Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[-CANE-]

ok i thought i'd explain my reasons for leaving tyson out my top ten. first of all i should say that he was very close, probably number 11. When he first burst onto the scene he was explosive, powerful, had great handspeed and footwork and seemed unstoppable. But i feel that Mike tyson worked off fear to beat many of his opponents, and he probably beat 90% of them before they even got in the ring. The 10 names i have on my list would NOT have feared mike and as such his usual advantage diminshes imo. Also i feel tyson struggled with heavyweights that used their jab and height advantages, and many of the names on my list, most notable lewis and holmes would utilize these skills. Finally mike showed that at times his heart was questionable, you could break him in the ring. I think he got frustrated too easily and lose his gameplan just looking for the 1 punch knockout. anyways those are my reasons im sure theres plenty of people ready to lynch me!!

That is precisely why I had him at no.10 on my original list, but I've changed my way of doing these lists. I tend to base it on accomplishments which like I said previously are factual and impact and quality of oppostion which are of course subjective. I feel we are discussing who was the greatest champions of all time therefore you have to look at what they achieved in how long they reigned for and how many defenses they made.

My list doesn't in any way take into account who would beat who as this is even more subjective than some of the other criteria I've included and it is extremely difficult because a 245lb Lennox Lewis IMO would always beat a smaller less technical Jack Dempsey or Rocky Marciano. If we are gonna match up these fighters then you need to even the playing field to make it fair. Had Dempsey,Marciano and all the old time fighters fought in Lewis or Tyson's era they would probably be a bit bigger for many reasons such as they would have been better fed, medicine is better and they wouldn't have had as many diseases which can effect growth. They also wouldn't have had life so rough and wouldn't have fought as often as they wouldn't have needed the money, so I think some of the toughness would have gone. They would have been better trained and technically better as well. There are so many things to take into consideration whether you put Dempsey fighting today or Lewis fighting back then and it gets too complicated.

So while I have Liston at no.16 and Tyson at no.6 it doesn't mean Tyson would have necessarily beat Liston it means as a champion he was better because he reigned for 3 years longer and made 7 or 8 more defenses than Liston.

So compiling a list my way there are 4 that stand out Ali,Louis,Lewis and Holmes. Although Joe Louis reigned the longest and made the most defenses I have put Ali ahead purely because (and this is where the subjectivity comes in) Ali was a 3 time champ and fought a better quality of opponent even taking into account how boxing has changed with the times. IMO the 70's was the strongest era ever with many good and great fighters.
So that is why Ali is no.1 and Louis is no.2.

Next we have Larry Holmes who reigned for 7 years and made 20 defenses and Lennox Lewis who reigned a total of 9 years in all and made 14 defenses in his 3 reigns as champion. Lennox takes the 3rd spot because he was champion 3 times and he unified all the belts something Holmes never did, also Lennox fought a better quality of opponent in my opinion as apart from the 70's his era was the strongest with a lot of good and great fighters.
He also beat the 2 greats of his era and although many argue Tyson and Holyfield weren't the fighters they once were Lewis was roughly the same age as them and had already had a long career himself. Holmes beat a much older Ali but he did beat Norton in a great fight to win the title. Lewis also retired as undisputed champion having avenged his 2 defeats and therefore defeated every man he ever faced, which is why he takes the 3rd spot.

The next 2 most succesful fighters in length of reign and defenses made and how many times they were champion were Tyson and Holyfield and I had them scored dead level but gave Holyfield the nod for the 5th spot because of his 2 victoried over Tyson.

So even though Tyson had many things that seperate him from being an elite great and I think Foreman and maybe some others below him would have beat him their achievments in the ring just don't match up which is why I have him so high up.

