Where does Evander Holyfield rank among all time great Heavyweights?

[gilgamesh]

I acknowledge that you think Frazier is better than Morrison. Not exactly a close call.
Chavez ahead of Tzysu? OK. fine. Whatever.

Yes Norton's wins are more impressive. it's the gap that you don't get. It's not remotely close. It's gigantic.

Actually Norton's losses are not worse.

The loss to Garcia is embarrassing. That should count against Norton.
The losses to Ali and Holmes are more impressive than win that Morrison ever had.
The loss to Foreman was devastating. But Foreman did that to almost everyone in his prime.

The Shavers' loss was devastating as well. However, you certainly can argue that Norton was past his best by then. He had the brutal fight with Holmes. He was 35. Morrison packed in way before that age. (For the love of God, please don't bring up the two comeback fights against tomato cans)

Norton got ko's in the first round by Cooney. He was 38 by then. One of those fights that don't mean anything, but you never get that and think it was a big deal.

Morrison got brutally beaten by Michael Bentt. A complete unknown who never did anything else.
Against Mercer? Got destroyed.
Again Lewis, one-sided beatdown.

In a nutshell, Morrison was a fringe contender, who won a paper title that no one at the time thought meant anything. Morrison was never one of the top heavyweights. Ever.
Norton was a serious contender for several years in the best era in the history of hw boxing.
Which is why everyone thinks you are insane about this.

Norton was 38 and he was shot. Usyk is 40 right now and he's Heavyweight Champion.

Excuses. Excuses is all you guys want or have to give.

All fights mean something. If Norton had beaten Cooney he probably would've gotten another shot at the title, but he didn't and he didn't.

[gilgamesh]

Hey Alp. What about Wladimir Klitschko's loss to Tyson Fury did it count against him?

How about Bernard Hopkins losing twice to Jermain Taylor. Do those losses count?

If Usyk gets beaten. Is that not gonna count?

Surely you don't just pick and choose when it counts do ya?

Hey Alp, and everybody else. I have Muhammad Ali's victory over George Foreman listed as an All Time Great win worth 110 points. I have Tommy Morrison's win over George Foreman listed as a Gold Star win worth 59 points.

Now tell me everybody? Why don't I score those wins equally? I can't tell the difference between when a guy is in his Prime or isn't right? So what's the explanation for that then? Any guesses?

[Controversial]

To YOU they mean nothing. They meant something to Pinklon Thomas.

Eh, you said it like it meant something otherwise why mention it ?

It did mean something. Maybe not much, but it meant something

No to you it means something as you were using that as some sort of justification for Pinklon still being a good fighter after Morrison, "he went 12-0 after Morrison" as if those pointless fights proved anything.

Norton was 38 and he was shot. Usyk is 40 right now and he's Heavyweight Champion.

Excuses. Excuses is all you guys want or have to give.

It seems you don't understand that everyone is different. Some fighters are finished in their 20s, some in their 30s, some later. It isn't just age it can be for all sorts of reasons, do they live the life of a fighter, injuries, willingness to go into the trenches anymore, can't take the same punches anymore, reasons for fighting (i.e. can't walk away, need money, still have title aspirations etc). Usyk has had 24 fights, he's said he will likely have 3 more fights and retire, that's not a lot of fights. Cooney was Norton's 50th fight. Norton should've probably retired after Holmes but like so many fighters they carry on, Holyfield and RJJ classic examples. Maybe Cooney would've done the same had they fought earlier, who knows but also possible Norton would've given him a harder fight.

[gilgamesh]

It seems you don't understand that everyone is different. Some fighters are finished in their 20s, some in their 30s, some later. It isn't just age it can be for all sorts of reasons, do they live the life of a fighter, injuries, willingness to go into the trenches anymore, can't take the same punches anymore, reasons for fighting (i.e. can't walk away, need money, still have title aspirations etc). Usyk has had 24 fights, he's said he will likely have 3 more fights and retire, that's not a lot of fights. Cooney was Norton's 50th fight. Norton should've probably retired after Holmes but like so many fighters they carry on, Holyfield and RJJ classic examples. Maybe Cooney would've done the same had they fought earlier, who knows but also possible Norton would've given him a harder fight.

And you just unintentionally made my point for me. You are absolutely correct. You can't say specifically what makes a fighter past his prime. You can't say it's because he's 35. Or because he's 40. Or because he's been knocked out once, or twice.

