BoxRec

He's something of an enigma is Mike Tyson. If you analyze his whole career in retrospect, he was undoubtedly good, but falls short of a number of fighters that went on to beat him or who were just around after the fire had gone out. I mean fighters like Holyfield, Lewis, (maybe even Bowe gets more respect in some quarters), in fact I imagine a younger student of the sport wondering what all the fuss was about.

I think you had to have lived through it and better still, have had many years of watching boxing prior to it, to truly fully appreciate the impact he had when he burst on to the scene: No frills, stripped back to basics, incredibly menacing and intimidating, someone whose reputation for ferocity could reduce a quality opponent like Michael Spinks to a beaten man before he stepped into the ring.

I accept there were more accomplished heavyweight champions in history, but I'll never forget the rise of Mike Tyson as he cut a swathe through a host of very good heavyweights who towered above him. He awed me like no other before or since.

Jip wrote: ↑16 Nov 2017, 18:44

caldo2025 wrote: ↑16 Nov 2017, 08:50 How the hell could you even put Loma and Riggo on a list like this? Come on people. Jip even you are better than this. I'm mad at myself for even participating in the poll like this. UGH.

You must read to understand!
Did i asked who had the best career resume or
Did i ask which boxer looked the best at his peak?

Rigo was very impressiv at his best and right now loma is in his prime and looks incredible.

Dumb poll and i'm not being racist. One guy got manhandled and beaten and the other gets knocked on his ass every other fight but yeah, they should be on a poll with Sugar Ray Leonard and Mike Tyson. It's people like you that frustrate me in this sport. You can't just sit back and let these boxers earn their historical placement, you have to rush them up into legendary status because they showed skill knocking out some bums. In my book, you need to do it against the best of your time period in order to be put up with that class of boxers. You are very disrespectful to the best boxers of our times.

caldo2025 wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 07:42Dumb poll... It's people like you that frustrate me in this sport. You can't just sit back and let these boxers earn their historical placement, you have to rush them up into legendary status because they showed skill knocking out some bums. In my book, you need to do it against the best of your time period in order to be put up with that class of boxers. You are very disrespectful to the best boxers of our times.

I don’t say this often, but I 100% agree with your sentiments!

This post of Jip's makes my eyes water!

Jip wrote: ↑16 Nov 2017, 20:23 Hopkins is overrated...

Hagler... couldnt touch leonard. Not more impressiv than... [Toney, Tyson, Lomachenko & Rigondeaux]

Chavez, he was losing to athletic boxer...

Holyfield, lewis, holmes in prime shape all look inferior to tysons prime shape.

Prime kovalev would beat a prime leonard

Ward is a joke right?

I was about to take exception to the statement about Kovalev beating Leonard, but I just checked to see whether I was right in thinking Ray had never competed at Light-heavyweight, and I see that he did once and had to come back from a knockdown to beat the very ordinary Donny Lalonde. It's conceivable that a top LH like Kovalev might have proved too big for Leonard but as good as Kovalev undoubtedly has been, he isn't anywhere near Ray Leonard's ability, in fact I find the comparison a bit random given that it isn't a comparison of two fighters of the same weight.

candyslim wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 09:24 I was about to take exception to the statement about Kovalev beating Leonard, but I just checked to see whether I was right in thinking Ray had never competed at Light-heavyweight, and I see that he did once and had to come back from a knockdown to beat the very ordinary Donny Lalonde. It's conceivable that a top LH like Kovalev might have proved too big for Leonard but as good as Kovalev undoubtedly has been, he isn't anywhere near Ray Leonard's ability, in fact I find the comparison a bit random given that it isn't a comparison of two fighters of the same weight.

Leonard fought LaLonde at 165lbs, which is 3lbs below than the super-middleweight limit and the only time he ever competed above 160lbs. I don't disagree with the rest of your points.

Jip wrote: ↑16 Nov 2017, 20:07

Tony1244 wrote: ↑16 Nov 2017, 20:01 Toneys on there but not Ali?

I voted Leonard. But I think Duran, Whitaker, Jones and Mayweather are also good choices.

For me a prime time cassius clay was in the 60s, rather the bigger slower muhammad ali.

Ali was still great until the mid 1970s but I agree he was even greater in the 1960s. His footwork has slowed but his power may have improved. He won by taking shots instead of avoiding shots which he paid for big time.

Jip wrote: ↑16 Nov 2017, 20:23

Lackeos wrote: ↑15 Nov 2017, 21:35 IMO, Toney, Rigondeaux, and Lomachenko don't even belong on the poll; and Pacquiao and Tyson only loosely merit inclusion. But since I know this is a poll of your 10 favorite fighters, I think the results of this poll might help correct your evaluations of some of the fighters you most overrate.

Some fighters that I think might have been better inclusions are... Bernard Hopkins, Terry Norris, Aaron Pryor, Michael Spinks, Carlos Monzon, Marvin Hagler, Julio Cesar Chavez, Alexis Arguello, Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis, Larry Holmes, and Andre Ward.

Whitaker and SRL are two fighters who I consider to be super exceptional, so I would pick either of them.

I didnt want to go their. But you pushed me into it.

Hopkins is overrated. Great career. At his peak losing to a b level like taylor.

Hagler the real deal. Couldnt touch leonard. Not more impressiv than the 10 i listed.

Chavez, he was losing to athletic boxer. So how would he handled ultra athletic boxer like pac or floyd who are better than him in every departmant speed, footwork, reflexes, timing. Got gifts. Meldrick prime and pernell prime> chavez prime

Holyfield, lewis, holmes in prime shape all look inferior to tysons prime shape. No hw ever looked as exceptional as tyson did in the 80s. Lewis might ve beaten him, but only because he weighed more and was much taller, not because he was a better boxer. Prime kovalev would beat a prime leonard, but not because kovalev is a better boxer than leonard, but because he weighs much more and is much taller.

Ward is a joke right?

Hopkins overrated and Hagler not on the list but you included Toney who isn't as good as neither, Lomachenko and Rigondeax, who haven't even proven themselves to be better than Ward yet.

IKSRTFO wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 13:50

Jip wrote: ↑16 Nov 2017, 20:23

Lackeos wrote: ↑15 Nov 2017, 21:35 IMO, Toney, Rigondeaux, and Lomachenko don't even belong on the poll; and Pacquiao and Tyson only loosely merit inclusion. But since I know this is a poll of your 10 favorite fighters, I think the results of this poll might help correct your evaluations of some of the fighters you most overrate.

Some fighters that I think might have been better inclusions are... Bernard Hopkins, Terry Norris, Aaron Pryor, Michael Spinks, Carlos Monzon, Marvin Hagler, Julio Cesar Chavez, Alexis Arguello, Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis, Larry Holmes, and Andre Ward.

Whitaker and SRL are two fighters who I consider to be super exceptional, so I would pick either of them.

I didnt want to go their. But you pushed me into it.

Hopkins is overrated. Great career. At his peak losing to a b level like taylor.

Hagler the real deal. Couldnt touch leonard. Not more impressiv than the 10 i listed.

Chavez, he was losing to athletic boxer. So how would he handled ultra athletic boxer like pac or floyd who are better than him in every departmant speed, footwork, reflexes, timing. Got gifts. Meldrick prime and pernell prime> chavez prime

Holyfield, lewis, holmes in prime shape all look inferior to tysons prime shape. No hw ever looked as exceptional as tyson did in the 80s. Lewis might ve beaten him, but only because he weighed more and was much taller, not because he was a better boxer. Prime kovalev would beat a prime leonard, but not because kovalev is a better boxer than leonard, but because he weighs much more and is much taller.

Ward is a joke right?

Hopkins overrated and Hagler not on the list but you included Toney who isn't as good as neither, Lomachenko and Rigondeax, who haven't even proven themselves to be better than Ward yet.

Another one who cant read or wont take the time. Read the first sentence i wrote on this thread.

Jip wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 14:16

IKSRTFO wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 13:50

Jip wrote: ↑16 Nov 2017, 20:23

I didnt want to go their. But you pushed me into it.

Hopkins is overrated. Great career. At his peak losing to a b level like taylor.

Hagler the real deal. Couldnt touch leonard. Not more impressiv than the 10 i listed.

Chavez, he was losing to athletic boxer. So how would he handled ultra athletic boxer like pac or floyd who are better than him in every departmant speed, footwork, reflexes, timing. Got gifts. Meldrick prime and pernell prime> chavez prime

Holyfield, lewis, holmes in prime shape all look inferior to tysons prime shape. No hw ever looked as exceptional as tyson did in the 80s. Lewis might ve beaten him, but only because he weighed more and was much taller, not because he was a better boxer. Prime kovalev would beat a prime leonard, but not because kovalev is a better boxer than leonard, but because he weighs much more and is much taller.

Ward is a joke right?

Hopkins overrated and Hagler not on the list but you included Toney who isn't as good as neither, Lomachenko and Rigondeax, who haven't even proven themselves to be better than Ward yet.

Another one who cant read or wont take the time. Read the first sentence i wrote on this thread.

You can't rate someone's "peak prime" without rating their accomplishments. Or do you mean talent? Hagler at his peak prime was a lot better than James Toney. Hopkins didn't peak until later. We don't know how good Rigondeaux "peak prime" actually is because the only one he beat was Donaire.

Hagler was a better boxer than most everyone on the list in his prime. Jip obviously has never seen him in that state. It was many years before Leonard. It's not the reading when the writing is shit.

IKSRTFO wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 14:33

Jip wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 14:16

IKSRTFO wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 13:50

Hopkins overrated and Hagler not on the list but you included Toney who isn't as good as neither, Lomachenko and Rigondeax, who haven't even proven themselves to be better than Ward yet.

Another one who cant read or wont take the time. Read the first sentence i wrote on this thread.

You can't rate someone's "peak prime" without rating their accomplishments. Or do you mean talent? Hagler at his peak prime was a lot better than James Toney. Hopkins didn't peak until later. We don't know how good Rigondeaux "peak prime" actually is because the only one he beat was Donaire.

You dont understand a lot of things.

Prime, meaning when you are at your best, does 0 have to do with your opponents. Jones was at his best against pazienza, but pazianza wasnt the best opponent jones ever had. Floyd looked the most incredible against corrales or gatti, that was his peak prime. But neither corrales or gatti were as good as the opponents floyd faced when he was atill good but out of his prime like when he faced canelo or cotto.

Toney at his best looked more impressiv to me than hagler & hopkins. But both had a better career than toney.

Rigo has better footwork, reflexes, speed, technique than hagler, hopkins and most boxer. Absolut rare talent.

candyslim wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 09:24 I was about to take exception to the statement about Kovalev beating Leonard, but I just checked to see whether I was right in thinking Ray had never competed at Light-heavyweight, and I see that he did once and had to come back from a knockdown to beat the very ordinary Donny Lalonde. It's conceivable that a top LH like Kovalev might have proved too big for Leonard but as good as Kovalev undoubtedly has been, he isn't anywhere near Ray Leonard's ability, in fact I find the comparison a bit random given that it isn't a comparison of two fighters of the same weight.

would you pick leonard over kovalev at 175

caldo2025 wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 07:42 Dumb poll and i'm not being racist. One guy got manhandled and beaten

How many guys on the list haven't been manhandled and beaten, maybe two?

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 09:43

candyslim wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 09:24 I was about to take exception to the statement about Kovalev beating Leonard, but I just checked to see whether I was right in thinking Ray had never competed at Light-heavyweight, and I see that he did once and had to come back from a knockdown to beat the very ordinary Donny Lalonde. It's conceivable that a top LH like Kovalev might have proved too big for Leonard but as good as Kovalev undoubtedly has been, he isn't anywhere near Ray Leonard's ability, in fact I find the comparison a bit random given that it isn't a comparison of two fighters of the same weight.

Leonard fought LaLonde at 165lbs, which is 3lbs below than the super-middleweight limit and the only time he ever competed above 160lbs. I don't disagree with the rest of your points.

Fair point EO. Although Lalonde was a Light-heavyweight there was only 2lbs difference in weight on the night (or at least at the time of the weigh-in). Ray must have had an off-night since my assumed explanation of Lalonde being simply too big doesn't appear to hold water (no pun intended)

jamamb wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 19:24

candyslim wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 09:24 I was about to take exception to the statement about Kovalev beating Leonard, but I just checked to see whether I was right in thinking Ray had never competed at Light-heavyweight, and I see that he did once and had to come back from a knockdown to beat the very ordinary Donny Lalonde. It's conceivable that a top LH like Kovalev might have proved too big for Leonard but as good as Kovalev undoubtedly has been, he isn't anywhere near Ray Leonard's ability, in fact I find the comparison a bit random given that it isn't a comparison of two fighters of the same weight.

would you pick leonard over kovalev at 175

That's a hard one jamamb. I have no hesitation in declaring Ray Leonard to be superior to Kovalev, but the size difference could be significant. It's not like Kovalev is just an unskilled lump is it? I'll never forget thinking that the speed and mobility of wwt champ Jose Napoles might well off-set the size and power of mwt champ Carlos Monzon and I learned that day why the saying "A good big'un will usually beat a good little'un" became 'a saying' - Monzon destroyed him.

In spite of this caveat I'm going to go out on a limb and ignore this early lesson, and say Leonard by decision, but if you disagree I'm not going to argue.

squiggy wrote: ↑18 Nov 2017, 01:05

caldo2025 wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 07:42 Dumb poll and i'm not being racist. One guy got manhandled and beaten

How many guys on the list haven't been manhandled and beaten, maybe two?

No one in their "prime".

still ray for me.

man wrote: ↑18 Nov 2017, 08:56 still ray for me.

Why prime ray > prime jones

Just curious. I mean it is a tough question. Both were blessed with such great speed, reflexes, athletictism in there prime, realy hard to say who was better. P4p jones was faster than ray, but ray punched harder. Footwork maybe edge for ray.

Lol, Ray didn't punch harder than Jones. Hagler was a better boxer though. You put the clue in clueless.

In a p4p sense ray had more power in his punxhes than roy had.

Jip wrote: ↑18 Nov 2017, 10:42 In a p4p sense ray had more power in his punxhes than roy had.

No

Carlos Monzon should be on the list.

He was the best MW of the 1970s, held the title for 3/4 of the decade & made 14 defences at a time when you had to be the best to be a champion, so he must surely be amongst the best boxers since 1970?

Saying all that, the answer is Roberto Duran, but Monzon deserves to be on the list ahead of a couple of the others.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: ↑18 Nov 2017, 11:20

Jip wrote: ↑18 Nov 2017, 10:42 In a p4p sense ray had more power in his punxhes than roy had.

No

I'd give Roy the edge in power, but Ray's power was somewhat underrated.

Jip wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 17:32

IKSRTFO wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 14:33

Jip wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 14:16

Another one who cant read or wont take the time. Read the first sentence i wrote on this thread.

You can't rate someone's "peak prime" without rating their accomplishments. Or do you mean talent? Hagler at his peak prime was a lot better than James Toney. Hopkins didn't peak until later. We don't know how good Rigondeaux "peak prime" actually is because the only one he beat was Donaire.

You dont understand a lot of things.

Prime, meaning when you are at your best, does 0 have to do with your opponents. Jones was at his best against pazienza, but pazianza wasnt the best opponent jones ever had. Floyd looked the most incredible against corrales or gatti, that was his peak prime. But neither corrales or gatti were as good as the opponents floyd faced when he was atill good but out of his prime like when he faced canelo or cotto.

Toney at his best looked more impressiv to me than hagler & hopkins. But both had a better career than toney.

Rigo has better footwork, reflexes, speed, technique than hagler, hopkins and most boxer. Absolut rare talent.

Your examples are 1 fight. That isn't a prime. That's the best of a person's TALENT. Prime would be a period and not just 1 fight.

By your definition of prime, there are fighters not even in the top 50 that looked better than anyone in the top 10 in one fight.

IKSRTFO wrote: ↑18 Nov 2017, 13:59

Jip wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 17:32

IKSRTFO wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 14:33

You can't rate someone's "peak prime" without rating their accomplishments. Or do you mean talent? Hagler at his peak prime was a lot better than James Toney. Hopkins didn't peak until later. We don't know how good Rigondeaux "peak prime" actually is because the only one he beat was Donaire.

You dont understand a lot of things.

Prime, meaning when you are at your best, does 0 have to do with your opponents. Jones was at his best against pazienza, but pazianza wasnt the best opponent jones ever had. Floyd looked the most incredible against corrales or gatti, that was his peak prime. But neither corrales or gatti were as good as the opponents floyd faced when he was atill good but out of his prime like when he faced canelo or cotto.

Toney at his best looked more impressiv to me than hagler & hopkins. But both had a better career than toney.

Rigo has better footwork, reflexes, speed, technique than hagler, hopkins and most boxer. Absolut rare talent.

Your examples are 1 fight. That isn't a prime. That's the best of a person's TALENT. Prime would be a period and not just 1 fight.

By your definition of prime, there are fighters not even in the top 50 that looked better than anyone in the top 10 in one fight.

Prime can be 1 fight or a long time period depends on how hard and consistent the boxer trained and other circumstances.

The best of a persons talent is his prime. Sorry to say that but you realy dont sound intelligent at all.

What do you mean?
by my definition a non top 50 boxer looked better than any top 10 boxer in 1 fight.

You statemant sounds incomplete.