anyone listing holmes that low needs to learn a thing or 2HomicideHenry wrote:Frazier's prime was 1968-1971, so I agree with Decagon. Guys with the style of Frazier burn out rather quickly; Dempsey was used up by the time he was 32, Marciano was in his 30's when he retired. It was Frazier's work ethic, that kept him very much alive in the game for the next four years. What most people forget is that Frazier had arthritis in his back and was all but blind when he fought Manila, and it was one of the greatest fights ever.
I have Louis, Ali, Marciano, Johnson, Holyfield, Jefferies, Dempsey, Frazier, Foreman above Holmes and Lewis....Johnson and Louis and Ali get their props from me because outside of their tremendous achievments they have an amazing historical significance; Marciano defeated the best opponents avilable, possesses the highest kayo percentage of any HW champion and retired undefeated, bad era or not what more could you ask from a fighter; Dempsey personified his age, defeated much larger opponents than himself, was the epitomy of the blue collar working class hero, his fight with Firpo was rated the greatest fight of the first half of the century and he was voted as being the greatest HW first half of the century as well; Jefferies is greatly under-rated and under-appreciated by today's historians, won the title in his 13th fight, defeated every possible challenger, retired undefeated, was never knocked off his feet until he fought Johnson six years and 100 pounds lighter; Holyfield defeated pretty much the same men Lewis did, was a 4x HW champion as well as the greatest Cruiserweight champion; Foreman was undefeated in 40+ fights possessing a 98% kayo percentage in his prime up until he fought Ali, came back in his late 30's to do what Holmes couldn't and won the title at age 45 though his overall career kayo rate dropped to 87%...Holmes at #10, shit the bed, who is above him on your list?
Ive got Holmes at #3 and most have him top 4. Lewis is controversial but I have him at #6 or #7. I can see why you have him at #11 but hes the best heavyweight in a strong era IMO
I really could go on and on.
Mike Tyson-top 10 all time ranking
-
MEISINGER
- Heavyweight
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
I rate Holmes low, because:
#1- He never won the title from Ali, or Spinks; his title as WBC champ was manufactured
#2- He dropped the WBC belt and was presented the IBF title; again a title he never legitametly won
#3- He never once made the attempt to unify
#4- He refused to face Coetzee and Page, based on money, believing he should have gotten an unbelievable amount (for the time); which just shows me he was more about money than he was legacy and reputation
#5- His opponents, for the most part, were a bunch of hand picked dead men; Tex Cobb, Marvis Frazier, Scott Frank, Scott LeDoux are hardly the stuff contenders should be made of. If you want to get serious, the only "great" opponents he ever defeated were Earnie Shavers, Gerry Cooney, Ken Norton and Ray Mercer, the rest were either passed their prime or were novices (Ali and Witherspoon are prime examples).
But yes, for seven years, he proved he was "the man" of the division and racked up 20 successful title defenses and went 48-0, but then again, I bet Rocky Marciano who according to Holmes "couldn't hold my jock strap" could have done the same thing had he fought in Holmes era, which was worse or on the level as Marciano's own era was.
#1- He never won the title from Ali, or Spinks; his title as WBC champ was manufactured
#2- He dropped the WBC belt and was presented the IBF title; again a title he never legitametly won
#3- He never once made the attempt to unify
#4- He refused to face Coetzee and Page, based on money, believing he should have gotten an unbelievable amount (for the time); which just shows me he was more about money than he was legacy and reputation
#5- His opponents, for the most part, were a bunch of hand picked dead men; Tex Cobb, Marvis Frazier, Scott Frank, Scott LeDoux are hardly the stuff contenders should be made of. If you want to get serious, the only "great" opponents he ever defeated were Earnie Shavers, Gerry Cooney, Ken Norton and Ray Mercer, the rest were either passed their prime or were novices (Ali and Witherspoon are prime examples).
But yes, for seven years, he proved he was "the man" of the division and racked up 20 successful title defenses and went 48-0, but then again, I bet Rocky Marciano who according to Holmes "couldn't hold my jock strap" could have done the same thing had he fought in Holmes era, which was worse or on the level as Marciano's own era was.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Tyson isn't necessarily at the bottom of tier 3. They are not in any order (well 1st tier probably is).theone wrote:Head to head, Tyson would have defeated at least 14 of the guys ahead of him. Alot of them fairly easily.Too hard to split hairs so I put them in tiers... The fighters are listed in no particular order.