And since there is no set way to determine when a man is "past his prime" anyone can simply say a guy was or wasn't past his prime to either give praise to or take credit from any victory they choose. Therefore the only way to fairly acknowledge this phenomenon is to understand that all fighters are one day feeling the benefit of their youth, and the next day feeling the wear and tear of their age. Nobody gets to avoid aging.

If a fighter is "past his prime" at a younger age due to not training as diligently as he should've or due to getting beat up more often...that just indicates he was never as good in the first place then doesn't it? The Discipline to keep it is just as important as the Discipline to get it when discussing All Time Legend status.

So in summary. Yes a fighter can go down a notch in status if he has lost a lot of fights in a row, but no losing a fight because you were "past your prime" doesn't excuse the loss. If you were too old to win the fight then you shouldn't have fought it. If you stepped in the ring, you live with the result. No excuses.

[Controversial]

It seems you don't understand that everyone is different. Some fighters are finished in their 20s, some in their 30s, some later. It isn't just age it can be for all sorts of reasons, do they live the life of a fighter, injuries, willingness to go into the trenches anymore, can't take the same punches anymore, reasons for fighting (i.e. can't walk away, need money, still have title aspirations etc). Usyk has had 24 fights, he's said he will likely have 3 more fights and retire, that's not a lot of fights. Cooney was Norton's 50th fight. Norton should've probably retired after Holmes but like so many fighters they carry on, Holyfield and RJJ classic examples. Maybe Cooney would've done the same had they fought earlier, who knows but also possible Norton would've given him a harder fight.

And you just unintentionally made my point for me. You are absolutely correct. You can't say specifically what makes a fighter past his prime. You can't say it's because he's 35. Or because he's 40. Or because he's been knocked out once, or twice.

And since there is no set way to determine when a man is "past his prime" anyone can simply say a guy was or wasn't past his prime to either give praise to or take credit from any victory they choose. Therefore the only way to fairly acknowledge this phenomenon is to understand that all fighters are one day feeling the benefit of their youth, and the next day feeling the wear and tear of their age. Nobody gets to avoid aging.

If a fighter is "past his prime" at a younger age due to not training as diligently as he should've or due to getting beat up more often...that just indicates he was never as good in the first place then doesn't it? The Discipline to keep it is just as important as the Discipline to get it when discussing All Time Legend status.

So in summary. Yes a fighter can go down a notch in status if he has lost a lot of fights in a row, but no losing a fight because you were "past your prime" doesn't excuse the loss. If you were too old to win the fight then you shouldn't have fought it. If you stepped in the ring, you live with the result. No excuses.

I agree it someone boxes on for whatever reason that's on them. But as fans you can also see when fighters are past their best, you can't treat all their fights like they were in their prime. Otherwise are we saying Danny Williams win over Tyson is comparable to him beating the version of Tyson when he won the title. Or Berbick beating Ali is comparable to beating the version that beat Frazier etc etc. Of course not. Yes the fight stands and is on their record and actually happened but as I said before context is everything and has to be taken into consideration when looking at someone's overall career.

[gilgamesh]

Oh come on you would deny Danny Williams the crowning achievement of his career? He took 2 and a half rounds of a full on Mike Tyson ass kicking and came back and outgutted him for a 4th round KO.

It's a good win for the guy and he gets his credit for it. It's not as if that 1 win makes him an all time Legend when weighed against the rest of his career. But he has his 1 big win. It got him a shot at the World Title where he promptly got his ass handed to him , but he'll always be one of few men that knocked out Mike Tyson. Don't deny him that.

Danny's win over Mike was still a win over a Very Good former Champion in a Great action packed fight.

[keithmoonhangover]

Morrison beat George Foreman while Ken Norton didn't.

Ken Norton couldn't beat Scott LeDoux and got blasted out by Gerry Cooney.

Everything both of us said just now is true ain't it?

I thought Norton lost clear to Ali in their 2nd bout, and the 3rd fight I have for Norton for the record. And that's still at the end of the day just 1 fight on Norton's record. 1 fight he didn't win.

The things is, George Foreman fought Norton nineteen year earlier, and I think maybe, just maybe, Foreman was a much more formidable boxer then. In 1974. George was an Olympic gold medalist and unbeaten undisputed heavyweight champion of the world. In 1993 he wasn't. If you can't see that, there's no helping you.

