Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[StarshipTrooper]

Why would the public be demanding this fight if it meant nothing?.

Maybe because the casual fan only cares about names? Why was the public demanding Holmes Vs. Ali?

Obviously Holmes wasn't a tomato can. He might've not been at his best, but he was still a good choice of opponent. Such a good choice that 4 years later, he was able to beat an undefeated Mercer and go the distance with Holyfield..

He didn't ake those fights on 5 weeks notice after a two year retirement either. In case id didn't occur to you Holmes lost a landslide to Holyfield and only beat Mercer because Ray fought the dumbest fight in the history of mankind.

And if the 1930s had ABC titles, fighters like Galento and Paychek would've likely been champions. Is that any better?

More evidence of how bad the 80s were for Heavyweights: ABC belts handed to undeserving fighters like trinkets.

By the way, after doing a little fact-checking, I just learned that Galento was the #1 rated heavyweight, behind the champion Louis, in 1939.

Trevor Berbick was a CHAMPION in 1986.

I think it's time for a face palm.

What? You finished enjoying rosy and want a taste? :jerk0ff:

Doesn't take away the fact that their physical condition was and still is considered a disgrace to the sport. And just how much it shows how weak the era is.

Dokes, Tubbs, and Page (and numerous others) dis-graced to top ranks of Heavyweights in the 80s with their repeted appearances in the ring sporting fat rolls and moobies.

BTW.....in the Golden Era of Heavyweights in the 1970s there was a ranked contender named Buster Mathis who was well known for his obesity in the ring.

You're trying to tell me that Tubbs was fatter than Galento. That's all I need to know to realize that you're either in a state of denial or that you have no idea who you're even talking about.

If I showed you a side by side picture of the two, you would probably still deny it.

Translation: You post the worst pic of Galento you can find and a pic of Tubbs at the time of his pro debut when he was semi-in-shape. Nice try Junior.

He's not my idol. I'm a fan of him, though. And as a fan I'm not gonna just stand by and let someone spread lies about him and try to pass it off as the truth.

Sorry, but the fact that you happen to be a Tyson fan doesn't get him off the hook for criticism. I don't put fighters on untouchable pedastools. They are all open to study and dissection: Whithout that is no academic discussion. If you aren't comfortable with academic discourse on fighters because it inevitably brings up negative things about fighters you happen to be a fan of then prehaps you should take your act over to NSB with the mindless fan-bois and skip the Boxing History section :waiting:

Poet

[smallbutstrong]

Maybe because the casual fan only cares about names? Why was the public demanding Holmes Vs. Ali?

Or maybe because they thought Holmes could compete with Tyson and give him a fight? A lot of people thought he won his last fight against M. Spinks (in their rematch).

Are you trying to compare Holmes in the Tyson fight to Ali in the Holmes fight? If so, you deserve another face palm.

He didn't ake those fights on 5 weeks notice after a two year retirement either. In case id didn't occur to you Holmes lost a landslide to Holyfield and only beat Mercer because Ray fought the dumbest fight in the history of mankind.

You're right, he didn't. He only got much older and much more past his prime. I suppose that's a lot better, huh?

Your case for the Mercer fight is pretty ******. That's like saying if Tyson didn't bite Holyfield's ear off, he wouldn't have been disqualified.

More evidence of how bad the 80s were for Heavyweights: ABC belts handed to undeserving fighters like trinkets.

You completely avoided my point. Thanks for the win on that one.

Trevor Berbick was a CHAMPION in 1986.

An in-shape fighter who was a champion is worse than a fat fighter who was the #1 heavyweight contender?

I don't get your logic.

What? You finished enjoying rosy and want a taste? :jerk0ff:

Humor attempt fail.

Dokes, Tubbs, and Page (and numerous others) dis-graced to top ranks of Heavyweights in the 80s with their repeted appearances in the ring sporting fat rolls and moobies.

Neither of them even remotely compare to Galento.

BTW.....in the Golden Era of Heavyweights in the 1970s there was a ranked contender named Buster Mathis who was well known for his obesity in the ring.