Tier 1
Ali
Louis
Johnson
Holmes
Tier 2
Frazier
Foreman
Liston
Dempsey (would be tier 1 had he beat Wills)
Lewis
Holyfield (would be tier 1 with a win over Lewis)
Marciano
Tier 3
Charles
Tunney
Walcott
Jeffries
Schmeling
Langford
Wills
Bowe
Jeanette
Jackson
Tyson
Of those 14 how many would lose to Douglas?
On the night he beat Tyson? Probably a few. Regardless its still a silly point. Douglas lost to Jesse Fuergeson, Lou Saverese and Tony Tucker. How did Tyson do against them?Tyson isn't necessarily at the bottom of tier 3. They are not in any order (well 1st tier probably is).
Of those 14 how many would lose to Douglas?
If bringing up Tyson's loss to Douglas is a silly point then why is saying that Tyson could have beaten guys rated higher than him not a silly point too?theone wrote:On the night he beat Tyson? Probably a few. Regardless its still a silly point. Douglas lost to Jesse Fuergeson, Lou Saverese and Tony Tucker. How did Tyson do against them?Tyson isn't necessarily at the bottom of tier 3. They are not in any order (well 1st tier probably is).
Of those 14 how many would lose to Douglas?
-
dr_devious
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5346
- Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 09:19
Frazier was just past his prime in the first fight, and yes was years over the hill in 1976. But Foreman hammered Frazier badly both times, even a peak Frazier would have terrible difficulty against Foreman Dec. Probably a clash of styles.Decagon wrote:Frazier was years past his prime, even in the first Foreman fight. Besides Frazier, who's Foreman beat? Norton, Moorer, Lyle and Chuvalo. That's barely a Hall-of-Fame resume, even if Foreman was 100 when he beat Moorer. Frazier beat Ali, Ellis (twice), Quarry (twice), Foster, Bonavena, Mathis, Chuvalo, Jones and Machen. Foreman deserves a lot of respect for beating Frazier, but that doesn't mean that he's better than a prime Frazier.dr_devious wrote:How come you rate Frazier over Foreman, Dec? Frazier had the better legacy probably, but Foreman annhilated him twice
-
dr_devious
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5346
- Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 09:19
Holmes' era wasnt great, but how many heavyweights do you think would have beaten Holmes? Holmes was the complete fighter, excellent skills, rock solid chin, and good power. Hardly a flaw in his fighting make up, it would take something truly special to beat him in his prime. Thats why for me hes number 3HomicideHenry wrote:I rate Holmes low, because:
#1- He never won the title from Ali, or Spinks; his title as WBC champ was manufactured
#2- He dropped the WBC belt and was presented the IBF title; again a title he never legitametly won
#3- He never once made the attempt to unify
#4- He refused to face Coetzee and Page, based on money, believing he should have gotten an unbelievable amount (for the time); which just shows me he was more about money than he was legacy and reputation
#5- His opponents, for the most part, were a bunch of hand picked dead men; Tex Cobb, Marvis Frazier, Scott Frank, Scott LeDoux are hardly the stuff contenders should be made of. If you want to get serious, the only "great" opponents he ever defeated were Earnie Shavers, Gerry Cooney, Ken Norton and Ray Mercer, the rest were either passed their prime or were novices (Ali and Witherspoon are prime examples).
But yes, for seven years, he proved he was "the man" of the division and racked up 20 successful title defenses and went 48-0, but then again, I bet Rocky Marciano who according to Holmes "couldn't hold my jock strap" could have done the same thing had he fought in Holmes era, which was worse or on the level as Marciano's own era was.