I see it just fine. I never said I didn't. George Foreman won the Heavyweight Championship in 1994 and then kept it in 1995. Did you not see that?

Maybe old man Foreman still beats young Norton. Maybe he doesn't. It doesn't matter. The fights took place when they took place and they are what they are.

Dude, I like you, I respect you, but you're wrong here. BoxRec ain't perfect when rating fighters, but it's never a million miles away. In there all time heavyweight rankings, they have Norton at #53 and Morrison at #201.

[Jaywheel]

Norton's 3 Quality wins are worth more than Morrison's 4. YES

His 7 losses are also more damaging to his reputation than Morrison's 3. NO

I consider fighters like Bobick and Stander to be Fringe contenders. They were solid wins for Norton, one notch shy of being considered Good/Quality wins.

For Morrison in that same category there would be James "Quick" Tillis and Yuri Vaulin. LOL Vaulin

Morrison should rank around Corrie Sanders rank. Wins over Wlad, Purrity, De Leon, Bert Cooper. 2 time HW champ. The even more credible by then then when the Duke won it WBO title, and the WBU title which he defended 3 successful times. Losses to ATG great champs Vitali and Rahman don't hurt much. That should be enough to rank over Norton too right? Right?

[gilgamesh]

Norton's 3 Quality wins are worth more than Morrison's 4. YES

His 7 losses are also more damaging to his reputation than Morrison's 3. NO

I consider fighters like Bobick and Stander to be Fringe contenders. They were solid wins for Norton, one notch shy of being considered Good/Quality wins.

For Morrison in that same category there would be James "Quick" Tillis and Yuri Vaulin. LOL Vaulin

Morrison should rank around Corrie Sanders rank. Wins over Wlad, Purrity, De Leon, Bert Cooper. 2 time HW champ. The even more credible by then then when the Duke won it WBO title, and the WBU title which he defended 3 successful times. Losses to ATG great champs Vitali and Rahman don't hurt much. That should be enough to rank over Norton too right? Right?

Don't know I haven't rated Sanders yet. We'll see when I add him to the list.

[gilgamesh]

The things is, George Foreman fought Norton nineteen year earlier, and I think maybe, just maybe, Foreman was a much more formidable boxer then. In 1974. George was an Olympic gold medalist and unbeaten undisputed heavyweight champion of the world. In 1993 he wasn't. If you can't see that, there's no helping you.

I see it just fine. I never said I didn't. George Foreman won the Heavyweight Championship in 1994 and then kept it in 1995. Did you not see that?

Maybe old man Foreman still beats young Norton. Maybe he doesn't. It doesn't matter. The fights took place when they took place and they are what they are.

Dude, I like you, I respect you, but you're wrong here. BoxRec ain't perfect when rating fighters, but it's never a million miles away. In there all time heavyweight rankings, they have Norton at #53 and Morrison at #201.

I'm not wrong. If I was. Somebody could come up with a good reason why I'm wrong. So far...Nada.

One ranking that everyone throws a hissy fit about, doesn't mean that the whole idea is a failure, to me it's more a case of everyone always said this guy was better for years and years, but never really gave it much thought as to why. I gave it thought, and saw there really wasn't much of a why. Just a strongly held opinion by many people.

Here are my Top 5 Heavyweights. Is anything egregiously off the mark here to you?

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. George Foreman
4. Larry Holmes
5. Lennox Lewis

[keithmoonhangover]

I see it just fine. I never said I didn't. George Foreman won the Heavyweight Championship in 1994 and then kept it in 1995. Did you not see that?

Maybe old man Foreman still beats young Norton. Maybe he doesn't. It doesn't matter. The fights took place when they took place and they are what they are.

Dude, I like you, I respect you, but you're wrong here. BoxRec ain't perfect when rating fighters, but it's never a million miles away. In there all time heavyweight rankings, they have Norton at #53 and Morrison at #201.

I'm not wrong. If I was. Somebody could come up with a good reason why I'm wrong. So far...Nada.

I have a great reason. Tommy Morrison didn't beat a single contender in their prime. That means he can't be be rated highly.

