BoxRec

Posted: **08 Dec 2025, 20:39**

Lack of quality wins. Kind of a big deal.

And not did nothing particularly well. So really, there is nothing.

Posted: **08 Dec 2025, 20:52**

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2025, 15:11 Ruddock, Bruno and Mercer being ahead of Byrd is a hard sell.

Ruddock only beat shot fighters and never beat a prime ranked opponent. The old Holyfield Byrd beat is probably better than anyone Ruddock beat and obviously he has the wins over Vitali and Tua that are better than any Ruddock win. Ruddocks loss to Lewis is also embarrassing given he was taken out so quickly and wasn't remotely competitive.

Mercers best wins are Damiani, Morrison, and the Witherspoon fight most feel he lost. How does that measure up to Vitali, Tua, McCline, etc especially given the controversy in the Witherspoon scoring? He also has losses to Ferguson and old Holmes and the draw to Wilson.

Micheal Dokes was ranked only behind Tyson and Holyfield when Ruddock beat him. He was not shot. Ruddock beat him with a brutal ko. That was a big win. Ruddock also gave Tyson some trouble.
A lot of people thought Mercer deserved the decision against Witherspoon. More people thought Mercer should have got the decision against Lewis. Gave Holyfield a lot of trouble in a good fight.

MCCline doesn't have much and Vitaly has even less. Mercer and Ruddock were clearly better. Not saying that they were legends. But they have their moments.

You have to weigh the positives against the negatives. Not just cherry pick what favors your favorites. And actually, watch the fights.

Posted: **09 Dec 2025, 17:28**

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑08 Dec 2025, 20:52
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2025, 15:11 Ruddock, Bruno and Mercer being ahead of Byrd is a hard sell.

Ruddock only beat shot fighters and never beat a prime ranked opponent. The old Holyfield Byrd beat is probably better than anyone Ruddock beat and obviously he has the wins over Vitali and Tua that are better than any Ruddock win. Ruddocks loss to Lewis is also embarrassing given he was taken out so quickly and wasn't remotely competitive.

Mercers best wins are Damiani, Morrison, and the Witherspoon fight most feel he lost. How does that measure up to Vitali, Tua, McCline, etc especially given the controversy in the Witherspoon scoring? He also has losses to Ferguson and old Holmes and the draw to Wilson.
Micheal Dokes was ranked only behind Tyson and Holyfield when Ruddock beat him. He was not shot. Ruddock beat him with a brutal ko. That was a big win. Ruddock also gave Tyson some trouble.
A lot of people thought Mercer deserved the decision against Witherspoon. More people thought Mercer should have got the decision against Lewis. Gave Holyfield a lot of trouble in a good fight.

MCCline doesn't have much and Vitaly has even less. Mercer and Ruddock were clearly better. Not saying that they were legends. But they have their moments.

You have to weigh the positives against the negatives. Not just cherry pick what favors your favorites. And actually, watch the fights.

Not sure what you mean by Vitali has less than McCline, but you'd have a tough argument to make there.

Mercer and Ruddock's greatest triumphs are ultimately no better than Byrd's to me. They all kinda fall into a similar overall Heavyweight ranking, somewhere between Top 25 and 40 I'd imagine. So we're getting off into the weeds anyway with these guys.

Posted: **09 Dec 2025, 18:38**

None of them are close to the Top 40. The sport goes back well over 100 years. There are scores of guys that you probably aren't thinking about. As for Mercer, you also have to take into consideration quality performances in losses against great fighters. He gave Holyfield a very tough fight. Not that many guys would have been above to do that against that version of Holyfield. Certainly not the guys that we have been talking about recently.

The Lewis fight is an even bigger deal. He fought a great fight. Certainly, could have got the decision in that one. If Mercer gets the decision in that fight, people would think of him a lot differently. Obviously, he was inconsistent and bad losses/bad performances have to weight against him as well.