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
Show me any fight in which Witherspoon ever looked better . . .Holmes beat the best Witherspoon that ever fought, ditto with Smith.HomicideHenry wrote:I rate Holmes low, because:
#1- He never won the title from Ali, or Spinks; his title as WBC champ was manufactured
#2- He dropped the WBC belt and was presented the IBF title; again a title he never legitametly won
#3- He never once made the attempt to unify
#4- He refused to face Coetzee and Page, based on money, believing he should have gotten an unbelievable amount (for the time); which just shows me he was more about money than he was legacy and reputation
#5- His opponents, for the most part, were a bunch of hand picked dead men; Tex Cobb, Marvis Frazier, Scott Frank, Scott LeDoux are hardly the stuff contenders should be made of. If you want to get serious, the only "great" opponents he ever defeated were Earnie Shavers, Gerry Cooney, Ken Norton and Ray Mercer, the rest were either passed their prime or were novices (Ali and Witherspoon are prime examples).
But yes, for seven years, he proved he was "the man" of the division and racked up 20 successful title defenses and went 48-0, but then again, I bet Rocky Marciano who according to Holmes "couldn't hold my jock strap" could have done the same thing had he fought in Holmes era, which was worse or on the level as Marciano's own era was.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
These reasons are silly.
#1 The title Holmes won was legitimate. Norton was the WBC champion because Spinks wouldn't fight Norton. Norton was the top challenger and was given the title because he had beaten the #2 contender in his last fight. (Young). Holmes beat Norton in a great fight. Holmes was clearly the best fighter in the world at that point and was the real champion.
#2 So he dropped the WBC belt when he was getting old. That doesn't detract from what he did in the ring.
#3 He never once made the attempt to unify? He was going to fight John Tate after Tate fought Weaver. However, Weaver upset Tate. Since Holmes had beaten Weaver previously, almost everyone regarded Holmes as the real champion. No one was clamoring for a Weaver-Holmes showdown to unify the title. Being the WBA heavyweight champion wasn't much more respected than being the IBO champion is now. Everyone knew that Holmes was the real champion.
#4 He refused to fight Coetzee and Page? How much would that have added to his legacy? He had already beaten several fighters of similar ability.
#5 His opponents were for the most part, hand picked dead men?
Cobb,Frazier,Frank, and Ledoux weren't great fighters but they would have been in the top 10 during Marciano's era.
The only great opponents Holmes beat were Shavers,Cooney,Norton and Mercer? Well I wouldn't call them all great, but all were pretty good.
It bears mentioning that Holmes beat Shavers twice and Holmes was 42 when he beat Mercer, 42 when he gave a prime Holyfield trouble, and 45 when he almost beat Oliver McCall for the WBC title.
The rest were past their prime or novices? Holmes beat several fighter who didn't have a lot of professional fights, but still certainly weren't "novices". Smith, Witherspoon, Bey,Snipes,Ocasio, and Spinks had all won big fights before fighting Holmes.
Neither Marciano or Holmes eras were anything special. However, if Marciano had to make 20 title defenses against Holmes opponents, he probably would have been upset at least a couple of times. there is no way that Holmes would have lost to anyone that Marciano beat in his 6 title defenses.
Where to rank Holmes is arguable. After Ali and Louis, there are a few guys that you can make an arguement for. However, Holmes is certainly better than #10.
#1 The title Holmes won was legitimate. Norton was the WBC champion because Spinks wouldn't fight Norton. Norton was the top challenger and was given the title because he had beaten the #2 contender in his last fight. (Young). Holmes beat Norton in a great fight. Holmes was clearly the best fighter in the world at that point and was the real champion.
#2 So he dropped the WBC belt when he was getting old. That doesn't detract from what he did in the ring.
#3 He never once made the attempt to unify? He was going to fight John Tate after Tate fought Weaver. However, Weaver upset Tate. Since Holmes had beaten Weaver previously, almost everyone regarded Holmes as the real champion. No one was clamoring for a Weaver-Holmes showdown to unify the title. Being the WBA heavyweight champion wasn't much more respected than being the IBO champion is now. Everyone knew that Holmes was the real champion.
#4 He refused to fight Coetzee and Page? How much would that have added to his legacy? He had already beaten several fighters of similar ability.
#5 His opponents were for the most part, hand picked dead men?
Cobb,Frazier,Frank, and Ledoux weren't great fighters but they would have been in the top 10 during Marciano's era.