[The Iron Man]

Just one quick thing Hurricaine. You were saying that your list wasnt made on who bet who, i would have thought in the instance of holyfield and tyson scoring the same, that you would look and see tysons reign was just as long mayb longer and he only had the belts 2 compared to holyfields 5. Thats how i would have looked at it anyway. As for Duran - Its fair enough tyson isnt on your list, he did win a few fights because of the fear factor altough i wouldnt say 90%. The lists are subjective, and you havent bad mouthed any fighters while making it! which was very respectful

[DURAN_IS_GOD]

Just one quick thing Hurricaine. You were saying that your list wasnt made on who bet who, i would have thought in the instance of holyfield and tyson scoring the same, that you would look and see tysons reign was just as long mayb longer and he only had the belts 2 compared to holyfields 5. Thats how i would have looked at it anyway. As for Duran - Its fair enough tyson isnt on your list, he did win a few fights because of the fear factor altough i wouldnt say 90%. The lists are subjective, and you havent bad mouthed any fighters while making it! which was very respectful

hey mate, when i say 90% i guess im talking more about his early fights.... thats taking nothing away from his technical skill as a fighter. In fact tyson is one of my favourite fighters to watch and i respect his accomplishments... its a shame we were deprived of some of his prime years which he spent in jail. im gonna look at hurricanes method of rating the fighters and i'll re-assess my list then....

[-CANE-]

Just one quick thing Hurricaine. You were saying that your list wasnt made on who bet who, i would have thought in the instance of holyfield and tyson scoring the same, that you would look and see tysons reign was just as long mayb longer and he only had the belts 2 compared to holyfields 5. Thats how i would have looked at it anyway. As for Duran - Its fair enough tyson isnt on your list, he did win a few fights because of the fear factor altough i wouldnt say 90%. The lists are subjective, and you havent bad mouthed any fighters while making it! which was very respectful

How ya doing Iron.

First of all we were poor even though we won 2-0. I can't believe ow bad we are. Enough of the footy and back to the subject in hand.

I see what your saying mate, but I said it wasn't based on who could beat who especially when comparing fighters from different eras. But as they scored the same and they did actually fight twice with Holyfield winning both I felt he deserved the 5th spot ahead of Tyson, although in one single reign and not adding them togeather Tyson's reign is more impressive. I might actually incorporate that into my spread sheet, so I could have total years reigned and total defenses made and add longest single reign and defenses made and score for that in which case they would more than likely swap places. I might add other greats that they beat as well which would then balance them two up again. I know my list is far from finished and needs more work on it, it's just a matter of what to include and omit and having the time to do it all.

[LondonRingRules]

Also i feel tyson struggled with heavyweights that used their jab and height advantages, and many of the names on my list, most notable lewis and holmes would utilize these skills.

** You chaps need to get used to the paradigm shift ushered in by the Tyson era. On every boxing board, at every part of the globe, no matter what the topic, the new model of thinking suggests that the longer a thread is continued, the more the thread becomes a thread about Mike Tyson, often with opposing parties slinging his name about like so many confined inmates.

Facts are that Tyson utterly walked through big, strong, quick, tall guys, with strong jabs and good movement as his consecutive blowouts of Tucker, Holmes, and Biggs demonstrate. Lewis should donate half his ring earnings to Biggs who delayed Lewis' pro debut by 4 yrs and saved him from being torn up and destroyed by Tyson.

Unfortunately, Tyson's success in the ring crumbled as his life fell into disarray and collapse as his surrogate adoptive parents and mentors passed away leaving him without direction save that provided by sociopathic gold diggers or the various criminal justice organizations he came under.

That is the reason why Tyson is no longer considered the best heavy who ever lived, and the reason why Tyson spawns as many outlandish theories as JFK's assassination these days. No fighter ever burned more brightly, or fell harder.

The sheer heat and light generated by Tyson's 5 yr tear up of the division as a mere schoolboy are also the reason why people will be buzzing about Mike Tyson 100 yrs from now with his life being fuzzed out like nostalgic photos with all manner of outrageous "facts" and theories.

[-CANE-]

** You chaps need to get used to the paradigm shift ushered in by the Tyson era. On every boxing board, at every part of the globe, no matter what the topic, the new model of thinking suggests that the longer a thread is continued, the more the thread becomes a thread about Mike Tyson, often with opposing parties slinging his name about like so many confined inmates.