Posted: **09 Dec 2025, 19:38**

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑09 Dec 2025, 18:38 None of them are close to the Top 40. The sport goes back well over 100 years. There are scores of guys that you probably aren't thinking about. As for Mercer, you also have to take into consideration quality performances in losses against great fighters. He gave Holyfield a very tough fight. Not that many guys would have been above to do that against that version of Holyfield. Certainly not the guys that we have been talking about recently.

The Lewis fight is an even bigger deal. He fought a great fight. Certainly, could have got the decision in that one. If Mercer gets the decision in that fight, people would think of him a lot differently. Obviously, he was inconsistent and bad losses/bad performances have to weight against him as well.

I think Lewis deserved the decision against Mercer. It was certainly competitive, but the right man won it. It is crazy about Holyfield that as great of a win as Mercer is, it's not even in Holyfield's Top 5 best wins, and that's not a knock on Mercer, it's more of a high praise of the depth in Holyfield's record.

Posted: **10 Dec 2025, 14:33**

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑08 Dec 2025, 20:52
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2025, 15:11 Ruddock, Bruno and Mercer being ahead of Byrd is a hard sell.

Ruddock only beat shot fighters and never beat a prime ranked opponent. The old Holyfield Byrd beat is probably better than anyone Ruddock beat and obviously he has the wins over Vitali and Tua that are better than any Ruddock win. Ruddocks loss to Lewis is also embarrassing given he was taken out so quickly and wasn't remotely competitive.

Mercers best wins are Damiani, Morrison, and the Witherspoon fight most feel he lost. How does that measure up to Vitali, Tua, McCline, etc especially given the controversy in the Witherspoon scoring? He also has losses to Ferguson and old Holmes and the draw to Wilson.
Micheal Dokes was ranked only behind Tyson and Holyfield when Ruddock beat him. He was not shot. Ruddock beat him with a brutal ko. That was a big win. Ruddock also gave Tyson some trouble.
A lot of people thought Mercer deserved the decision against Witherspoon. More people thought Mercer should have got the decision against Lewis. Gave Holyfield a lot of trouble in a good fight.

MCCline doesn't have much and Vitaly has even less. Mercer and Ruddock were clearly better. Not saying that they were legends. But they have their moments.

You have to weigh the positives against the negatives. Not just cherry pick what favors your favorites. And actually, watch the fights.

Had Mercer got the decision against Lewis than obviously Lewis wouldn't get credit for beating him. You can't claim Mercer beat Lewis and at the same time give Lewis credit for the win. That doesn't make any sense. Most feel Byrd lost to Oquendo so I don't count it for Byrd. He was past prime by then so it shouldn't effect how good he was but if he lost he shouldn't get credit.

Dokes was badly out of shape, hadn't scored an impressive win in years and didn't do much subsequently. He wasn't old but he wasn't old for Bowe either at 34 and won every fight between Ruddock and Bowe. If it's a big win for Ruddock why not for Bowe given he was only 34 and didn't lose between fighting them. Presumably he was dropped from the ratings due to how badly he did against Ruddock.

Posted: **10 Dec 2025, 18:30**

I was asked earlier who Lewis beat that was better than Byrd. I mentioned the Mercer win because it is officially true that he beat Mercer.

I give Mercer credit for the Lewis fight because he fought well and I thought he did just enough to win the decision.
I don't give Byrd credit for beating Oquendo because it was not a good fight. If a guy fights a very good fight but loses he deserves more credit that another guy who doesn't fight well but beats an opponent who didn't fight well either.

Dokes was 31 when he fought Ruddock. 34 when he fought Bowe. Almost every fighter starts to slow down in their 30s. (Assuming they have a lot of fighting mileage on them)
Dokes was a better opponent when he fought Ruddock than when he fought Bowe. He was ranked higher than Ruddock when they fought. He had looked pretty good in a losing effort against Holyfield a year before the Ruddock fight. Wasn't even a contender anymore when he fought Bowe.
Ruddock didn't just barely beat Dokes. He scored a devastating KO. He deserves some credit for that.