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

Translation: You post the worst pic of Galento you can find and a pic of Tubbs at the time of his pro debut when he was semi-in-shape. Nice try Junior.

Translation: I won't post pics of my own, because I know I'm wrong.

Sorry, but the fact that you happen to be a Tyson fan doesn't get him off the hook for criticism. I don't put fighters on untouchable pedastools. They are all open to study and dissection: Whithout that is no academic discussion. If you aren't comfortable with academic discourse on fighters because it inevitably brings up negative things about fighters you happen to be a fan of then prehaps you should take your act over to NSB with the mindless fan-bois and skip the Boxing History section :waiting:

Poet

Of course all fighters are open to criticism. I'm not saying Tyson has no faults. I'm just debating your lies.

Unless, of course, you can't handle it and you wanna pull a "No Mas"?

[StarshipTrooper]

Or maybe because they thought Holmes could compete with Tyson and give him a fight? A lot of people thought he won his last fight against M. Spinks (in their rematch).

It doesn't matter what the fans think: Perception isn't always realty. These same fans thought a past-it Chavez was going to crucify and expose De La Hoya.

Are you trying to compare Holmes in the Tyson fight to Ali in the Holmes fight?

It's a valid comparison since the fans were demanding it even though anybody with brain knew Ali stood no chance.

If so, you deserve another face palm.

Ah! Your pants are around your ankles again I see :jerk0ff:

You're right, he didn't. He only got much older and much more past his prime. I suppose that's a lot better, huh?

Better than two years of ring rust and no time to prepare......or are you kidding yourself that such factors don't matter? :bull****:

Your case for the Mercer fight is pretty ******. That's like saying if Tyson didn't bite Holyfield's ear off, he wouldn't have been disqualified.

Apparently you've never watched the Mercer fight. That was about the worst tactically fought fight I've ever seen a high-ranked fighter display.

You completely avoided my point. Thanks for the win on that one.

You had no point. However mine was quite valid: Journeymen with title belts is the sign of a poor era.

An in-shape fighter who was a champion is worse than a fat fighter who was the #1 heavyweight contender?

An in-shape NO TALENT. Possibly the worst Heavyweight to ever wear a strap.

I don't get your logic.

No doubt because you're A) Thick, B) Uneducated, or C) Both.

Neither of them even remotely compare to Galento.

Dude. Seriously. I LIVED through the 1980s. I watched boxing religiously during the decade and I seriously doubt there was a televised Heavyweight title bout I DIDN'T watch from 1980-1989. You can't bull****e someone who was there and SAW how out of shape the Heavyweights were in that decade. I also read the sports pages and new which one's were in drug rehab for falling off the coke wagon and which ones were just plan journeymen masquarading as top ranked fighters.

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

The point is that the best Heavyweight era ever had an obese slob ranked in the top-10 (who, I might add, got shots at Ali and Frazier). By YOUR standard that makes the era from 1965-1975 (again, the acknowledged best era of Heavyweights) a crappy era. Your own words:

Doesn't take away the fact that their physical condition was and still is considered a disgrace to the sport. And just how much it shows how weak the era is.

So the the Golden Age of Heavyweights must have been a weak era since Buster Mathis' physical condition was a disgrace to the sport.

Of course all fighters are open to criticism. I'm not saying Tyson has no faults. I'm just debating your lies.

Sorry dude. You don't get to rewrite history to suit your agenda. Lies? Junior it isn't just me: The concensus among boxing historians (those are people who know more about boxing than you do btw) is that the 1980s were a weak era. You aren't just dis*****g me you're dis*****g history.

Unless, of course, you can't handle it and you wanna pull a "No Mas"?

I took the liberty of perusing all your posts since you signed onto Boxing Scene. And the survey says? You're a fan-boi! You said it yourself: The only reason you signed on was to nuthug your favorite fighters and talk **** in favort of them because, in your words, "that's what REAL fans do" (see your posts on Foreman Vs. Cotto). This makes you the worst sort of entity that trolls around Boxing Scene: Someone who's a fan of particular fighters FIRST rather than a fan of the SPORT first. As such you lack the objectivity to take part in serious boxing discussions (or any intellectual discussion for that matter). That's why I suggested you take your act over to NSB because that's where fan-bois go to talk smack and avoid any kind of serious boxing discussions. Now tap out biotch

Poet

[smallbutstrong]

It doesn't matter what the fans think: Perception isn't always realty. These same fans thought a past-it Chavez was going to crucify and expose De La Hoya.

