout after losing to Morrison WON THE HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP OF THE WORLD! By knocking out Michael Moorer. So he wasn't a f*cking washed up old man.

[Jaywheel]

The one good win during his comeback is Moorer. His best fight is the loss to Holyfield.

No I'm not coming up wit a system to back my claims as the existing ones, the belts lineage, the videos and records are enough for me to rank the fighters.

Subjective pts system to backup your biases, it's not gospel.

[Jaywheel]

See...you just said one of Spinks' big wins as a Heavyweight is Cooney. Foreman also beat Cooney, easier in fact...and then Morrison beat Foreman.

Foreman in his very next bout after losing to Morrison WON THE HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP OF THE WORLD! By knocking out Michael Moorer. So he wasn't a f*cking washed up old man.

He has 4 wins. 2 of them against Holmes, was just pointing out that one of the other was not against a scrub. And bringing up 1990 Cooney just proves the point I was making, he was already a coke-filled walking dummy when Speaks beat him, you think it's a good win for Foreman 3 years later when Cooney had no fights in between.

[gilgamesh]

You're entitled to your opinion Jaywheel. Morrison vs Witherspoon certainly would've been a winnable fight for either man. Same with Morrison vs Norton.

Witherspoon is overrated by you guys in my evidence based opinion, but overrate him by all means if it pleases you.

[margaret thatcher]

norton was soooooooo close to having wins over ali and holmes. how amazing that would look on his resume. the decisive last round vs holmes was going so good for him until he got hurt late late on, that lost must have stung .

[Ambling Alp II]

Tommy Morrison has 4 Quality wins to Norton's 3

Tommy Morrison actually WON a World TItle in the ring, and defended it once successfully

Ken Norton on the other hand was gifted a World title, and then promptly lost it in his 1st defense (I do think he was robbed in the 3rd Ali fight though). He never officially Won a World Championship fight.

Tommy Morrison has as many KO wins as Norton has wins period.

Tommy Morrison has 3 losses to Norton's 7 in spite of the fact that he fought 1 more fight than Norton did.

Tommy's got almost everything over Norton. The one thing Norton has is a great win over Muhammad Ali, and I'll grant you that is one hell of a great win, but when mixed with an otherwise career of mostly mediocrity, it's got to be considered more of an anomaly than a true representation of his level.

Any other time he fought with a Heavyweight of that level he lost. Hell for that matter he usually lost when he fought any other Heavyweight 1 notch below that level.

This beyond stupid. Norton was a much, much better fighter than Morrison and had a much better career than Morrison.

Wins and losses? Seriously? Yeah lets go by that when rating fighters.

Do you really think Morrison's quality wins are up their Norton? Norton beat Ali, Quarry, and young. Who are Morrison's "quality" wins even supposed to be? I assume you are coun ting wins against guys way past their prime.
None of them compare to Norton's.

Norton was gifted the title? He just beat the next best contender in his previous fight. They weren't going to match them up again. Young would have got the WBC title had he won.
Morrison beat an ancient Foreman to win the WBO title. Which wasn't even considered a major title at the time.

Norton looked better on film.

Norton lost the title in his first defense? Who was that against? Oh yeah, a close loss to a prime Larry Holmes.
Morrison lost his title to frikkin Michale Bentt.

Your goofy criteria and silly reasoning led you to another ridiculous conclusion.

[gilgamesh]

Morrison beating Foreman is a great win. He has other good wins that are on par with the Young and Quarry victories or at least not far behind them.

Norton DOES NOT in fact look better on film. I watched every available fight of both men.

[Ambling Alp II]

No, it's not a great win. Foreman was nowhere near a great fighter at the time. You think that version of Foreman was on par with the Young who fought Norton? Come on.

Can't even imagine what shot opponent was Morrison's next biggest win.

Morrison was never one of the top guys. Norton was.

I can't believe we have to argue who looked better. Morrison never would have beaten Ali in 1973. Morrison wouldn't have beat Young. Wouldn't have beat Quarry. Would have been dominated and stopped in the mid-rounds against Holmes.

[gilgamesh]

You said above "Wins and losses? Seriously? Yeah let's go by that when rating fighters"

As if I was making that idea up.

What do you rate fighters on? Their looks?

The whole point of this site is keeping track of Wins and Losses so yes it most certainly matters when rating fighters. Hell it matters in any competitive endeavor for that matter.


I don't know if Morrison would've beaten Young or Quarry and you don't either.

Morrison did beat Razor Ruddock, Pinklon Thomas, Carl Williams. All solid wins. Norton was never the top guy either. Foreman, Ali and Holmes were, but not him.

Morrison beat Foreman by the way. Norton didn't.

[Jaywheel]

Ok you got us Morrison was better than Norton

[gilgamesh]

Ok you got us Morrison was better than Norton

So on a seemingly unrelated topic, but just to get a feel for how much we may disagree with each other in general.

Who rates higher to you? Wladimir Klitschko or Jersey Joe Walcott?

[keithmoonhangover]

Tommy Morrison has 4 Quality wins to Norton's 3

Morrison didn't beat a single contender in their prime. Norton beat the best heavyweight in the history of the sport and that was before Ali beat Foreman. That win puts him in a different stratosphere to Tommy Morrison.

[Controversial]

Tommy Morrison has 4 Quality wins to Norton's 3

Morrison didn't beat a single contender in their prime. Norton beat the best heavyweight in the history of the sport and that was before Ali beat Foreman. That win puts him in a different stratosphere to Tommy Morrison.

Yeah but Morrison beat Tillis, Williams, Thomas and Ruddock. Four shot fighters trumps one ATG. Simple math init.