[gilgamesh]

Dude, I like you, I respect you, but you're wrong here. BoxRec ain't perfect when rating fighters, but it's never a million miles away. In there all time heavyweight rankings, they have Norton at #53 and Morrison at #201.

I'm not wrong. If I was. Somebody could come up with a good reason why I'm wrong. So far...Nada.

I have a great reason. Tommy Morrison didn't beat a single contender in their prime. That means he can't be be rated highly.

Rocky Marciano beat up a lot of Light Heavyweights past their prime. He's a bum right? Throw him out of the Top 10 right? Or does this rule only apply when you don't like the way a rating went?

[Controversial]

Here are my Top 5 Heavyweights. Is anything egregiously off the mark here to you?

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. George Foreman
4. Larry Holmes
5. Lennox Lewis

Where is Morrison, number 6?

[gilgamesh]

Here are my Top 5 Heavyweights. Is anything egregiously off the mark here to you?

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. George Foreman
4. Larry Holmes
5. Lennox Lewis

Where is Morrison, number 6?

Right now he's in a 2 way tie at #15 with Usyk which Usyk will snap in less than a month when Usyk defends the Undisputed Heavyweight Title again, and in all likelihood further raises his mark.

I've covered 34 Heavyweights in total so far.

[keithmoonhangover]

I'm not wrong. If I was. Somebody could come up with a good reason why I'm wrong. So far...Nada.

I have a great reason. Tommy Morrison didn't beat a single contender in their prime. That means he can't be be rated highly.

Rocky Marciano beat up a lot of Light Heavyweights past their prime. He's a bum right? Throw him out of the Top 10 right? Or does this rule only apply when you don't like the way a rating went?

Marciano beat the heavyweight champion of the world to win the title. Walcott was number one in the world when Marciano beat him.

[gilgamesh]

And George Foreman was 1 fight from regaining the Heavyweight Championship of the World, and continuing to keep the Lineal version of it until 4 years later when he lost in a controversial to Shannon Briggs.

Even in his FINAL bout at 48 years old. He was defending the Lineal Heavyweight Championship, and most people felt he deserved the decision. So how is George Foreman a completely washed up, and meaningless opponent to have beaten in 1993?

I'm not saying he was in his prime. Walcott wasn't in his prime either. Neither was Ezzard Charles, but they weren't p*ssies. They weren't an easy nights work, and MOST Heavyweights in the World at that time would've gotten their ass kicked by them.

Like I said. See it how you f*cking want. My position will not be changing on this.

You all have 1 argument. I have about 45 counters to it, and you all keep coming back to the same 1 argument. We're f*cking done with this.

[Controversial]

Here are my Top 5 Heavyweights. Is anything egregiously off the mark here to you?

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. George Foreman
4. Larry Holmes
5. Lennox Lewis

Where is Morrison, number 6?

Right now he's in a 2 way tie at #15 with Usyk which Usyk will snap in less than a month when Usyk defends the Undisputed Heavyweight Title again, and in all likelihood further raises his mark.

I've covered 34 Heavyweights in total so far.

He’s definitely ahead of Usyk, top 10 for sure.

[gilgamesh]

Where is Morrison, number 6?

Right now he's in a 2 way tie at #15 with Usyk which Usyk will snap in less than a month when Usyk defends the Undisputed Heavyweight Title again, and in all likelihood further raises his mark.

I've covered 34 Heavyweights in total so far.

He’s definitely ahead of Usyk, top 10 for sure.

Usyk's relatively low score is just due to his low amount of fights as a Heavyweight. His overall score when counting his Cruiserweight career puts him well ahead of Morrison, and many of the Heavyweights ahead of him as well. My rating of him right now is based purely on his 8 Heavyweight fights, and his ranking will grow significantly anytime he successfully defends the Undisputed Heavyweight Championship.

That's one of those things where you just sit back, and let it work itself out. Usyk is still active. He'll get it sorted.

[SteveO]

The even more credible by then then when the Duke won it WBO title, and the WBU title which he defended 3 successful times. Losses to ATG great champs Vitali and Rahman don't hurt much. That should be enough to rank over Norton too right? Right?

[/quote]

Morrison never held the WBU title.
He breifly held the IBU belt and lost it to Lennox Lewis in his first defense.

[keithmoonhangover]

And George Foreman was 1 fight from regaining the Heavyweight Championship of the World, and continuing to keep the Lineal version of it until 4 years later when he lost in a controversial to Shannon Briggs.

