BoxRec

Alright, fellas, we all know, that the HW division in the 90s was an era of the big 4: Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe, Tyson. Let's take them as an A-tier. However, an overall landscape of the decade was filled with talents. So, who was the best after the big 4?

My pick goes to 'Merciless' Ray Mercer. He had close fights against both Lewis and Holyfield, who are #1 and #2 of the 90s. I find this more impressive than edgeing vs the injured Holyfield and then getting battered by him, what Moorer did, and than lucky-punching the overconfident / underprepared Lewis and then weeping in the rematch, what McCall did.

All of these guys have their ups and downs.
Mercer did get embarrassed against an ancient Holmes and against Ferguson. But if you balance that with how well he fought against Holyfield and Lewis (easily should got the decision in that one) and the wins over Damiani and Morrison, overall he has as good of case as anyone.

Good post. It’s a difficult call.

A lot of these guys had one or two big wins, but not enough to stand out.
Ibeabuchi had the KO of Byrd and the Tua fight.
Douglas of course beat Tyson but did little afterward. (He actually had a some nice wins before that in the 1980s)
Foreman beat Moorer, gave Holyfield a tougher than expected fight.
Holmes beat Mercer.
Moorer beat Holyfield.

etc. etc.

Don't think Akinwande, Briggs and Seldon belong here.

Y'all are crazy if you pick Mercer over the President of the United States.

I went for Damiani who was not quite there - despite a WBO title - but a handy fighter and more of an A- minus guy.
Good fighter - not a joke - but just 5 percent behind the better blokes operating like Lewis, Mercer and Holyfield.

Damiani did have some ability. The problem is that he didn't really have a major win. Tyrell Biggs was probably the best guy that he beat. (The WBO was a minor title at the time that was not taken seriously).

Damiani was good, but lacked hardness in the nose and in the heart. Both his Mercer and McCall losses ended virtually the same.

in fairness to Damiani, Mercer's uppercut did shatter his nose and must have been incredibly painful. See how it is pouring blood as he sits on the canvas. Ouch!!!!

I went with Michael Moorer. Mostly because he was the lineal heavyweight champion at one point and he did have pretty good solid wins over good or great opposition. No offense to Mercer but outside of Tommy Morrison and Francesco Damiani what is there to really point at (win wise) that would make somebody believe that he was the best of the rest?

Never forget the same guy who gave Lennox Lewis a tough fight is the same guy who got schooled by 40+ year old Larry Holmes. I'm sure people will bring up the fact that George Foreman stopped Moorer, but Moorer was also winning every second of that fight until the knockout happened. Nevermind the fact that Moorer regained the IBF title beating Axel Schulz, Frans Botha, and Vaughn Bean before losing to Holyfield in their rematch.

So I assume the big 4 of the 90's are Holyfield, Bowe, Lennox and Mike Tyson right?

I'd say you could put George Foreman's run in the 90's right there with anything Mike did in the decade. So he's obviously #5 if not 4.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑08 Jul 2022, 02:23 So I assume the big 4 of the 90's are Holyfield, Bowe, Lennox and Mike Tyson right?

I'd say you could put George Foreman's run in the 90's right there with anything Mike did in the decade. So he's obviously #5 if not 4.

Foreman's 90s run is much better on paper than it was in reality. He had several arguable wins and scored his major one after losing every round to the chinny fighter and just catching him in the end.

DrDuke wrote: ↑08 Jul 2022, 03:01

gilgamesh wrote: ↑08 Jul 2022, 02:23 So I assume the big 4 of the 90's are Holyfield, Bowe, Lennox and Mike Tyson right?

I'd say you could put George Foreman's run in the 90's right there with anything Mike did in the decade. So he's obviously #5 if not 4.

Foreman's 90s run is much better on paper than it was in reality. He had several arguable wins and scored his major one after losing every round to the chinny fighter and just catching him in the end.

Flukish though the win over Moorer admittedly was, it's still a KO win over The Man that beat The Man at the age of 45. That's impressive no matter how you slice it.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑08 Jul 2022, 03:03

DrDuke wrote: ↑08 Jul 2022, 03:01

gilgamesh wrote: ↑08 Jul 2022, 02:23 So I assume the big 4 of the 90's are Holyfield, Bowe, Lennox and Mike Tyson right?

I'd say you could put George Foreman's run in the 90's right there with anything Mike did in the decade. So he's obviously #5 if not 4.

Foreman's 90s run is much better on paper than it was in reality. He had several arguable wins and scored his major one after losing every round to the chinny fighter and just catching him in the end.

Flukish though the win over Moorer admittedly was, it's still a KO win over The Man that beat The Man at the age of 45. That's impressive no matter how you slice it.

That's right, although Moorer's win over the man also has reasons for disputes. It was close and Holyfield was injured.

DrDuke wrote: ↑08 Jul 2022, 03:37

gilgamesh wrote: ↑08 Jul 2022, 03:03

DrDuke wrote: ↑08 Jul 2022, 03:01

Foreman's 90s run is much better on paper than it was in reality. He had several arguable wins and scored his major one after losing every round to the chinny fighter and just catching him in the end.

Flukish though the win over Moorer admittedly was, it's still a KO win over The Man that beat The Man at the age of 45. That's impressive no matter how you slice it.

That's right, although Moorer's win over the man also has reasons for disputes. It was close and Holyfield was injured.

Excuses, excuses. Moorer beat Holyfield, Foreman beat Moorer.

You can always sh*t on any achievement if you wish.

Buster Douglas was fatter, and not nearly as ready for Holyfield as he was for Tyson for instance.

All that sh*t don't matter though. You can only face the man that steps in the ring with you. Any injury or illness or what have you that's hindering him, that's his tough f*cking luck ain't it.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑08 Jul 2022, 03:42

DrDuke wrote: ↑08 Jul 2022, 03:37

gilgamesh wrote: ↑08 Jul 2022, 03:03

Flukish though the win over Moorer admittedly was, it's still a KO win over The Man that beat The Man at the age of 45. That's impressive no matter how you slice it.

That's right, although Moorer's win over the man also has reasons for disputes. It was close and Holyfield was injured.

Excuses, excuses. Moorer beat Holyfield, Foreman beat Moorer.

You can always sh*t on any achievement if you wish.

Buster Douglas was fatter, and not nearly as ready for Holyfield as he was for Tyson for instance.

All that sh*t don't matter though. You can only face the man that steps in the ring with you. Any injury or illness or what have you that's hindering him, that's his tough f*cking luck ain't it.

Yes, excuses are everywhere. But it's fun to find out, which are more excusable, isn't it?

Foreman's 90s run is much better on paper than it was in reality. He had several arguable wins and scored his major one after losing every round to the chinny fighter and just catching him in the end.

He was flipping lucky against Schulz....the German got treated to one of those German hometown decisions that night.