BoxRec

Ambling Alp wrote:I guess I don't really get this line of reasoning. If you don't repsect Page and Tillis that much, then why does Marvis Frazier rate so high? Page and Tillis are his biggest wins.

Frazier never fought Page.

This is one of the worst threads ever.

(Buzz, bookmark it for the chapter in your book entitled "Shite you read on internet forums")

Ambling Alp wrote:
I guess I don't really get this line of reasoning. If you don't repsect Page and Tillis that much, then why does Marvis Frazier rate so high? Page and Tillis are his biggest wins.

The Bonecrusher Smith win is his biggest win, imo. This is the win that catapults him above the others. I am not saying that the win over Tillis and Co were not good wins, but others in the decade had equally good wins as those. The wins over Bonecrusher smith are what lifts him above the others. And it also has to be of some significance that nobody else beat him. It does seem a little strange that so many people think it is ridiculous to rate him above others who did not beat a fighter as good as others, who lost to lower level fighters than at least one of Fraziers victims just because they happened to fight more fights against Tillis level opponents. It seems that quantity stands above quality for most people on the forum.

The question here really seems to be who to rank higher, the fighter who fights and beats fighter 7,8,9 , 10 in the world or the fighter who beats no 4,12 in the world I would have thought the second. In Fraziers case, the fighter who beat 7,8,9,10 usually has a loss to 11thrown in there as well. His record is simply better than he is usually given credit for. The only real argument is that Bonecrusher Smith wasnt that good a fighter and no one really seems to want to argue this. Although it is possible. Smith had quite a few losses, although his drawn fight with Witherspoon probably lifts him to Witherspoon level.

Boilermaker wrote:The only real argument is that Bonecrusher Smith wasnt that good a fighter and no one really seems to want to argue this. Although it is possible. Smith had quite a few losses, although his drawn fight with Witherspoon probably lifts him to Witherspoon level.

Smith never had a draw with Witherspoon.

More misinformation in this thread than usual, even by the notably lax standards here.

Giancarlo wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:I guess I don't really get this line of reasoning. If you don't repsect Page and Tillis that much, then why does Marvis Frazier rate so high? Page and Tillis are his biggest wins.

Frazier never fought Page.

This is one of the worst threads ever.

(Buzz, bookmark it for the chapter in your book entitled "Shite you read on internet forums")

I agree with you Giancarlo. On the one hand you have a looney tune obsessed with his records based system but seemingly making it up as he goes along.
On the other hand you have Ambling Amp, who seems to have seen fights that never happened like the one you pointed out between Frazier and Page, and also David Bey beating Gerry Cooney to name but one.
A thread with a good premise but in the wrong hands.

Giancarlo wrote:

Boilermaker wrote:The only real argument is that Bonecrusher Smith wasnt that good a fighter and no one really seems to want to argue this. Although it is possible. Smith had quite a few losses, although his drawn fight with Witherspoon probably lifts him to Witherspoon level.

Smith never had a draw with Witherspoon.

More misinformation in this thread than usual, even by the notably lax standards here.

He won one and he lost one. So he drew the series 1 all. if 1 all isnt a draw, what would you call it?

Boilermaker wrote:

Giancarlo wrote:

Boilermaker wrote:The only real argument is that Bonecrusher Smith wasnt that good a fighter and no one really seems to want to argue this. Although it is possible. Smith had quite a few losses, although his drawn fight with Witherspoon probably lifts him to Witherspoon level.

Smith never had a draw with Witherspoon.

More misinformation in this thread than usual, even by the notably lax standards here.

He won one and he lost one. So he drew the series 1 all. if 1 all isnt a draw, what would you call it?

Not a draw you can't discredit a win just because he lost in the rematch what about Schmelings win against Louis or Johanssons win against Patterson they still mean something.

and if Marvis is ranked highly because of the Smith win, Tubbs also beat Smith and Page, his losses in the 80s were against Witherspoon and Tyson and he is not even on the list.

Thunder and Lightning wrote:

Boilermaker wrote:

Giancarlo wrote:
Smith never had a draw with Witherspoon.

More misinformation in this thread than usual, even by the notably lax standards here.

He won one and he lost one. So he drew the series 1 all. if 1 all isnt a draw, what would you call it?