Facts are that Tyson utterly walked through big, strong, quick, tall guys, with strong jabs and good movement as his consecutive blowouts of Tucker, Holmes, and Biggs demonstrate. Lewis should donate half his ring earnings to Biggs who delayed Lewis' pro debut by 4 yrs and saved him from being torn up and destroyed by Tyson.

Unfortunately, Tyson's success in the ring crumbled as his life fell into disarray and collapse as his surrogate adoptive parents and mentors passed away leaving him without direction save that provided by sociopathic gold diggers or the various criminal justice organizations he came under.

That is the reason why Tyson is no longer considered the best heavy who ever lived, and the reason why Tyson spawns as many outlandish theories as JFK's assassination these days. No fighter ever burned more brightly, or fell harder.

The sheer heat and light generated by Tyson's 5 yr tear up of the division as a mere schoolboy are also the reason why people will be buzzing about Mike Tyson 100 yrs from now with his life being fuzzed out like nostalgic photos with all manner of outrageous "facts" and theories.

What's your problem LRR, This thread has been going a short time compared to many and while Tyson does come up for discussion an awful lot many things and other fighters have been discussed in this thread.

The reason why Tyson comes up so often is because there are so many nuthuggers out there who refuse to accept someone else's opinion.
Tyson's impact was huge much like Jack Dempseys many years before, Tyson came along when boxing needed someone like him most which is why everything get's blown all out of proportion. He was dynamic and blew a lot of mediocre opponents away with ease but lost when faced with someone that stood up to him and had some ability.

Facts are that Tyson utterly walked through big, strong, quick, tall guys, with strong jabs and good movement as his consecutive blowouts of Tucker, Holmes, and Biggs demonstrate. Lewis should donate half his ring earnings to Biggs who delayed Lewis' pro debut by 4 yrs and saved him from being torn up and destroyed by Tyson.

Exaggeration again, first of all Tucker wasn't a blowout he never even hurt him and won on points, Holmes was old and past it and was hardly quick at that stage of his career and Biggs well nuff said. So Biggs beat Lewis in the amatuers big deal Lewis was but a teenager and had not fully developed.

But even if he had turned pro 4 years earlier, how do you know how he would have turned out. Lewis was clumsy early on and got much better after meeting steward and being trained by him. Who's to say he would have had the same trainer as when he did eventuay turn pro, Steward might of had him from the start in which case he would have been a better fighter than Douglas was at that time and would of been the 1st man to beat Tyson and in his prime. You can't make stupid assumptions like that because you never know what would of happened. Point is Tyson cracked when fighting decent world class fighters who stood up to him, so you can keep picking all the excuses out of the sky you want in your vain attempts at defending him.

At the end of the day Tyson was a great fighter who brought much needed excitment to the game when it needed it most and resurected boxing and we will be forever grateful and that is why he will probably be discussed more than most but that doesn't make him the greatest.

Who knows what would of happened had everything been alright for Tyson in his life and he kept Rooney no-one does, but one thing I do know which is fact from even when he had everyone around him and was back in the amatuers Tyson's biggest fault was his confidence in himself and his reaction when someone stood up to him in the ring and his ability to handle that, which is why I think no matter who he had training him and how is life was the one thing he always lacked was that mental toughness when things got tough.

[Hawkins]

So even though Tyson had many things that seperate him from being an elite great and I think Foreman and maybe some others below him would have beat him their achievments in the ring just don't match up which is why I have him so high up.

Thats about all you can do. Just each fighter on a who beat who, accomplishment basis. I don't think, to compilea realistic arguable list, you can use talent and what could have beens.

To be quite honest, I think doing a list in two parts is the way to go. First statistically so you can see in a concrete form who beat who - then on a more subjective basis of actually accomplishments and who beat who.

Put the two together and I think you can have a basis of how to make a good list that would stand up to any other. I haven't done this yet, but I'm working on it.

[Hawkins]

** You chaps need to get used to the paradigm shift ushered in by the Tyson era. On every boxing board, at every part of the globe, no matter what the topic, the new model of thinking suggests that the longer a thread is continued, the more the thread becomes a thread about Mike Tyson, often with opposing parties slinging his name about like so many confined inmates.

Facts are that Tyson utterly walked through big, strong, quick, tall guys, with strong jabs and good movement as his consecutive blowouts of Tucker, Holmes, and Biggs demonstrate. Lewis should donate half his ring earnings to Biggs who delayed Lewis' pro debut by 4 yrs and saved him from being torn up and destroyed by Tyson.

Unfortunately, Tyson's success in the ring crumbled as his life fell into disarray and collapse as his surrogate adoptive parents and mentors passed away leaving him without direction save that provided by sociopathic gold diggers or the various criminal justice organizations he came under.

That is the reason why Tyson is no longer considered the best heavy who ever lived, and the reason why Tyson spawns as many outlandish theories as JFK's assassination these days. No fighter ever burned more brightly, or fell harder.

The sheer heat and light generated by Tyson's 5 yr tear up of the division as a mere schoolboy are also the reason why people will be buzzing about Mike Tyson 100 yrs from now with his life being fuzzed out like nostalgic photos with all manner of outrageous "facts" and theories.

Well I don't think a big guy with a jab and some quickness is the way to beat Tyson, but thats something different.

Personally, I think they way he was built up in the beginning was what ultimately contributed to his destruction. When you have people telling you that you're destined to be champ at 15 and that you're going to destry whomever is in front of you, well that kind of artificially builds your ego.

Then, to have that continue at the level it did, led Tyson to the false assumption that he could get by without training and beat everyone because they were all 'beneath him'.

[StarshipTrooper]

Well I don't think a big guy with a jab and some quickness is the way to beat Tyson, but thats something different.

Personally, I think they way he was built up in the beginning was what ultimately contributed to his destruction. When you have people telling you that you're destined to be champ at 15 and that you're going to destry whomever is in front of you, well that kind of artificially builds your ego.

Then, to have that continue at the level it did, led Tyson to the false assumption that he could get by without training and beat everyone because they were all 'beneath him'.

Hi Hawkins! If you haven't guessed it already LRR is a Tyson nuthugger. My own analysis is that a tall rangy fighter with a good jab IS a very good formula to have beaten a prime Tyson. The mid to late 80s was not a very good time for jabs in the Heavyweight division. Let's look at the fighters LRR mentioned. Tucker: Did not have a good jab (and Tyson did NOT blow him out, I watched the fight three days ago, I know). Biggs: Was not a worldclass fighter and no threat to Tyson and his jab was average. Holmes: DID have a good jab but the emphasis is on "did". When he fought Tyson he was well past it and could not sustain his jab more than a few seconds. After the Spinks fight Larry NEVER showed the magificent jab of his prime except in short spurts. None of the other fighters a prime Tyson faced had anything better than average jabs; until.....Buster Douglas: And no, LRR, like all the other Tyson nuthuggers will NEVER be able to explain away that loss, although they try incessently or pretend it never happened.

Poet

[Burning Desire]

Hi Hawkins! If you haven't guessed it already LRR is a Tyson nuthugger. My own analysis is that a tall rangy fighter with a good jab IS a very good formula to have beaten a prime Tyson. The mid to late 80s was not a very good time for jabs in the Heavyweight division. Let's look at the fighters LRR mentioned. Tucker: Did not have a good jab (and Tyson did NOT blow him out, I watched the fight three days ago, I know). Biggs: Was not a worldclass fighter and no threat to Tyson and his jab was average. Holmes: DID have a good jab but the emphasis is on "did". When he fought Tyson he was well past it and could not sustain his jab more than a few seconds. After the Spinks fight Larry NEVER showed the magificent jab of his prime except in short spurts. None of the other fighters a prime Tyson faced had anything better than average jabs; until.....Buster Douglas: And no, LRR, like all the other Tyson nuthuggers will NEVER be able to explain away that loss, although they try incessently or pretend it never happened.

Poet

Watch James Tillis vs Mike Tyson he gives Tyson one of his hardest fights he gave Tyson alot of trouble with his movement.