Posted: **10 Dec 2025, 21:10**

I agree with you that Mercer's losing effort to Lewis is more impressive than Byrd's "winning" effort against Oquendo. As I recall I had that bout 115-113 Oquendo. Neither guy was impressive in it, and it was a dull fight.

The Mercer-Lewis fight is an excellent Heavyweight bout, and a draw or 96-94 either way is a reasonable score.

Posted: **11 Dec 2025, 07:18**

Byrd has wins over Klitschko and Tua. Pretty impressive if you ask me.

Posted: **11 Dec 2025, 13:55**

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑11 Dec 2025, 07:18 Byrd has wins over Klitschko and Tua. Pretty impressive if you ask me.

The Klitschko win really isn't especially impressive. It's a good win, but the way it happened isn't the most thrilling way to get a W obviously.

The Tua win was a masterful performance.

I do think Byrd would've beaten Mercer head to head though for the record.

Posted: **11 Dec 2025, 15:27**

gilgamesh wrote: ↑11 Dec 2025, 13:55
keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑11 Dec 2025, 07:18 Byrd has wins over Klitschko and Tua. Pretty impressive if you ask me.
The Klitschko win really isn't especially impressive. It's a good win, but the way it happened isn't the most thrilling way to get a W obviously.

The Tua win was a masterful performance.

I do think Byrd would've beaten Mercer head to head though for the record.

Me too.

Posted: **12 Dec 2025, 01:02**

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑10 Dec 2025, 18:30 I was asked earlier who Lewis beat that was better than Byrd. I mentioned the Mercer win because it is officially true that he beat Mercer.

I give Mercer credit for the Lewis fight because he fought well and I thought he did just enough to win the decision.
I don't give Byrd credit for beating Oquendo because it was not a good fight. If a guy fights a very good fight but loses he deserves more credit that another guy who doesn't fight well but beats an opponent who didn't fight well either.

Dokes was 31 when he fought Ruddock. 34 when he fought Bowe. Almost every fighter starts to slow down in their 30s. (Assuming they have a lot of fighting mileage on them)
Dokes was a better opponent when he fought Ruddock than when he fought Bowe. He was ranked higher than Ruddock when they fought. He had looked pretty good in a losing effort against Holyfield a year before the Ruddock fight. Wasn't even a contender anymore when he fought Bowe.
Ruddock didn't just barely beat Dokes. He scored a devastating KO. He deserves some credit for that.

There's no reason to think he was significantly worse against Bowe. Thirty four isn't old for a heavyweight in the 1990s, Holyfield, McCall, Mercer, Lewis, etc were all prime/near prime at 34. He was in similar shape for both fights (240 and 244). He hadn't scored an impressive win since at least 1984 so going into both fights he was far removed from any quality wins. And he won every fight between Ruddock and Bowe including Ferguson who was probably his best win since Cobb.

If we credit Mercer with beating Lewis it doesn't make sense to credit Lewis with the win. Surely you can understand that? Oquendo doesn't have a fan friendly style so I don't think its reasonable to expect someone to look good against him unless they can bomb him out quickly. How many entertaining Oquendo fights have you seen?

If we credit Mercer with fights he officially won his top wins vis a vis Byrd are probably as follows (excluding Oquendo)
Klitschko vs Damiani
Tua vs Morrison
old Holyfield vs old Witherspoon
McCline/Castillo vs Cooper

I would think that's a pretty clear edge for Byrd. Byrd also beat Cooper but an older version

Posted: **12 Dec 2025, 11:29**

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑12 Dec 2025, 01:02 Thirty four isn't old for a heavyweight

That depends on the heavyweight and moreover, their style.

Posted: **12 Dec 2025, 13:27**

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑12 Dec 2025, 11:29
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑12 Dec 2025, 01:02 Thirty four isn't old for a heavyweight
That depends on the heavyweight and moreover, their style.