Even in his FINAL bout at 48 years old. He was defending the Lineal Heavyweight Championship, and most people felt he deserved the decision. So how is George Foreman a completely washed up, and meaningless opponent to have beaten in 1993?

I'm not saying he was in his prime. Walcott wasn't in his prime either. Neither was Ezzard Charles, but they weren't p*ssies. They weren't an easy nights work, and MOST Heavyweights in the World at that time would've gotten their ass kicked by them.

Like I said. See it how you f*cking want. My position will not be changing on this.

You all have 1 argument. I have about 45 counters to it, and you all keep coming back to the same 1 argument. We're f*cking done with this.

Who was the best boxer Morrison beat while they were in their prime?

[gilgamesh]

And George Foreman was 1 fight from regaining the Heavyweight Championship of the World, and continuing to keep the Lineal version of it until 4 years later when he lost in a controversial to Shannon Briggs.

Even in his FINAL bout at 48 years old. He was defending the Lineal Heavyweight Championship, and most people felt he deserved the decision. So how is George Foreman a completely washed up, and meaningless opponent to have beaten in 1993?

I'm not saying he was in his prime. Walcott wasn't in his prime either. Neither was Ezzard Charles, but they weren't p*ssies. They weren't an easy nights work, and MOST Heavyweights in the World at that time would've gotten their ass kicked by them.

Like I said. See it how you f*cking want. My position will not be changing on this.

You all have 1 argument. I have about 45 counters to it, and you all keep coming back to the same 1 argument. We're f*cking done with this.

Who was the best boxer Morrison beat while they were in their prime?

Razor Ruddock

[gilgamesh]

The even more credible by then then when the Duke won it WBO title, and the WBU title which he defended 3 successful times. Losses to ATG great champs Vitali and Rahman don't hurt much. That should be enough to rank over Norton too right? Right?

Morrison never held the WBU title.
He breifly held the IBU belt and lost it to Lennox Lewis in his first defense.
[/quote]

I didn't say anything about no WBU belt. I've been misquoted. I'm pretty sure it wasn't me that said any of that sh*t actually.

[keithmoonhangover]

And George Foreman was 1 fight from regaining the Heavyweight Championship of the World, and continuing to keep the Lineal version of it until 4 years later when he lost in a controversial to Shannon Briggs.

Even in his FINAL bout at 48 years old. He was defending the Lineal Heavyweight Championship, and most people felt he deserved the decision. So how is George Foreman a completely washed up, and meaningless opponent to have beaten in 1993?

I'm not saying he was in his prime. Walcott wasn't in his prime either. Neither was Ezzard Charles, but they weren't p*ssies. They weren't an easy nights work, and MOST Heavyweights in the World at that time would've gotten their ass kicked by them.

Like I said. See it how you f*cking want. My position will not be changing on this.

You all have 1 argument. I have about 45 counters to it, and you all keep coming back to the same 1 argument. We're f*cking done with this.

Who was the best boxer Morrison beat while they were in their prime?

Razor Ruddock

Dude, you could have a career in stand up.

[Cojimar 1946]

They're not ridiculous at all.

Ken Norton has 3 Quality wins
Morrison has 4 Quality wins

Ken Norton has 0 wins in Championship fights
Tommy Morrison has 2

Ken Norton has 7 losses
Tommy Morrison has 3

Ken Norton has 30 KO victories
Tommy Morrison has 42 KO victories

The ONLY THING that Ken Norton has more of than Morrison, is losses in Big Fights.

If Norton has a 4th big win then who is it? I watched all of his fights, and I didn't see a 4th big win.

Norton has 4 wins over top 10 ranked opponents while Morrison has 1. Thomas, Ruddock and Williams were unranked when Morrison fought them so I wouldn't expect anyone to view them as big wins.

So Norton should have 4 big wins to Morrisons 1 by normal criteria

[gilgamesh]

Who was the best boxer Morrison beat while they were in their prime?

Razor Ruddock

Dude, you could have a career in stand up.

Ruddock was 13 years into his career when he fought Morrison. He had lost 4 fights total. 3 of them against Hall of Famers. If you watch his fight with Morrison and you see a helpless, shot fighter. Then you need to get your eyes checked. He certainly looks like a man plenty capable of handling himself to me.