The only great opponents Holmes beat were Shavers,Cooney,Norton and Mercer? Well I wouldn't call them all great, but all were pretty good.
It bears mentioning that Holmes beat Shavers twice and Holmes was 42 when he beat Mercer, 42 when he gave a prime Holyfield trouble, and 45 when he almost beat Oliver McCall for the WBC title.
The rest were past their prime or novices? Holmes beat several fighter who didn't have a lot of professional fights, but still certainly weren't "novices". Smith, Witherspoon, Bey,Snipes,Ocasio, and Spinks had all won big fights before fighting Holmes.
Neither Marciano or Holmes eras were anything special. However, if Marciano had to make 20 title defenses against Holmes opponents, he probably would have been upset at least a couple of times. there is no way that Holmes would have lost to anyone that Marciano beat in his 6 title defenses.
Where to rank Holmes is arguable. After Ali and Louis, there are a few guys that you can make an arguement for. However, Holmes is certainly better than #10.
-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 15652
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
My top 10 heavyweights:
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Evander Holyfield
7. George Foreman
8. Larry Holmes
9. Joe Frazier
10. Peter Jackson
The others that did not make the cut:
11. Lennox Lewis
12. Sonny Liston
13. Ezzard Charles
14. Mike Tyson
15. John L. Sullivan
16. Jim J. Jeffries
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Evander Holyfield
7. George Foreman
8. Larry Holmes
9. Joe Frazier
10. Peter Jackson
The others that did not make the cut:
11. Lennox Lewis
12. Sonny Liston
13. Ezzard Charles
14. Mike Tyson
15. John L. Sullivan
16. Jim J. Jeffries
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
I tend to put Holmes somewhere from 4-6. If Louis gets so much credit for his 25 defenses, the disparity between Holmes and Louis shouldn't be 8-9 slots. Either a lot of defenses matter, or they don't. That's not to say Holmes' title reign was as good as Louis', and Louis had other big wins before he was champion that add to his credentials, but to me the disparity still isn't enough to put 8-9 slots between them, and Louis is always top 2.
Its interesting, people give Mike so much credit for his 9 defenses, however bad the opponents, but Holmes had 20, some against the same opposition, but younger.
Holmes switching from WBC to IBF doesn't really have any significance in my mind, those belts mean nothing to me. Norton was basically the best Heavyweight in the world at the time, he controversially lost in a title shot against Ali, Holmes also went on to beat a shot version of Ali for the lineal title, he was clearly the best Heavyweight for that seven year span... I think he was the legit champion by any stretch of the imagination.
The only thing I can say bad about Holmes, besides how week his era was, is that I thought Witherspoon and Williams should have beaten him. But they were close, especially the Witherspoon fight, I wouldn't call it a robbery. Holmes-Spinks II was, on the other hand, Holmes could have been two time champion and redeemed the loss to Spinks.
Its interesting, people give Mike so much credit for his 9 defenses, however bad the opponents, but Holmes had 20, some against the same opposition, but younger.
Holmes switching from WBC to IBF doesn't really have any significance in my mind, those belts mean nothing to me. Norton was basically the best Heavyweight in the world at the time, he controversially lost in a title shot against Ali, Holmes also went on to beat a shot version of Ali for the lineal title, he was clearly the best Heavyweight for that seven year span... I think he was the legit champion by any stretch of the imagination.
The only thing I can say bad about Holmes, besides how week his era was, is that I thought Witherspoon and Williams should have beaten him. But they were close, especially the Witherspoon fight, I wouldn't call it a robbery. Holmes-Spinks II was, on the other hand, Holmes could have been two time champion and redeemed the loss to Spinks.
My bad...I shouldn't have used the word silly. i should of said the question is moot. What i surmised from the question you asked was that you were implying that if Douglas could beat him, how could he beat the others ahead of him.If bringing up Tyson's loss to Douglas is a silly point then why is saying that Tyson could have beaten guys rated higher than him not a silly point too?
Even if they could all destroy Douglas doesn't mean they would have beaten Tyson. The three fighters I used as an example were three who defeated Douglas but were beaten soundly by Tyson.
In my opinion Tyson would have beaten everyone ahead of him except Ali, Foreman, Holmes(Prime of course), and Holyfield.