True. Tyson was past it by the time he was 30. Lewis was nearly 38 and still good enough to beat Klitschko

Posted: **12 Dec 2025, 16:32**

giacomino wrote: ↑12 Dec 2025, 13:27
keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑12 Dec 2025, 11:29
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑12 Dec 2025, 01:02 Thirty four isn't old for a heavyweight
That depends on the heavyweight and moreover, their style.
True. Tyson was past it by the time he was 30. Lewis was nearly 38 and still good enough to beat Klitschko

Some of out fellow posters just look at stats.

Posted: **12 Dec 2025, 16:42**

The level of opposition, and how you looked in winning definitely plays a part too. A dull decision over a great fighter really doesn't boost your legacy much more than smashing 3 walkovers in exciting fashion does. People remember the exciting performances. The big names look good on your record, but unless it was a great fight to go with it, it didn't do a lot for your career or your legacy.

That's ultimately what makes it close between Wlad and Mike. They had similar levels of competition. Wlad had a little more success overall, Mike Tyson was WAY more exciting in how he did it.

Posted: **12 Dec 2025, 20:40**

No not all. You are way off.
Tyson beat much better competition. Yes Wlad had Chris Byrd. Tyson had several good wins. sometimes he won easily,, sometimes not. We should not have to name them.

Tyson also didn't have the embarrassing meltdowns that Klitschko. Losing to Buster Douglas and Holyfield is not remotely as bad as losing to Ross Purritty, Corrie Sanders, and Lamon Brewster.

there are many guys not as good as Tyson (who is in the about the 9th-12th range) but better than Kltischko. You need to start researching guys from way before your time.

Posted: **12 Dec 2025, 20:41**

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑12 Dec 2025, 20:40 No not all. You are way off.
Tyson beat much better competition. Yes Wlad had Chris Byrd. Tyson had several good wins. Sometimes he won easily,, sometimes not. We should not have to name them.

Tyson also didn't have the embarrassing meltdowns that Klitschko. Losing to Buster Douglas and Holyfield is not remotely as bad as losing to Ross Purritty, Corrie Sanders, and Lamon Brewster.

There are many guys not as good as Tyson (who is in the about the 9th-12th range) but better than Klitschko. You need to start researching guys from way before your time.

Posted: **12 Dec 2025, 21:41**

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑12 Dec 2025, 20:40 No not all. You are way off.
Tyson beat much better competition. Yes Wlad had Chris Byrd. Tyson had several good wins. sometimes he won easily,, sometimes not. We should not have to name them.

Tyson also didn't have the embarrassing meltdowns that Klitschko. Losing to Buster Douglas and Holyfield is not remotely as bad as losing to Ross Purritty, Corrie Sanders, and Lamon Brewster.

there are many guys not as good as Tyson (who is in the about the 9th-12th range) but better than Kltischko. You need to start researching guys from way before your time.

Chris Byrd, David Haye, Alexander Povetkin.

Are all right there with Trevor Berbick, Bonecrusher Smith, Tony Tucker and Frank Bruno.

Tyson has an old and past it Larry Holmes, Wlad has an old and past it Hasim Rahman.

Mike definitely has the more exciting KO's and highlight reel finishes. Wlad has more consistent success over a longer period of time.

They're not separated by much.

One big detriment for Wlad is that he doesn't have a truly great win. Tyson's win over Michael Spinks is probably better than anything Wlad has, if Wlad had KO'd Haye in spectacular fashion the achievements would've been about equal, but he didn't, and they aren't.

Posted: **13 Dec 2025, 13:10**

- Well, Mike set the boxing world on fire, compiling a record lifetime of purses by the time he turned 21 yr old.

The Kbros moved heavyweight boxing to their Ukrainian Headquarters of Germany where it remains to this day with Usyk who obliterated his era...

Might as well ask which ranks better historically, dogs, cats, or horses or Rump...