Not a draw you can't discredit a win just because he lost in the rematch what about Schmelings win against Louis or Johanssons win against Patterson they still mean something.

Well no one seems to rank Johansen ahead of Patterson, because he lost the series 2-1. Same with ali and Frazier. Corrie Sanders loss to Vitali must have effected his standing. Same with Rahman's loss to Lewis and others. To suggest that splitting a series 1 all with a fighter is anything but a draw, is quite frankly ridiculous. I know it is assumed that McCall for example would lose a rubber match to Lewis, but the reality is noone knows for sure. Same with Schmelling and Louis. Witherspoon and Smith III could have gone eitehr way, and Witherspoon probably should have been the favourite but the fact is that he didnt beat smith head to head in the decade. Arguably Smith's win was more emphatic than Spoons but then again you could also argue for a lucky punch etc. At the end of the day though, fighters need to be ranked on what they did, not what you thought they did or would do. Smith and spoon were 1-1 which is a draw.

and if Marvis is ranked highly because of the Smith win, Tubbs also beat Smith and Page, his losses in the 80s were against Witherspoon and Tyson and he is not even on the list.

Tubbs is actually a pretty good point when you look at his record. ONe would have thought that he must rate somewhere near Smith and witherspoon. These three are pretty much even with the exchange of wins/draws. He should be somewhere around there, just below the Marvis loss, because Marvis didnt lose to witherspoon. I am not sure whether this rating of Tubbs would effect the otehr fighters in the lower end of the top 10 too much, though it must be noted that as you go down with fighters things seem to be a lot harder and more subjective in rating fighters anyway.

Boilermaker wrote:

Thunder and Lightning wrote:

Boilermaker wrote: He won one and he lost one. So he drew the series 1 all. if 1 all isnt a draw, what would you call it?

Not a draw you can't discredit a win just because he lost in the rematch what about Schmelings win against Louis or Johanssons win against Patterson they still mean something.

Well no one seems to rank Johansen ahead of Patterson, because he lost the series 2-1. Same with ali and Frazier. Corrie Sanders loss to Vitali must have effected his standing. Same with Rahman's loss to Lewis and others. To suggest that splitting a series 1 all with a fighter is anything but a draw, is quite frankly ridiculous. I know it is assumed that McCall for example would lose a rubber match to Lewis, but the reality is noone knows for sure. Same with Schmelling and Louis. Witherspoon and Smith III could have gone eitehr way, and Witherspoon probably should have been the favourite but the fact is that he didnt beat smith head to head in the decade. Arguably Smith's win was more emphatic than Spoons but then again you could also argue for a lucky punch etc. At the end of the day though, fighters need to be ranked on what they did, not what you thought they did or would do. Smith and spoon were 1-1 which is a draw.

and if Marvis is ranked highly because of the Smith win, Tubbs also beat Smith and Page, his losses in the 80s were against Witherspoon and Tyson and he is not even on the list.

Tubbs is actually a pretty good point when you look at his record. ONe would have thought that he must rate somewhere near Smith and witherspoon. These three are pretty much even with the exchange of wins/draws. He should be somewhere around there, just below the Marvis loss, because Marvis didnt lose to witherspoon. I am not sure whether this rating of Tubbs would effect the otehr fighters in the lower end of the top 10 too much, though it must be noted that as you go down with fighters things seem to be a lot harder and more subjective in rating fighters anyway.

Okay let's just say i don't agree with your point about 1 win and 1 loss means a draw, sure just on paper i can agree but not when you make rankings.

Marvis never fought Witherspoon, so in that case somebody who does one good fight and beats a top contender and then does nothing for the rest of the decade should be considered one of the best in the decade, Johansson should then be second best in the 50s behind Marciano because he beat the best in europe, Machen and Patterson and didn't loose while guys like Jersey Joe and Ezzard had their share of loses against lower level guys.