Fraizer, Liston, and Lewis are toss ups. I cant make up my mind on em.
All the rest i think Tyson handles fairly easily.
Joe Frazier ahead of Lennox Lewis??? Based on what, exactly?Decagon wrote:1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Jack Johnson
5. Joe Frazier
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Jack Dempsey
12. Mike Tyson
13. Gene Tunney
14. Ezzard Charles
15. Jersey Joe Walcott
16. Max Schmelling
17. Jim Jeffries
18. Sam Langford
19. Riddick Bowe
20. Floyd Patterson
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
I was just trying to make the point that even if you believe Tyson would beat some above him it doesn't mean he should be necessarily rated above them. In the same way I wouldn't rate Douglas above Tyson.theone wrote:My bad...I shouldn't have used the word silly. i should of said the question is moot. What i surmised from the question you asked was that you were implying that if Douglas could beat him, how could he beat the others ahead of him.If bringing up Tyson's loss to Douglas is a silly point then why is saying that Tyson could have beaten guys rated higher than him not a silly point too?
Even if they could all destroy Douglas doesn't mean they would have beaten Tyson. The three fighters I used as an example were three who defeated Douglas but were beaten soundly by Tyson.
In my opinion Tyson would have beaten everyone ahead of him except Ali, Foreman, Holmes(Prime of course), and Holyfield.
Fraizer, Liston, and Lewis are toss ups. I cant make up my mind on em.
All the rest i think Tyson handles fairly easily.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
The real arguemt when ranking heavyweights is who is #3 behind Ali and Louis. There are a few guys that you could make a strong argument for -Johnson,Holmes,Frazier, and Foreman.
I think one reason that Foreman doesn't get more support is that some people really underestimate just how awesome some of his performances were, especially the first Frazier fight.
Frazier was in his prime. The evidence strongly overhwelmingly supports this.
Yes, he was heavier than he was against Ali and in some of his other fights. However, too much is made of this. He weighed only two pounds less than when he beat Mathis, and he weighed a pound more when he fought Ali 2 years later, which was one of his best fights even though he lost.
Even if you believe that Frazier would have been much better if he was lighter, how much better? It's not like Foreman barely won and the extra few pounds made the difference in who won. Foreman absolutely destroyed Frazier. He would destroyed Frazier no matter what.
People say that fighters of Frazier's style don't last as long and that was Frazier was past it when he fought Foreman. however, Frazier just turned 29 when he fought Foreman. That isn't old for a heavyweight, no matter what his style is. Frazier also only had 29 fights before the first Foreman fight, and really hadn't taken an inordinate amount of punishment that would have accerlated his decline. There is also no signes in his previous fights that he was slowing down.
Having said that, this doesn't mean that Foreman should automatically be rated ahead of Frazier. As others have pointed out, there are times when a fighter who has lost to another fighter should still be rated ahead of him if the rest of career is clearly superior.
With Frazier and Foreman it's a tough call. Foreman won their first head to head matchup so easily that Frazier has to have a much better career to deserve to be rated higher. Outside of their head to head matchup, Frazier's career was better; it's a close call if it was superior enough.
To me who should be rated #3-#6 is a close call, and you really could have Frazier,Foreman,Johnson, and Holmes in any order. After that you have another group that is relatively close as well: (Marciano,Dempsey,Liston,Holyfield,Lewis,Tyson, Jeffries,and Tunney)
It's really no wonder that we all debate so much since there are so many close calls.
I think one reason that Foreman doesn't get more support is that some people really underestimate just how awesome some of his performances were, especially the first Frazier fight.
Frazier was in his prime. The evidence strongly overhwelmingly supports this.
Yes, he was heavier than he was against Ali and in some of his other fights. However, too much is made of this. He weighed only two pounds less than when he beat Mathis, and he weighed a pound more when he fought Ali 2 years later, which was one of his best fights even though he lost.
Even if you believe that Frazier would have been much better if he was lighter, how much better? It's not like Foreman barely won and the extra few pounds made the difference in who won. Foreman absolutely destroyed Frazier. He would destroyed Frazier no matter what.
People say that fighters of Frazier's style don't last as long and that was Frazier was past it when he fought Foreman. however, Frazier just turned 29 when he fought Foreman. That isn't old for a heavyweight, no matter what his style is. Frazier also only had 29 fights before the first Foreman fight, and really hadn't taken an inordinate amount of punishment that would have accerlated his decline. There is also no signes in his previous fights that he was slowing down.
Having said that, this doesn't mean that Foreman should automatically be rated ahead of Frazier. As others have pointed out, there are times when a fighter who has lost to another fighter should still be rated ahead of him if the rest of career is clearly superior.
With Frazier and Foreman it's a tough call. Foreman won their first head to head matchup so easily that Frazier has to have a much better career to deserve to be rated higher. Outside of their head to head matchup, Frazier's career was better; it's a close call if it was superior enough.
To me who should be rated #3-#6 is a close call, and you really could have Frazier,Foreman,Johnson, and Holmes in any order. After that you have another group that is relatively close as well: (Marciano,Dempsey,Liston,Holyfield,Lewis,Tyson, Jeffries,and Tunney)
It's really no wonder that we all debate so much since there are so many close calls.
How much difference does Foreman's comeback make for you, Alp?
In the mid 1980s Foreman was outsdie the top 10 in The Ring's greatest HWs and otuside the top 10 in my list.
Now, in the comeback Foreman did defeat a clutch of journeymen as well as many smaller guys but even so he won back the lineal title and did not let himself down against Holyfield.
In the comeback Foreman also showed traits and skills missing form his 1st career. He showed much more ring intelligence. He paced himself, really showed what an underated jab he had and also just how stout his chin was.
In the mid 1980s Foreman was outsdie the top 10 in The Ring's greatest HWs and otuside the top 10 in my list.
Now, in the comeback Foreman did defeat a clutch of journeymen as well as many smaller guys but even so he won back the lineal title and did not let himself down against Holyfield.
In the comeback Foreman also showed traits and skills missing form his 1st career. He showed much more ring intelligence. He paced himself, really showed what an underated jab he had and also just how stout his chin was.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
I really don't factor in his comeback very much when rating him. His losses shouldn't be held against him since was so far past his best. He did pace himself pretty much because he had to because of his condition and age. I don't think he showed any skills that he didn't sow in his prime. It certainly was impressive that he was able to beat Moorer and gave Holyfield some trouble. He looked pretty good against Cooney as well. However if you don't factor in his age, he wasn't that impressive in most of his other fights. For a man his age to win the title was a tremendous accomplishment. However, if you only looked at the comeback part of his career, he wasn't one the Top 50 Heavyweights of all-time.
The Foreman of the 1970's gets a lot of unjustified criticism from some people.
He somehow gets criticized for the Peralta fights. Instead of giving Foreman credit for fighting a smart fight and beating a good and far more experienced fighter that was very difficult to stop, he gets ripped for not knocking him out (though he did stop Peralta in the rematch). Never mind that no other champion didn't knock everyone out. The Peralta fight should be proof that Foreman wasn't as dumb as some made him out to be, had decent stamina, and had better boxing skills than he is often given credit for.
He gets ripped for fighting a "dumb fight" against Ali. Easy to say after it happened. No one was saying before the fight that Foreman should fight any differently. His perfomance would have been good enough against just about anyone else.
He even gets criticized for the Lyle fight. Dempsey got knocked down twice by a far inferior fighter (Firpo) and it's called by some people the greatest fight ever. It happens to Foreman and gets criticized for his lack of stamina and his chin, even he he was the one that won! To me this fight cemented Foreman's status as a legend. He showed that he had the heart and chin to win in the most trying of circumstances.
Foreman does get criticized for the loss to Young and some of that is justified. He did look lethargic at times in that fight. However, it's not the embarrassing loss that it's sometimes made out to be.
Foreman's crushing knockouts of Fraizer and Norton often get downplayed. It's doubtful that anyone else would have crushed Frazier like that, but perhaps the Norton fight is as underrated. Somehow this myth has developed that Norton couldn't take a punch. In Norton's prime (1973-1978) he was never even knocked down in any other fight. Yet Foreman blew him out.
Yes Foreman had his negatives. However when it's balanced against his positives, it's clear he was one of the greatest heavyweights of all-time.
The Foreman of the 1970's gets a lot of unjustified criticism from some people.
He somehow gets criticized for the Peralta fights. Instead of giving Foreman credit for fighting a smart fight and beating a good and far more experienced fighter that was very difficult to stop, he gets ripped for not knocking him out (though he did stop Peralta in the rematch). Never mind that no other champion didn't knock everyone out. The Peralta fight should be proof that Foreman wasn't as dumb as some made him out to be, had decent stamina, and had better boxing skills than he is often given credit for.
He gets ripped for fighting a "dumb fight" against Ali. Easy to say after it happened. No one was saying before the fight that Foreman should fight any differently. His perfomance would have been good enough against just about anyone else.
He even gets criticized for the Lyle fight. Dempsey got knocked down twice by a far inferior fighter (Firpo) and it's called by some people the greatest fight ever. It happens to Foreman and gets criticized for his lack of stamina and his chin, even he he was the one that won! To me this fight cemented Foreman's status as a legend. He showed that he had the heart and chin to win in the most trying of circumstances.
Foreman does get criticized for the loss to Young and some of that is justified. He did look lethargic at times in that fight. However, it's not the embarrassing loss that it's sometimes made out to be.
Foreman's crushing knockouts of Fraizer and Norton often get downplayed. It's doubtful that anyone else would have crushed Frazier like that, but perhaps the Norton fight is as underrated. Somehow this myth has developed that Norton couldn't take a punch. In Norton's prime (1973-1978) he was never even knocked down in any other fight. Yet Foreman blew him out.
Yes Foreman had his negatives. However when it's balanced against his positives, it's clear he was one of the greatest heavyweights of all-time.
Which fighters did Joe beat that were so great?Decagon wrote:Based on Joe Frazier beating fighters in their primes. Lewis had a long and storied career, but most of his best wins were against fighters on the way out, and he had a couple of bad losses.Knucklez wrote:Joe Frazier ahead of Lennox Lewis??? Based on what, exactly?
Ali: tremendously impressive victory and one of my favourite fights, but questions remain about Ali's conditioning after the lay off. Plus this win was followed by two defeats to Ali.
Oscar Bonavena: Scraped through twice.
Bob Foster: Out of his depth at heavyweight.
Jerry Quarry: Stopped on cuts in the first fight. Quarry also lost to Ali, Eddie Machen, Jimmy Ellis, George Chuvalo and Ken Norton. ie tended to come up short against top opposition.
Buster Mathis: nothing special despite promising amateur career.
Jimmy Ellis: started career at middleweight.
And who else? Ron Stander/Joe Bugner/Terry Daniels?
Lennox beat:
Holyfield twice (regardless of the corrupt judges)
Michael Grant (at the time, the supposed great American heavy, lol)
Andrew Golota (who comprehensively outboxed Riddick Bowe, twice)
Tony Tucker
Razor Ruddock
David Tua
Vitali Kiltschko.
His two losses were by single punches and both were avenged with stoppage victories.
If Lennox was American, youz lot would be creaming yourselves about him.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Sure, you can spin it and pick apart Frazier's opponents if you really want to. Just focus on the negatives of Quarry,Mathis, Ellis etc. Don't mention the positives.
You don't think you can do the same thing with Lewis' wins over a past it Holyfield, Michael Grant,Golota,Tua,Ruddock, Klitschko?
Frazier lost to two fighters in his career, Ali and Foreman. No matter how you slice it, that's not as bad losing to Rahman and McCall.
Frazier did beat Ali. Even though it wasn't Ali at his best, that was a much more impressive win than any victory that Lewis ever had.
You don't think you can do the same thing with Lewis' wins over a past it Holyfield, Michael Grant,Golota,Tua,Ruddock, Klitschko?
Frazier lost to two fighters in his career, Ali and Foreman. No matter how you slice it, that's not as bad losing to Rahman and McCall.
Frazier did beat Ali. Even though it wasn't Ali at his best, that was a much more impressive win than any victory that Lewis ever had.
Last edited by Ambling Alp on 31 Aug 2007, 18:10, edited 1 time in total.