Posted: **13 Dec 2025, 15:02**

It’s a tough one this. Tyson’s rep is way higher than it should be as he looks so good in snippets and highlights. Not that I would accuse alp et al of being some boxing casuals lol. He and many others on this site are boxing history gurus.

I think wlad had an overall better career. It’s close but his 22 straight wins, 20 title fights over 11 years shouldn’t be just dismissed. When Tyson was in his mid late 30s losing to journeymen wlad was still defending and looking strong. I know wlad doesn’t have that many standout wins but neither has Mike. Almost anyone who gave him a tough fight beat him. He definitely lacked fortitude or a plan b when things went against him.

I should say also I have no axe to grind. Tyson was a breath of fresh air when he came along in the mid 80s and I was a big fan. Wlad was vanilla as a fighter and I wasn’t a fan. Looking at them both overall it’s hard to split them. Wlad’s record is slightly better, Mike had a much much greater impact. Historically tho history may be kinder to wlad than we think.

Posted: **13 Dec 2025, 15:07**

gilgamesh wrote: ↑12 Dec 2025, 21:41
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑12 Dec 2025, 20:40 No not all. You are way off.
Tyson beat much better competition. Yes Wlad had Chris Byrd. Tyson had several good wins. sometimes he won easily,, sometimes not. We should not have to name them.

Tyson also didn't have the embarrassing meltdowns that Klitschko. Losing to Buster Douglas and Holyfield is not remotely as bad as losing to Ross Purritty, Corrie Sanders, and Lamon Brewster.

there are many guys not as good as Tyson (who is in the about the 9th-12th range) but better than Kltischko. You need to start researching guys from way before your time.
Chris Byrd, David Haye, Alexander Povetkin.

Are all right there with Trevor Berbick, Bonecrusher Smith, Tony Tucker and Frank Bruno.

Tyson has an old and past it Larry Holmes, Wlad has an old and past it Hasim Rahman.

Mike definitely has the more exciting KO's and highlight reel finishes. Wlad has more consistent success over a longer period of time.

They're not separated by much.

One big detriment for Wlad is that he doesn't have a truly great win. Tyson's win over Michael Spinks is probably better than anything Wlad has, if Wlad had KO'd Haye in spectacular fashion the achievements would've been about equal, but he didn't, and they aren't.

Michael Spinks was the man. The undefeated lineal champion. With back-to-back wins over the longstanding heavyweight champion of the world, who was a first ballot hall of famer. In a Ring magazine poll ahead of the fight, a number of industry experts picked Spinks. Tyson completely destroyed him and barely gets any credit for it. Hell, people even make excuses for why it happened. Spinks was too small (he was taller than Tyson and only weighed 6lbs less), his knees were shot (they were the same knees he used in the Holmes fights) and then the ever growing list of conspiracy theories about Spinks in the dressing room. I feel like Tyson would have got more credit for the Spinks fight if he'd won a close decision in a competitive contest. The way it stands he barely gets a mention for what was (IMO) the most important fight of his career.

Posted: **13 Dec 2025, 16:10**

I consider it a Gold Star win in my book. So it goes down as something better than just another title defense to me certainly. Wladimir doesn't have a Gold star win. Mike Tyson has that one, and Larry Holmes.

Posted: **13 Dec 2025, 18:29**

This is a great thread. I lean on Mike Tyson as one of the top 100 pound per pound great boxers ever. I don't see that in none of the two Klitschkos brothers.

Posted: **14 Dec 2025, 01:00**

giacomino wrote: ↑12 Dec 2025, 13:27
keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑12 Dec 2025, 11:29
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑12 Dec 2025, 01:02 Thirty four isn't old for a heavyweight
That depends on the heavyweight and moreover, their style.
True. Tyson was past it by the time he was 30. Lewis was nearly 38 and still good enough to beat Klitschko

Tyson looked fine against his competition aside from Holyfield. There's no reason to think he was past it aside from the disappointing results against Holyfield who was potentially just a bad matchup

BoxRec

Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

Re: Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson