Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[StarshipTrooper]

Old timers were not afraid of getting beat but todays fighters are they all seem obsessed with having an undefeated record. (With the exception of Tony Booth) Seriously though I agree with Hawkins in the sense that todays fighters are more protected than the ones of yesteryear. I wonder when the obsession with not losing a fight started with fighters, was it when Rocky Marciano retired undefeated and now everyone wants to emulate him. Certain unbeaten fighters pick and choose their opponents in the hope of protecting their record. I think that's one of the reasons I admire Lennox Lewis so much he wasn't afraid to fight anyone and when he did lose he wasn't afraid to get back in the ring with them and prove it was a fluke, he fought everyone in his era and beat them all as well with the exception of 2 fighters who avoided him for obvious reasons that being Bowe and Moorer.

I think it was in the late 70s or early 80s it started when promoters gained more control over the sport. Undefeated records meant TV fights and more money: Basically it became a promotional tool. Think of how that contrasts with the old-timers when it was believed if you didn't have a few losses on your record you didn't have enough experience to get a title shot!

Poet

[LondonRingRules]

LRR - Why do you have to make excuses for Tyson's defeats, he got beat fair and square just deal with it and take your nose out of his backside.

A prime Larry Holmes would beat a prime Tyson 7 out of 10.
If a prime Tyson gets busted up and beaten by Douglas then Holmes does the same. Douglas and Holmes were quite similar in their stances and the way they throw their punches, only Holmes was faster, hit harder and had a better chin and better recuperative powers. Tyson never beat anyone who stood up to him, he was your classic bully.

** Sorry, but regressing to schoolyard bully analysis ain't boxing analysis. 99.999999999% of schoolyard bullies don't become heavyweight champs.

The only thing Holmes has over Douglas is discipline and health. Douglas bigger and stronger than Holmes, easily as talented. Douglas' training and health problems are well documented, not excuses, just realities, but like Willard or Baer, he had his night with the help of a sympathetic ref who gave him 14 sec on the canvas.

Tyson had already blitzed the Holmes/Ali style 3x in a row, Tucker, Biggs, and then Holmes himself. Tucker a more talented, durable, and quicker version of Douglas, Biggs ditto, and poor deluded Holmes who still thought he had busted Rocky's record and was undefeated when he met Tyson.

There are no excuses for Tyson's wins or losses. Just facts and realities. Holmes never fought the top levels of Ali, Foreman, Frazier, and Norton, and when he tried to fight the top levels of Tyson and Holy he was outclassed. It is what it is.

I don't care if Holmes squeaks into to top 10 lists. I used to rate him higher too.

I don't rate him that highly anymore because of his weak opposition and close calls. In the future, they will look at the Franks and Zanons, and ask WHY when you had all these other champ types fighting and knocking each other off for titles. Blame it on boxing politics, but too many to excuse. Some fights in every fighters career won't be made, but Holmes ends up with close to a dozen better heavies he could've fought than the 90% of who he did fight. The decent heavies he did fight gave him good scraps. Some still say faded Norton, and young Williams/Witherspoon beat him, and Snipes, Weaver, and Shavers close to KOing him.

[StarshipTrooper]

Old timers were not afraid of getting beat but todays fighters are they all seem obsessed with having an undefeated record. (With the exception of Tony Booth) Seriously though I agree with Hawkins in the sense that todays fighters are more protected than the ones of yesteryear. I wonder when the obsession with not losing a fight started with fighters, was it when Rocky Marciano retired undefeated and now everyone wants to emulate him. Certain unbeaten fighters pick and choose their opponents in the hope of protecting their record. I think that's one of the reasons I admire Lennox Lewis so much he wasn't afraid to fight anyone and when he did lose he wasn't afraid to get back in the ring with them and prove it was a fluke, he fought everyone in his era and beat them all as well with the exception of 2 fighters who avoided him for obvious reasons that being Bowe and Moorer.

Hawkins, Hurricane; now you're discovering why I have these two nimrods on my ignore list: They are impossible to reason with or have anything resembling a civil conversation with. Oh yes, they are also two of the biggest Tyson nuthuggers on this forum, LRR hates Ali btw. If you want a good conversation where Tyson is involved you should get Versitile in on it: He's a huge Tyson fan without being a nuthugger and he makes for GREAT conversation and reasoned debate.

LRR? As for my health you needn't worry: Not being with a psychotic ex-girlfriend who likes to make sleazy posts about me on boxing forums makes all the difference in the world. Step into a boxing ring with me and it's YOUR health that would be in question.

Poet

[LondonRingRules]

: Not being with a psychotic ex-girlfriend who likes to make sleazy posts about me on boxing forums makes all the difference in the world. Step into a boxing ring with me and it's YOUR health that would be in question.
Poet

** Whatever floats your boat.

Just don't want you to have another breakdown, so you take care now as you keep on talking about me while keeping me on ignore. Nobody else can figure that out, but as long as it stabilizes you, it's ok by me.

[-CANE-]

I think it was in the late 70s or early 80s it started when promoters gained more control over the sport. Undefeated records meant TV fights and more money: Basically it became a promotional tool. Think of how that contrasts with the old-timers when it was believed if you didn't have a few losses on your record you didn't have enough experience to get a title shot!

Poet

You might be right there, might be worth looking into. There's nothing wrong with a defeat or even in the manner you get defeated to a certain extent, it's the way you come back from defeat that matters whether you are facing the opponent that beat you or not doesn't matter, it's whether or not you have learned from it and can improve on your own game and push yourself forward like Joe Louis did and Muhammed Ali,George Foreman and Lennox Lewis also. I don't think Larry Holmes did because he was at the end of his career in the Spinks fights which I think he won both of and also there wasn't really anywhere he could improve himself on as he could do everything really well, he knew how to hold and when to fight back and what tactics to adopt and when. After the Spinks fights he was just there for the money and maybe to try and prove a point to himself but he was still capable of holding his own with most of the fighters out there. Tyson on the other hand never learned from his mistakes which is a big surprise because he probably had more knowledge on the fight game than any other fighter in the history of the sport. He just never had that something upstairs call it what you want lack of confidence when someone stood up to him, the will to win and dig deep when it mattered or the ability to realise he was sometimes adopting the wrong tactics in certain situations or maybe all three or maybe even something else but something was missing. Some people just accept defeat and learn from it and move on while others dwell on it and let it have a negative impact on them. Sorry to go on and on poet but you know me once I get started on my favourite subject I just can't stop. Keep Well and you never know maybe just maybe between us we might be able to educate these kids one day.

[Celtic_Warrior]

1. Louis - Power, speed, movement, chin - the lot.

2. Ali - Great hand and foot speed, skills and mentality with a great chin. Could have been better but for the forced absence. First 3 time World Heavyweight Champ.

3. Holmes - Similar to Ali in may ways without the charisma.

4. Lewis - Monster of a man with great skills and tremendous power. 3 Time World Champ.

5. Holyfield - Warrior with great heart and ability - I wish he would retire. 3 Time World Champ.

6. Marciano - Powerful, tenacious and undefeated.

7. Tyson - Awesome hand and foot speed, power and killer instinct - destroyed himself unfortunately.

8. Jack Dempsey - Tenacious, relenting, great hand speed.

9. George Foreman - Limited ability but huge power and strength. Came back after a ten year absence and won a version again.

10. Jack Johnson - Brought the sport to the next level and fought and dominated in a dangerous period of the sport. Won 91 times.

[-CANE-]

** Sorry, but regressing to schoolyard bully analysis ain't boxing analysis. 99.999999999% of schoolyard bullies don't become heavyweight champs.

The only thing Holmes has over Douglas is discipline and health. Douglas bigger and stronger than Holmes, easily as talented. Douglas' training and health problems are well documented, not excuses, just realities, but like Willard or Baer, he had his night with the help of a sympathetic ref who gave him 14 sec on the canvas.

Tyson had already blitzed the Holmes/Ali style 3x in a row, Tucker, Biggs, and then Holmes himself. Tucker a more talented, durable, and quicker version of Douglas, Biggs ditto, and poor deluded Holmes who still thought he had busted Rocky's record and was undefeated when he met Tyson.

There are no excuses for Tyson's wins or losses. Just facts and realities. Holmes never fought the top levels of Ali, Foreman, Frazier, and Norton, and when he tried to fight the top levels of Tyson and Holy he was outclassed. It is what it is.

I don't care if Holmes squeaks into to top 10 lists. I used to rate him higher too.

I don't rate him that highly anymore because of his weak opposition and close calls. In the future, they will look at the Franks and Zanons, and ask WHY when you had all these other champ types fighting and knocking each other off for titles. Blame it on boxing politics, but too many to excuse. Some fights in every fighters career won't be made, but Holmes ends up with close to a dozen better heavies he could've fought than the 90% of who he did fight. The decent heavies he did fight gave him good scraps. Some still say faded Norton, and young Williams/Witherspoon beat him, and Snipes, Weaver, and Shavers close to KOing him.

No need to apolagize LRR, but I wasn't referring to schoolyard bullies or them becoming Heavyweight Champ. For your information Tyson never was a schoolyard bully anyway it was him that used to get bullied. There are many types of bullying not just schoolyard but if that's where you play then I suppose that's all you can relate to.

Douglas may have been bigger but he was never as strong or as talented as Holmes, although he could have been better than he was.

I thought it was Tunney that had 14 seconds in the famous long count, I never knew Willard or Bear did. Maybe you can educate me on something then and enlighten me as to what fights they both benefited from a long count.

Not sure what you mean by blitzing the Holmes/Ali style 3x in a row statement. You must be the only person I can think of that rates Douglas,Tucker and Biggs better than Larry Holmes. I see why you think so much of Tyson now having lost to a great like Douglas and beating Legends like Tucker and Biggs.

You said you used to rate Holmes high but now don't because of his lack of competition. That is a contradiction because you rate Tyson so highly. One rule for one and one for everyone else is it.

[-CANE-]

1. Louis - Power, speed, movement, chin - the lot.

2. Ali - Great hand and foot speed, skills and mentality with a great chin. Could have been better but for the forced absence. First 3 time World Heavyweight Champ.

3. Holmes - Similar to Ali in may ways without the charisma.

4. Lewis - Monster of a man with great skills and tremendous power. 3 Time World Champ.

5. Holyfield - Warrior with great heart and ability - I wish he would retire. 3 Time World Champ.

6. Marciano - Powerful, tenacious and undefeated.

7. Tyson - Awesome hand and foot speed, power and killer instinct - destroyed himself unfortunately.

8. Jack Dempsey - Tenacious, relenting, great hand speed.

9. George Foreman - Limited ability but huge power and strength. Came back after a ten year absence and won a version again.

10. Jack Johnson - Brought the sport to the next level and fought and dominated in a dangerous period of the sport. Won 91 times.

That's a really good list not much different from mine which has changed. My new list is on page 18 #178 of this thread. What's your list based on out of interest and how did you come to that conclusion. It's good, be interested to know why you have them placed like that. Is it from the statements by the side and who you think is the most talented or are you taking achievments into account such as years reigned and defenses made. Or is it on who you think would beat who.

[Hawkins]

The only thing Holmes has over Douglas is discipline and health. Douglas bigger and stronger than Holmes, easily as talented. Douglas' training and health problems are well documented, not excuses, just realities, but like Willard or Baer, he had his night with the help of a sympathetic ref who gave him 14 sec on the canvas.

Just say it like it was - Buster Douglas was one of the laziest heavyweights of his era and I think he also suffered abit from the Riddick Bowe syndrome. You know couldn't get up from the table?

I love Mike Tyson but it's hilarious the lengths fans go to build his competition into the stratosphere in order to make him more than he was.

[Hawkins]

I think it was in the late 70s or early 80s it started when promoters gained more control over the sport. Undefeated records meant TV fights and more money: Basically it became a promotional tool. Think of how that contrasts with the old-timers when it was believed if you didn't have a few losses on your record you didn't have enough experience to get a title shot!

Poet

I agree with you. Promoters and managers started using the records as a way of promotion instead using a fighters overall body of work. It not only went toward building a fighter up for the television audience I think it also falsely built up fighters' egos as well. Because lets face it in the 80's they started marketing alot of these guys as unbeatable only to have a majority of them torn apart when facing a good fighter.

Personally I think a loss early in the career of a fighter ultimately makes them better and adds character.