So the Chavez-DLH fight shouldn't have been made, just because there's a POSSIBILITY that the critics might be wrong?

If that's the case, no fight should be made.

It's a valid comparison since the fans were demanding it even though anybody with brain knew Ali stood no chance.

Maybe because Ali was starting to suffer from Parkinson's and he was beyond shot. While Holmes didn't have such a medical condition and still had something left.

It's a ****** comparison and you shouldn't have made it in the first place.

Ah! Your pants are around your ankles again I see :jerk0ff:

Humor attempt fail #2.

Better than two years of ring rust and no time to prepare......or are you kidding yourself that such factors don't matter? :bull****:

Of course those factors matter. I just don't know anyone that would agree with you saying that a younger version of Holmes who was coming off of a debatable loss to M. Spinks is better than an older version of Holmes that is much more past his prime.

When you find somebody who agrees with you on that, let me know.

Apparently you've never watched the Mercer fight. That was about the worst tactically fought fight I've ever seen a high-ranked fighter display.

Don't tell me what I have and haven't watched. I HAVE watched the Mercer fight and I saw a good ole' Holmes take Mercer to school.

But, of course, you're gonna play the Devil's advocate and won't count it as a legit victory for Holmes, despite him being 42 years old and much more past his prime (than he was against Tyson) against a 30 year old, unbeaten and former heavyweight champion.

You had no point. However mine was quite valid: Journeymen with title belts is the sign of a poor era.

No, I had a point. Such a strong point that you've still managed to avoid it in this post of yours.

When you're done repeating the same nonsense over and over again, how about you actually answer it?

An in-shape NO TALENT. Possibly the worst Heavyweight to ever wear a strap.

I'll repeat the question: is an in-shape champion better than a fat #1 contender?

I don't know how you can say Berbick was the worse heavyweight to ever be champion. Not including Ali, he had wins over champions John Tate, Greg Page and Pinklon Thomas. None of them were past their prime. I'm not gonna get into a separate argument about Berbick with you, though. Just pointing out some facts and I'll leave it at that.

No doubt because you're A) Thick, B) Uneducated, or C) Both.

I'll choose D.

Dude. Seriously. I LIVED through the 1980s. I watched boxing religiously during the decade and I seriously doubt there was a televised Heavyweight title bout I DIDN'T watch from 1980-1989. You can't bull****e someone who was there and SAW how out of shape the Heavyweights were in that decade. I also read the sports pages and new which one's were in drug rehab for falling off the coke wagon and which ones were just plan journeymen masquarading as top ranked fighters.

So then you shouldn't have a problem showing me some of the heavyweight champions that were fatter than Galento.

The point is that the best Heavyweight era ever had an obese slob ranked in the top-10 (who, I might add, got shots at Ali and Frazier). By YOUR standard that makes the era from 1965-1975 (again, the acknowledged best era of Heavyweights) a crappy era. Your own words:

Doesn't take away the fact that their physical condition was and still is considered a disgrace to the sport. And just how much it shows how weak the era is.

So the the Golden Age of Heavyweights must have been a weak era since Buster Mathis' physical condition was a disgrace to the sport.

Buster Mathis was never ranked in the top 10. Not in any year of his career. But, since you're so confident that he was, you wouldn't mind showing me that specific list that included him in it, would you?

I still think fat fighters are a disgrace to the sport. This is a sport, after all. A sport that requires you to be in top physical condition to reach your highest expectations.

Sorry dude. You don't get to rewrite history to suit your agenda. Lies? Junior it isn't just me: The concensus among boxing historians (those are people who know more about boxing than you do btw) is that the 1980s were a weak era. You aren't just dis*****g me you're dis*****g history.

I never said the 80s were a strong era.

I just don't agree with your lies, which includes saying that the era was full of "fat boys, coke addicts, and other assorted detritus that won't make a top-5 contenders list in a decent era" and that Tyson fought nothing but bums.

I took the liberty of perusing all your posts since you signed onto Boxing Scene. And the survey says? You're a fan-boi! You said it yourself: The only reason you signed on was to nuthug your favorite fighters and talk **** in favort of them because, in your words, "that's what REAL fans do" (see your posts on Foreman Vs. Cotto). This makes you the worst sort of entity that trolls around Boxing Scene: Someone who's a fan of particular fighters FIRST rather than a fan of the SPORT first. As such you lack the objectivity to take part in serious boxing discussions (or any intellectual discussion for that matter). That's why I suggested you take your act over to NSB because that's where fan-bois go to talk smack and avoid any kind of serious boxing discussions. Now tap out biotch

Poet

I'm glad you had fun turning into a stalker, just because you're losing the debate and you're trying to find excuses to get rid of me.

As you said, that section of the forum is full of "fan-bois" and, over there, I am one of them when supporting one of my favorite fighters. I'm just trying to hype up my fighter for the biggest fight of his career. I'm sorry I'm not like you, where everything you say must be generalized and people aren't allowed to support their fighters.

While I've been in this section of the forum, I've debated very seriously and very well. So well that you're looking for excuses to get rid of me. So well that you had to stalk my posts in order to find some "dirt". So well that you're basically asking me to quit, while I'm ahead.

Sorry, but you're not getting rid of me.

[StarshipTrooper]

So the Chavez-DLH fight shouldn't have been made, just because there's a POSSIBILITY that the critics might be wrong?

If that's the case, no fight should be made.

Strawman. I never said the fight shouldn't have been made: I said it shouldn't be held up as a great win to demonstrate how strong Tyson's opposition was.

Maybe because Ali was starting to suffer from Parkinson's and he was beyond shot. While Holmes didn't have such a medical condition and still had something left.

It's a ****** comparison and you shouldn't have made it in the first place.

Don't try and change the subject, which was the public demanding a fight. As I pointed out, public perceptions are frequently inaccurate and shouldn't be used as a gage for the historical strength of a fighter's opposition.

Of course those factors matter. I just don't know anyone that would agree with you saying that a younger version of Holmes who was coming off of a debatable loss to M. Spinks is better than an older version of Holmes that is much more past his prime.

When you find somebody who agrees with you on that, let me know.

See Jab's posts on the subject.

Don't tell me what I have and haven't watched. I HAVE watched the Mercer fight and I saw a good ole' Holmes take Mercer to school.

Typical fan-boi only seeing what he wants to see. I happen to be a fan of Larry Holmes: The difference is I watch fights objectively and am not too ****** to understand that Larry won because Mercer fought dumb.

But, of course, you're gonna play the Devil's advocate and won't count it as a legit victory for Holmes, despite him being 42 years old and much more past his prime (than he was against Tyson) against a 30 year old, unbeaten and former heavyweight champion.

Another strawman: I never said it wasn't a "legit" win. My point was it needs to be kept in perspective.

No, I had a point. Such a strong point that you've still managed to avoid it in this post of yours.

When you're done repeating the same nonsense over and over again, how about you actually answer it?

I already addressed the fact that your gratuitous assertion of crap fighters with belts being a sign of an era's strength is, in fact, a sign of it's weakness.

I'll repeat the question: is an in-shape champion better than a fat #1 contender?

As I pointed out, it depends on how good the champion is: Which in the case of Berbick is pretty bad. Overweight contenders > Trevor Berbick. Hell, one-legged brain-damaged fighters with bad BO > Berbick.

I don't know how you can say Berbick was the worse heavyweight to ever be champion. Not including Ali, he had wins over champions John Tate, Greg Page and Pinklon Thomas. None of them were past their prime. I'm not gonna get into a separate argument about Berbick with you, though. Just pointing out some facts and I'll leave it at that.

In other words you're giving Berbick props for beating others among the crop of bad 80s Heavyweights :joking:

So then you shouldn't have a problem showing me some of the heavyweight champions that were fatter than Galento.

I already listed some. To bad you ignored it.

Buster Mathis was never ranked in the top 10. Not in any year of his career. But, since you're so confident that he was, you wouldn't mind showing me that specific list that included him in it, would you?.

Hmmmm. That's why he fought Frazier for the vacant NYSAC Heavyweight title. (In case you didn't know: The NYSAC title was considered the "official" title back then).

I still think fat fighters are a disgrace to the sport. This is a sport, after all. A sport that requires you to be in top physical condition to reach your highest expectations.

Then you should be appalled at the moobie parade of the 1980s.

I never said the 80s were a strong era.

I just don't agree with your lies, which includes saying that the era was full of "fat boys, coke addicts, and other assorted detritus that won't make a top-5 contenders list in a decent era" and that Tyson fought nothing but bums.

Contradicting yourself now? "fat boys, coke addicts, and other assorted detritus that won't make a top-5 contenders list in a decent era" is a dead accurate statement and you've provided no evidence that it isn't.

I'm glad you had fun turning into a stalker, just because you're losing the debate and you're trying to find excuses to get rid of me.

I do my research. Before you scream "stalking" you should bear in mind that anything you post on this forum is for public consumption and anybody can read it.

As you said, that section of the forum is full of "fan-bois" and, over there, I am one of them when supporting one of my favorite fighters. I'm just trying to hype up my fighter for the biggest fight of his career. I'm sorry I'm not like you, where everything you say must be generalized and people aren't allowed to support their fighters.

Glad you admit that you're a biased fan-boi. That should take care of any credibility you might have in a serious boxing discussion. I never said people shouldn't support their favorites: I said they need to be objective when having a serious boxing discussion. If people can't set their biases aside and take an objective view than such discussions are pointless. Unfortunately you don't seem to be capable of doing that: You can only cheerlead for you favorites.

While I've been in this section of the forum, I've debated very seriously and very well. So well that you're looking for excuses to get rid of me. So well that you had to stalk my posts in order to find some "dirt". So well that you're basically asking me to quit, while I'm ahead.

Sorry, but you're not getting rid of me.

No, you've debated like a member of a high-school debate society with all crude and sophmoric debate tactics you see at such a low level. Anyone who's reached a decent level of maturity can see right through it. It takes more than circular arguments, strawmen, and gratuitous assertions to be considered debating "very seriously and very well".

I don't need to get rid of you: You'll take care of that your own damn self :grin:

Poet

[smallbutstrong]

90% of your post involves insults. If you can't debate like an adult, I don't wanna waste my time with you. Therefore, I consider this a win on my part.

But by all means, believe whatever you want you crazy bastard.

[StarshipTrooper]

90% of your post involves insults. If you can't debate like an adult, I don't wanna waste my time with you. Therefore, I consider this a win on my part.

But by all means, believe whatever you want you crazy bastard.

And THAT is the sound of smallbutstrong tapping out :c00l:

BTW, he sent me red calling me a bigot :r0lleyes: What in any of my preceding posts could possibly be construed as bigoted? :joking:

Poet

[GJC]

And THAT is the sound of smallbutstrong tapping out :c00l:

BTW, he sent me red calling me a bigot :r0lleyes: What in any of my preceding posts could possibly be construed as bigoted? :joking:

Poet

It's been weeks since you had a good Tony Tubbs was fatter than Tony Galento argument, I was beginning to worry

[StarshipTrooper]

It's been weeks since you had a good Tony Tubbs was fatter than Tony Galento argument, I was beginning to worry

Tony Tubbs was about the fattest dude I've ever seen in the ring......when he showed that cavernous butt crack when Tyson KOed him I about lost my Budweiser

Poet

[GJC]

Tony Tubbs was about the fattest dude I've ever seen in the ring......when he showed that cavernous butt crack when Tyson KOed him I about lost my Budweiser

Poet

Fatter than Galento though?
Lets just say Galento was short for his weight