I just can't understand why you give Marvis so much cerdit for the Smith win i mean Broad, Holmes, Tubbs, Witherspoon, Frazier, Tyson, Rodrigues, Ruddock all beat Smith and using your point what win does Smith have to warrant him being such a HUGE win for Frazier i just don't get it.
If Weaver and Bruno is Smith's biggest wins that is not a very imprecive record certainly not anything that gives Marvis such a high position, Smith was a very good fighter but it's not like we are talking about an undefeated phenom here he ended the 80s with a record of 22-8-1.
Just saying Witherspoon beat more good fighters, fought more good fighters and did better against the great fighters than both Marvis and Smith in my opinion.

mercman wrote:

mugabi wrote:Marvis Frazier is only ever remembered for his decapitation in 30 seconds by a rampaging Tyson, and his 1 round beatdown by uncle LArry and we remember how he was 200lbs and pushed to the hilt prematurely by a mad Joe Frazier.

WHats forgotten is this kid had some tremendous wins early in his career over a dangerous Bonecrusher, and a Joe Bugner who could still box (later wins over tillis, page and bey proved that).

I think based on results and what he could do on his best night Marvis easily belongs on this list. He could quite possibly beat any number of inconsistent talented and bigger HWs of the lost HW generation of the 80s.

I could see him beating Bruno in the mid 80s on points, beating any one of these guys Tubbs,Berbick, Thomas,Williams,Page, Coetzee etc.

I think you are right about the Tyson and Holmes losses tarnishing Marvis' reputation. However, I really don't see him as a top 10 1980s heavyweight. Joe Bugner's loss to Marvis must be one of his worst ever performances; Bugner was probably only ever poorer when losing to Jack Bodell as a youngster. Either way, I see Marvis as well behind the likes of Tim Witherspoon, Pinklon Thomas, Tucker and Tubbs.

I dont rate him as a top ten heavyweight either going on the criter the TS has set which is of wins and accomplishments.
However as pointed out I do think he could beat many of the men on this list on his day.
Its a shame we never saw Marvis have a chance to really develop, if he hadnt been thrown in with Holmes so early, and been so overconfident with it....and his father had given him another year to develop, he would easily have picked up an alphabet title and beaten along he way 2-3 more names on this list. As it is I think based on the wins he did actually have based on stats he should be in 13 on this list.

Boilermaker wrote:Well no one seems to rank Johansen ahead of Patterson, because he lost the series 2-1. Same with ali and Frazier.

You haven't met Nancy yet then...

Frazier had beaten james Broad, Joe bugner, quick tillis,Bonecrusher smith and another contender i cant remember right now by the time he was 25 I think he makes the top 13 based on his wins alone.

Thunder and Lightning wrote:

Boilermaker wrote:

Thunder and Lightning wrote: Not a draw you can't discredit a win just because he lost in the rematch what about Schmelings win against Louis or Johanssons win against Patterson they still mean something.

Well no one seems to rank Johansen ahead of Patterson, because he lost the series 2-1. Same with ali and Frazier. Corrie Sanders loss to Vitali must have effected his standing. Same with Rahman's loss to Lewis and others. To suggest that splitting a series 1 all with a fighter is anything but a draw, is quite frankly ridiculous. I know it is assumed that McCall for example would lose a rubber match to Lewis, but the reality is noone knows for sure. Same with Schmelling and Louis. Witherspoon and Smith III could have gone eitehr way, and Witherspoon probably should have been the favourite but the fact is that he didnt beat smith head to head in the decade. Arguably Smith's win was more emphatic than Spoons but then again you could also argue for a lucky punch etc. At the end of the day though, fighters need to be ranked on what they did, not what you thought they did or would do. Smith and spoon were 1-1 which is a draw.

and if Marvis is ranked highly because of the Smith win, Tubbs also beat Smith and Page, his losses in the 80s were against Witherspoon and Tyson and he is not even on the list.

Tubbs is actually a pretty good point when you look at his record. ONe would have thought that he must rate somewhere near Smith and witherspoon. These three are pretty much even with the exchange of wins/draws. He should be somewhere around there, just below the Marvis loss, because Marvis didnt lose to witherspoon. I am not sure whether this rating of Tubbs would effect the otehr fighters in the lower end of the top 10 too much, though it must be noted that as you go down with fighters things seem to be a lot harder and more subjective in rating fighters anyway.

Okay let's just say i don't agree with your point about 1 win and 1 loss means a draw, sure just on paper i can agree but not when you make rankings.

Marvis never fought Witherspoon, so in that case somebody who does one good fight and beats a top contender and then does nothing for the rest of the decade should be considered one of the best in the decade, Johansson should then be second best in the 50s behind Marciano because he beat the best in europe, Machen and Patterson and didn't loose while guys like Jersey Joe and Ezzard had their share of loses against lower level guys.

I just can't understand why you give Marvis so much cerdit for the Smith win i mean Broad, Holmes, Tubbs, Witherspoon, Frazier, Tyson, Rodrigues, Ruddock all beat Smith and using your point what win does Smith have to warrant him being such a HUGE win for Frazier i just don't get it.
If Weaver and Bruno is Smith's biggest wins that is not a very imprecive record certainly not anything that gives Marvis such a high position, Smith was a very good fighter but it's not like we are talking about an undefeated phenom here he ended the 80s with a record of 22-8-1.
Just saying Witherspoon beat more good fighters, fought more good fighters and did better against the great fighters than both Marvis and Smith in my opinion.

You could easily downgrade Smith which in turn downgrades Marvis, Or i suppose you could upgrade someone like Dokes which would update Holyfield. At the end of the day the high ranking of Smith is really because of his results with Witherspoon (1 win a piece). In theory a draw with witherspoon places him at the same ranking as Witherspoon. And it does seem to be consensus that of all the contenders (below teh top 3), Witherspoon is one of if not the best. Using different criteria, i see no problem with Witherspoon at 4.

The Marciano / Johanssen /Machen scenario will be very interesting to see when i get down to those decades. I can see some spirited debates. Actually the 70s will be a good one. I wonder if Leon Spinks will stand triumphant amongst the greatest era of boxers ever

Giancarlo wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:I guess I don't really get this line of reasoning. If you don't repsect Page and Tillis that much, then why does Marvis Frazier rate so high? Page and Tillis are his biggest wins.

Frazier never fought Page.

This is one of the worst threads ever.

(Buzz, bookmark it for the chapter in your book entitled "Shite you read on internet forums")

Sorry, I meant Smith. I don't see how that is enough to make him #4.
(And there have been a lot threads a lot worse than this.)

dempseyfire wrote:To rate Spinks over Holmes is just stupid, sorry (so by your "official results" criteria, Michael's 2 W vs a washed-up Holmes, 1 of which is universally regarded as a bad decision, automatically cancel out all of Larry's 1980s victories??). As is your nonsensical placement of Marvis Frazier.

That's one of the worst lists I've ever seen. I wasn't even going to open it and I wish I wouldn't have. That list is too horrendous to even find funny.

mugabi wrote:

Giancarlo wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:I guess I don't really get this line of reasoning. If you don't repsect Page and Tillis that much, then why does Marvis Frazier rate so high? Page and Tillis are his biggest wins.

Frazier never fought Page.

This is one of the worst threads ever.

(Buzz, bookmark it for the chapter in your book entitled "Shite you read on internet forums")

I agree with you Giancarlo. On the one hand you have a looney tune obsessed with his records based system but seemingly making it up as he goes along.
On the other hand you have Ambling Amp, who seems to have seen fights that never happened like the one you pointed out between Frazier and Page, and also David Bey beating Gerry Cooney to name but one.
A thread with a good premise but in the wrong hands.

I went back and looked up what said" Might even consider David Bey, who beat Page and Cooney." I meant that Cooney should be considered as well; not that Bey had beaten Cooney. Sorry for that. Again I apologize for typing in Page instead of Smith earlier when referring to Frazier's biggest win.

I don't agree with all of boilermakers rankings either. Frazier in particular is too high. He doesn't seem to be factoring in how competitive fights were either. Still, this could be a fun thread.

no problem alp. I was kinda suprised as Ive always enjoyed your knowledgable posts. Its all explained now 8)

Thought I would give this a shot. I am going to list major victories and relevant losses. The competitiveness of the fights and the stages of the fighters careers are taken into consideration. (ie-fighting Larry Holmes and Mike Weaver in 1988 is not the same as fighting them in 1980.)

1. Mike Tyson -Defeated M. Frazier,Berbick, Smith,Thomas,Tucker,Holmes, Spinks,Bruno and Williams.
2. Larry Holmes -Defeated Berbick,Snipes,Cooney,Witherspoon(Close decision), Frazier,Smith,Williams(robbery). Lost to Spinks (twice, 2nd controversially) and Tyson.
3. Tim Witherspoon-Defeated Snipes,Page,Tubbs, and Williams; all by close decisons. Defeated Smith and Bruno. Lost close decisons to Holmes and Thomas. Lost to Smith.
4. M. Spinks-Defeated Holmes (twice, 2nd controversially)) and Cooney. Lost to Tyson.
5. James Smith-defeated Bruno,Weaver, and Witherspoon. Lost to Holmes,Tubbs,Tyson,Witherspoon and Ruddock.
6. Trevor Berbick -Defeated Tate,Page,and Thomas. Lost to Holmes,Snipes,GordonTyson,Williams and Douglas.
7. Tony Tubbs -Defeated Smith and Page. Lost close decision to Witherspoon and lost to Tyson.
8. Pinklon Thomas -Defeated Witherspoon(close decison) and Weaver. Lost to Berbick, Tyson, and Holyfield. Draw with Coetzee.
9. Mike Weaver-Defeated Tate,Coetzee, and Williams. Lost to Dokes,Thomas,Smith,Ruddock, and Duplooy. Draw with Dokes.
10. Michael Dokes -Defeated Weaver. Lost to Coetzee and Holyfield. Draw with Ocasio.
11. Carl Williams -Defeated Berbick. Lost to Tyson, Weaver. Lost close decison to Witherspoon. Robbed against Holmes.
12. Buster Douglas- Defeated Page,Berbick, and McCall. Lost to Tucker,and White. Draw with Tangsted
13. Tony Tucker-Defeated Douglas. Lost to Tyson.
14. Greg Page-Defeated Snipes and Coetzee. Lost to Berbick,Bey,Tubbs, and Bugner. Lost close decison to Witherspoon.
15. Marvis Frazier-Defeated Smith and Bugner. Lost to Holmes and Tyson.
16. Gerrie Coetzee-Defeated Dokes. Lost to Weaver,Page and Bruno. Lost close decision to Snipes. Draw with Thomas.
17. Joe Bugner-defeated Page. Lost to M. Frazier, Shavers, and Bruno.
18. Frank Bruno Defeated Coetzee and Bugner. Lost to Smith and Witherspoon.
19. Renaldo Snipes-Defeated Coetzee (Close Decision) and Berbick. Lost to Holmes,Witherspoon (Close Decision),Page, Evangelista,Parkey, Biggs, and Norris. Draw with Frank.
20. Gerry Cooney-Lost to Holmes and Spinks.

I factored in fights with opponents who came along at the end of the decade such as Holyfield, McCall, and Ruddock.
To a lesser degree, I factored in fights with decent fighters who weren't good enough make this list. (Bey,Tillis, Cooper,Ferguson etc. )

Ambling Alp wrote:Thought I would give this a shot. I am going to list major victories and relevant losses. The competitiveness of the fights and the stages of the fighters careers are taken into consideration. (ie-fighting Larry Holmes and Mike Weaver in 1988 is not the same as fighting them in 1980.)

1. Mike Tyson -Defeated M. Frazier,Berbick, Smith,Thomas,Tucker,Holmes, Spinks,Bruno and Williams.
2. Larry Holmes -Defeated Berbick,Snipes,Cooney,Witherspoon(Close decision), Frazier,Smith,Williams(robbery). Lost to Spinks (twice, 2nd controversially) and Tyson.
3. Tim Witherspoon-Defeated Snipes,Page,Tubbs, and Williams; all by close decisons. Defeated Smith and Bruno. Lost close decisons to Holmes and Thomas. Lost to Smith.
4. M. Spinks-Defeated Holmes (twice, 2nd controversially)) and Cooney. Lost to Tyson.
5. James Smith-defeated Bruno,Weaver, and Witherspoon. Lost to Holmes,Tubbs,Tyson,Witherspoon and Ruddock.
6. Trevor Berbick -Defeated Tate,Page,and Thomas. Lost to Holmes,Snipes,GordonTyson,Williams and Douglas.
7. Tony Tubbs -Defeated Smith and Page. Lost close decision to Witherspoon and lost to Tyson.
8. Pinklon Thomas -Defeated Witherspoon(close decison) and Weaver. Lost to Berbick, Tyson, and Holyfield. Draw with Coetzee.
9. Mike Weaver-Defeated Tate,Coetzee, and Williams. Lost to Dokes,Thomas,Smith,Ruddock, and Duplooy. Draw with Dokes.
10. Michael Dokes -Defeated Weaver. Lost to Coetzee and Holyfield. Draw with Ocasio.
11. Carl Williams -Defeated Berbick. Lost to Tyson, Weaver. Lost close decison to Witherspoon. Robbed against Holmes.
12. Buster Douglas- Defeated Page,Berbick, and McCall. Lost to Tucker,and White. Draw with Tangsted
13. Tony Tucker-Defeated Douglas. Lost to Tyson.
14. Greg Page-Defeated Snipes and Coetzee. Lost to Berbick,Bey,Tubbs, and Bugner. Lost close decison to Witherspoon.
15. Marvis Frazier-Defeated Smith and Bugner. Lost to Holmes and Tyson.
16. Gerrie Coetzee-Defeated Dokes. Lost to Weaver,Page and Bruno. Lost close decision to Snipes. Draw with Thomas.
17. Joe Bugner-defeated Page. Lost to M. Frazier, Shavers, and Bruno.
18. Frank Bruno Defeated Coetzee and Bugner. Lost to Smith and Witherspoon.
19. Renaldo Snipes-Defeated Coetzee (Close Decision) and Berbick. Lost to Holmes,Witherspoon (Close Decision),Page, Evangelista,Parkey, Biggs, and Norris. Draw with Frank.
20. Gerry Cooney-Lost to Holmes and Spinks.

I factored in fights with opponents who came along at the end of the decade such as Holyfield, McCall, and Ruddock.
To a lesser degree, I factored in fights with decent fighters who weren't good enough make this list. (Bey,Tillis, Cooper,Ferguson etc. )

It is a good list. In time, when i get a bit more time, i will make some more comments.

But I am interested in your thoughts on Holyfield not making the list. He did beat Steward, Dokes, Thomas, Tillis, and also had wins over Occassio, DeLeon and Qawi, who did not have bad results at heavyweight. At his very best (in the decade), he was probably a top 5 or better figther. And he campaigned at heavy for about 3 years, (87,88,89) which is 1/3 of the decade. In Thomas and Dokes he beat 2 top 10 guys in your list, which is as many as most guys. Was his omission intentional or did you just consider that he got opponents at the right time?

I thought he'd already mentioned that he wasn't actually interested in what happened in the fights?

Barry-I thought Withwerspoon-Thomas was close. Not saying that Witherspoon should have got the decision. If you are going by the judges, yes one judge had it 116-112. Another had it 115-112, and the other had it a draw. That is fairly close.

As for Snipes-Coatzee, that was a little different. It was a strange fight. Coetzee won some rounds big, but Snipes won some that were close. The scoring was by the rounds system which helped Snipes in this fight. The rounds that Snipes barely won count just as much as the the rounds for Coetzee where he decked Snipes.
Had there been a 10 point must sytem, Coetzee would probably have got at least a draw.
However, you have to go by the rules that were in place for the fight. Going by that criteria, I can't call the fight a robbery.

Well lets say it was 8-4 for Witherspoon. It really would not affect their rankings.
I thought Snipes did win 6 of the 120 rounds. Yes he was lucky that there was not a 10 point mist sytem. Still a win over Snipes is not going to help Coetzee that muck.
I guess I would have to see Coetzee-Thomas again. I don't remember this at all. to be honest. Didn't remember that there was a lot of controversy with it.

1) Tyson
2) Holmes
3) Spinks
4) Witherspoon
5) Bonecrusher
6) Weaver
7) Coetzee (1st White Champ since Johansen, Ist man to knock out Spinks and Dokes, valiant losing to Hercules, screwed over vs Snipes and Thomas, also beat Tillis and lost his title by KO on a round that lasted nearly an extra minute after the bell rang and didn't get a rematch).
8) Truth (Shoulda got the nod over Holmes, never recovered).
9) Page
10) Berbick
11) Tucker
12) Tubbs
13) Pinklon
14) Dokes
15) Bey
16) Snipes
17) Holyfield
18) Marvis
19) Bruno
20) Cooney

Pinklon Thomas & Tim Witherspoon would probably hit my top 5

JDC wrote:Anyone else have Witherspoon above Spinks?

me.