Where does Evander Holyfield rank among all time great Heavyweights?

[gilgamesh]

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.

But wait, Morrison beat Foreman and Norton lost to Foreman. Now which version of Foreman was better? Boy that's a tough one.
Plus, Morrison had "Quality wins".

4 to 3 lol. And two of those are against huys who whoterspoon beat 10 years prior.

Who's better Jaywheel? Wladimir Klitschko or Jersey Joe Walcott?

[gilgamesh]

Who's a better Cruiserweight? James Toney or Oleksandr Usyk?

[gilgamesh]

Why do you guys ignore those last few points? Or those last few questions?

[gilgamesh]

Williams had just lost to Jerry Jones. If beating him at that stage was an impressive feat one would have to find a way to rationale that loss away along with his lack of any recent quality wins and the fact he didn't do anything impressive subsequently.

Also Bruno handled him easily in his very next fight without drama.

Ken Norton got knocked out in the 1st round by Gerry Cooney, and Cooney went on to never get another big win. Everybody has marks against 'em.

One guys losses aren't excusable while another guys count. Every loss for every fighter counts. Every win does too.

I don't see how you can you be a fan for a while and not realize that there are fights that don't mean hardly anything. Like Cooney-Norton. Norton was shot by then.

I understand perfectly age the effect it has on the Human body. That's why I recently made a lot of money on Conor Benn to defeat Regis Prograis and Riku Masuda to defeat Nonito Donaire.

You keep trying to act as if I don't understand what I'm talking about. I understand perfectly what I'm talking about. In every bit of minutiae and detail you could possibly fathom.

Like I've said. Every fighter one day is in their prime, and their prime ends. Every fighter. No exceptions.

[Cojimar 1946]

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.

I would say someone like Duane Bobick or Boone Kirkman would be the 70s equivalent of Morrison.

[gilgamesh]

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.

I would say someone like Duane Bobick or Boone Kirkman would be the 70s equivalent of Morrison.

Did they beat the 50's or 60's equivalent of George Foreman?

[Cojimar 1946]

Absolutely. Foreman was very beatable in his comeback despite the upset win over Moorer which is why I don't rate beating him very highly.

To beat him you just have to be more durable than Moorer or use more movement and not stand in front of him which was easier because he was slow moving around.

[gilgamesh]

Yeah. Silly me. I forgot that any 'ol guy could've just wandered in and beaten up George Foreman in the 90's. That's why it happened so regularly.



I can't help but notice you all ignore my points when you don't have a credible answer for them.

[Cojimar 1946]

Yeah. Silly me. I forgot that any 'ol guy could've just wandered in and beaten up George Foreman in the 90's. That's why it happened so regularly.



I can't help but notice you all ignore my points when you don't have a credible answer for them.

It didn't happen regularly because Foreman largely didn't fight guys capable of beating him as I already noted. He wouldn't fight them to begin with.

Also why is the Foreman fight more important than the Bentt fight in assessing Morrison? Or the Purrity fight?

[gilgamesh]

Yeah. Silly me. I forgot that any 'ol guy could've just wandered in and beaten up George Foreman in the 90's. That's why it happened so regularly.



I can't help but notice you all ignore my points when you don't have a credible answer for them.

It didn't happen regularly because Foreman largely didn't fight guys capable of beating him as I already noted. He wouldn't fight them to begin with.

Also why is the Foreman fight more important than the Bentt fight in assessing Morrison? Or the Purrity fight?

When did I say it was more important? When did I excuse Morrison's loss to Bentt?

[Cojimar 1946]

Yeah. Silly me. I forgot that any 'ol guy could've just wandered in and beaten up George Foreman in the 90's. That's why it happened so regularly.



I can't help but notice you all ignore my points when you don't have a credible answer for them.

It didn't happen regularly because Foreman largely didn't fight guys capable of beating him as I already noted. He wouldn't fight them to begin with.

Also why is the Foreman fight more important than the Bentt fight in assessing Morrison? Or the Purrity fight?

When did I say it was more important? When did I excuse Morrison's loss to Bentt?

So is Bentt better than comeback Foreman? It seems rather embarrassing for Foreman to lose to a guy who lost to Bentt. Unless we have all been underrating Bentt the last 30 plus years and he's far better than we all think.

[gilgamesh]

It didn't happen regularly because Foreman largely didn't fight guys capable of beating him as I already noted. He wouldn't fight them to begin with.

Also why is the Foreman fight more important than the Bentt fight in assessing Morrison? Or the Purrity fight?

When did I say it was more important? When did I excuse Morrison's loss to Bentt?

So is Bentt better than comeback Foreman? Isn't that a bad look for Foreman to lose to a guy who lost to Bentt. Unless we have all been underrating Bentt the last 30 plus years

No Bentt isn't better than comeback Foreman.

Morrison got caught. Simple as that. Sh*t happens in Heavyweight Boxing. Upsets happen.

It doesn't undo everything you ever accomplished just because you suffered an upset defeat.

Is Oliver McCall better than Evander Holyfield? If not, why not? I mean...he beat Lennox Lewis and Holyfield didn't. So he must be better right?

[Cojimar 1946]

Sure but for the same reason an upset win over Moorer isn't enough for me to rate comeback Foreman highly because the rest of his comeback was so unimpressive and features so many awful performances.

It also hurts that Foreman was so picky about who he fought. If he was still a legit threat he should have been fighting guys like Bruno, Ruddock, Bowe etc. if he was confident he could beat them why not try to fight them?

[gilgamesh]

Maybe they weren't confident they could beat him either.

I only critique guys on what's there. I don't mark who they didn't fight against them. Everybody didn't fight somebody that would've been an interesting opponent. That's just the nature of such a brutal business. Any fighters manager if he's not a schmuck is trying to get his guy the biggest money for the least risk because they want him to be able to make that kind of money as many times as possible. That applies to pretty much all fighters.

Some of them are especially bold, and take on the best of the best over and over again, but honestly those guys are a lot more of a rarity than the type I mention above.

[Ambling Alp II]

Ken Norton got knocked out in the 1st round by Gerry Cooney, and Cooney went on to never get another big win. Everybody has marks against 'em.

One guys losses aren't excusable while another guys count. Every loss for every fighter counts. Every win does too.

I don't see how you can you be a fan for a while and not realize that there are fights that don't mean hardly anything. Like Cooney-Norton. Norton was shot by then.

I understand perfectly age the effect it has on the Human body. That's why I recently made a lot of money on Conor Benn to defeat Regis Prograis and Riku Masuda to defeat Nonito Donaire.

You keep trying to act as if I don't understand what I'm talking about. I understand perfectly what I'm talking about. In every bit of minutiae and detail you could possibly fathom.

Like I've said. Every fighter one day is in their prime, and their prime ends. Every fighter. No exceptions.

Sometimes you seem to know what you are talking about Sometimes you don't seem understand basic concepts.
I was going to answer your question about Jersey Joe Walcott, but I know form your previous comments that you have little understanding of his career even though you think you do.

So I will to one of your other silly comments:
The "World Championship that Morrison won over Foreman ". The WBO title was not important at the time. At all. Nobody considered Foreman the real champion at the time. Nobody considered Morrison the champion.

Another thing: title defenses. You point out that Morrison had a successful title defense and Norton didn't. And for you, that's advantage for Morrison. And you aren't looking at what really happened. At all.

1. Morrison's wasn't really a world champion.
2. Norton's title defense was a prime Larry Holmes. Norton almost beat him. Something Morrison couldn't dream of doing.
3. Morrison first title defense was against: drum roll, please, Tim Tomashek! A club fighter. I saw the fight. It was on USA Network which never had big fights. Morrison's original opponent pulled out. Tomashek literally was pulled out of the crowd to fight Morrison! The guy had no idea he was going to fight that night. How much training had he been doing? What did he eat that day? And he was a club fighter.
That fight didn't mean anything. And no, not all fights mean anything. If that fight never happened, Morrison would be any worse of a fighter.

[gilgamesh]

I never said the WBO title was important. I simply acknowledged that Morrison won it, and defended it. I don't think most titles are particularly important, but if it is an established World Title I feel in fairness to all the fighters who have won it at one time or another I treat the title equally for all fighters who have won it.

Again, I never decided the WBO or WBA or IBF or WBC was important. The Boxing public did. These are the established 4 World Titles. Your own personal feelings on the titles, My own personal feelings on the titles are irrelevant. Somebody won them, Somebody lost them, and the Boxing World for better or for worse kinda goes around them so they are important as a tool to keep track of who's who even if the value of the title may sometimes be in question.

And finally, and most importantly to this conversation. If Morrison had never won the WBO World Title or any other, and he still had the same exact record with the same exact results. I'd have him rated ahead of Norton still, the margin would be slightly slimmer, but I'd have him ahead of Norton.

If you want to look at a factor that does actually make a difference that you could have a gripe about, it's in the fact that more of Morrison's fights are on video and are easier to properly assess than Norton's, but much like I didn't decide which titles are important I also don't get to decide which fights are on video and which aren't. I just have to take it all for what it is. What I see.

And to answer one of your questions directly. If Morrison hadn't beaten Tomashek would he be any worse of a fighter? No, obviously not, he'd have 1 less win on his record and a few less points.

[Controversial]

So you are basing it on Morrison looking better against inferior opponents? Most big punchers can look great knocking over journeymen, that means nothing. What matters is how they look against world class opposition. How many HWs over the years build up great unbeaten records, have highlight reel KOs and as soon as they step up get beat. Herbie Hide looked very good in his earlier fights, fast and great knockouts yet when he stepped up he invariably got beat.

[gilgamesh]

So you are basing it on Morrison looking better against inferior opponents? Most big punchers can look great knocking over journeymen, that means nothing. What matters is how they look against world class opposition. How many HWs over the years build up great unbeaten records, have highlight reel KOs and as soon as they step up get beat. Herbie Hide looked very good in his earlier fights, fast and great knockouts yet when he stepped up he invariably got beat.

When Norton stepped up he got beat too.

Norton has 3 particularly big wins compared to 6 losses against big name fighters.

Morrison technically has a higher percentage of success when fighting big name fighters, and yes, yes I know but but but but Norton's competition was better. Yes, I got that.

[Controversial]

So you are basing it on Morrison looking better against inferior opponents? Most big punchers can look great knocking over journeymen, that means nothing. What matters is how they look against world class opposition. How many HWs over the years build up great unbeaten records, have highlight reel KOs and as soon as they step up get beat. Herbie Hide looked very good in his earlier fights, fast and great knockouts yet when he stepped up he invariably got beat.

When Norton stepped up he got beat too.

Norton has 3 particularly big wins compared to 6 losses against big name fighters.

Morrison technically has a higher percentage of success when fighting big name fighters, and yes, yes I know but but but but Norton's competition was better. Yes, I got that.

You make no sense. Norton beat arguably the greatest HW in history, in prime years, some think once, some think twice and some think all three times. Morrison beat no great fighter in their prime.

[gilgamesh]

So you are basing it on Morrison looking better against inferior opponents? Most big punchers can look great knocking over journeymen, that means nothing. What matters is how they look against world class opposition. How many HWs over the years build up great unbeaten records, have highlight reel KOs and as soon as they step up get beat. Herbie Hide looked very good in his earlier fights, fast and great knockouts yet when he stepped up he invariably got beat.

When Norton stepped up he got beat too.

Norton has 3 particularly big wins compared to 6 losses against big name fighters.

Morrison technically has a higher percentage of success when fighting big name fighters, and yes, yes I know but but but but Norton's competition was better. Yes, I got that.

You make no sense. Norton beat arguably the greatest HW in history, in prime years, some think once, some think twice and some think all three times. Morrison beat no great fighter in their prime.

He beat George Foreman who was 1 fight shy away from winning the Heavyweight Championship of the World.

Is that as great as beating Muhammad Ali in his prime? No it isn't. Is it better than beating Jerry Quarry or Jimmy Young? Yes, it is.

Tommy Morrison also beat Razor Ruddock, Pinklon Thomas, Carl "The Truth" Williams. Ruddock in particular was still quite dangerous when he fought Morrison. and he would be on a similar level to Quarry or Young as well.

[Controversial]

When Norton stepped up he got beat too.

Norton has 3 particularly big wins compared to 6 losses against big name fighters.

Morrison technically has a higher percentage of success when fighting big name fighters, and yes, yes I know but but but but Norton's competition was better. Yes, I got that.

You make no sense. Norton beat arguably the greatest HW in history, in prime years, some think once, some think twice and some think all three times. Morrison beat no great fighter in their prime.

He beat George Foreman who was 1 fight shy away from winning the Heavyweight Championship of the World.

Is that as great as beating Muhammad Ali in his prime? No it isn't. Is it better than beating Jerry Quarry or Jimmy Young? Yes, it is.

Tommy Morrison also beat Razor Ruddock, Pinklon Thomas, Carl "The Truth" Williams. Ruddock in particular was still quite dangerous when he fought Morrison. and he would be on a similar level to Quarry or Young as well.

Those last guys weren’t great or in their prime. Foreman wasn’t in his prime either. Foreman done very well to win the title back at his age, he was behind on all scorecards and ended it with one punch. Sometimes that happens, especially with big punching HWs. Rahman done it to Lewis, I don’t rate Rahman as a great fighter, he was a dangerous puncher who caught Lewis with a huge punch that ended it. Same difference in my book. Huge upset but chances are if they fought a hundred times they wouldn’t repeat it.

[gilgamesh]

So beating Foreman a 2 time Heavyweight Champion of the World wasn't as big of a win as beating Jerry Quarry or Jimmy Young and the combined 0 times they won the Heavyweight Championship?

I never said Foreman was in his prime brother, but that don't mean beating Foreman was a cakewalk.

Interesting that you bring up Rahman. Similarly to Norton he has 1 All Time Great win on his record, and also similarly to Norton I don't think he had a better career than Tommy Morrison.

[Controversial]

So beating Foreman a 2 time Heavyweight Champion of the World wasn't as big of a win as beating Jerry Quarry or Jimmy Young and the combined 0 times they won the Heavyweight Championship?

I never said Foreman was in his prime brother, but that don't mean beating Foreman was a cakewalk.

Interesting that you bring up Rahman. Similarly to Norton he has 1 All Time Great win on his record, and also similarly to Norton I don't think he's better than Tommy Morrison.

But you are arguing Morrison had a better career and then ignoring the fact Norton beat Ali and came very close to beating a prime Holmes. He also beat Young who beat a prime Foreman. Morrison never beat one single prime HW.

[gilgamesh]

Running over the same old ground...what have we found?

I'm not ignoring ANYTHING!

[Jaywheel]

Yet the more you defend Morrison the more ridiculous you look. Damiani beat Johnny Duploy to become the first WBO HW champ. 2 years later Moorer vacated that same title to be sanctionned by relevant organizations, for a real tilte shot. Morrison then became champ of a vacant belt. 3 years later, Akinwande did the same as Moorer. That title meant nothing back then. And yes Usyk ranks higher than that other guy you're asking about, as if it changes anything to the fact that Norton ranks higher than the Duke who is not a top 20 hw of the last 50 years.