Who was the greatest Heavyweight Post- Ali era?

[joseph5620]

Getting knocked out by Rahman and McCall is worse than losing to Micheal Spinks and Micheal Moorer in general.

To me it shows ignorance when they pull out losses from when the fighters were clearly past their primes.

[joseph5620]

Don't even go with the KO'd by sub par fighter route cause I exposed another one of you Klit haters in another thread. Please don't.

Go for it . I want to see it. I don't run from debates.

[-Deal With It-]

They didn't get beat by career LHWs. Can't say the same for Holmes and Holyfield

How about a middleweight?


Losing a disputed, razor thin descision >>>>> getting KTFO & Qutting

[Mr. Fantastic]

Go for it . I want to see it. I don't run from debates.

Both Lewis and Tyson....who are considered one of the greats at HW got knocked out at their peaks. How do you feel about that?

What about Norton who you praise so much got knocked out by some dude who was suppose to be no challenge?

[joseph5620]

Yes, every american fighter was out of his prime when they suffer embarrassing losses, how could I forget this important fact... oh yeah, it's not fact, it's just BS.



Trying to bait me to discuss the brothers when it is Lennox I'm discussing about here, huh? I'm afraid you'll have to be more slick than that, bro. Open another thread to discuss about the Klitschkos since it's clear you're obsessed with them.

If you seriously think Holmes was in his prime when he lost to Sinks or Tyson there is no hope for you or your delusions. I'm sure you think Ali was in his prime when he lost to Holmes and Spinks.

Your comments clearly show that you are either insane or seriously lacking knowledge.
NO credible or intelligent person believes Holmes was in his prime when he lost his first fight.

[Rockin']

I like Tyson in this poll. Nobody dominated the heavyweight division like Tyson did. Hehad world class fighters shaking in their shoes before the bell rang. Up until he lost it was absolute domination as no heavyweight has done since..............Rockin'

[IronDanHamza]

So Bowe and Tyson are better than Holyfield too, yes? Why do I even debate with clear fanatics, I should know better by now

No, I rank Holyfield over both.

I do, however, rank a Prime Bowe over a past Prime Holyfield.

I think two wins over Tyson in 96 are a little bit below a win over Holyfield in 99. Both very good wins IMO.

As I was saying, fanatics.

Oh, you think Holyfield was in his prime in 1999?

Yeah....He wasn't.

Of course not, why let facts get in the way of your opinion.

What? The fact that's his more consistent?

Does Consistency automatically mean you're a greater fighter?

Not to me it doesn't.

If a fighter has great consistency but the other doesn't yet the other has a better resume. I rank the one with the better resume higher.

Bob Foster had some pretty good consistency at LHW. Anyone going to rank him above Ezzard Charles? Err, no.

Not as bad as getting beat by a career LHW, no. And he avenged both. Of course you don't care about that either, you don't care about anything that doesn't fir in with your little world, right?

Yeah, it is.

Losing to Moorer wasn't a highlight or Holyfield's career but getting knocked out by Hasim Rahman and Oliver McCall are worse losses.

Already Moorer was a world class fighter at a period of his career.

He avenged both his losses, which is fantastic. Still doesn't change the fact he's 1-1 with both McCall and Rahman, both by knockout.

And I didn't even bring up loss's, it was you that brought up Holyfield's loss. Whilst Lewis has more embarrassing one's then Lewis.

Wow, he avenged his loss against a LHW, awesome. Lewis avenged ALL his losses, by KO too. Unlike some others.

Again, I didn't bring up losses.

You're the one that conveniently mentioned Lewis losses were all avenged without saying the same thing for the loss you highlighted for Holyfield.

No he does not, Lewis beat him twice. That alone makes his resume superior.

No, it doesn't.

I guess you rank Sandy Saddler above Willie Pep tpp?

And Lewis didn't beat him twice, IMO.

Was he robbed the first time? Yes.

Did he have an argument to win the second one? Yes.

Did Holyfield also? Yes.

No they don't. Unless you rank both those guys above Holyfield, of course, which would be give me a good laugh. You know, since Lewis beat Holyfield twice and all. Lewis also has numerous other solid wins.

So you think beating Holyfield in 99 is better than beating Bowe his prime?

Of course, Evander Holyfield wasn't in his prime when he lost twice to Lennox. Man I didn't see this argument coming at all. I forgot american fighters are always past their prime when they lose to foreigners, my bad

You actually think Holyfield was in his prime in 99? Seriously?

Holyfield was alreayd considered past his prime in 1996. Let alone in 99.

I mean, Holyfield was a very good win. Lewis' best win IMO. And he was the best fighter other than Lewis in his divison at the time.

But the fact is, he was past his prime.

Foreigners? Lennox Lewis is not a Foreigner to me.

Holyfield is, though. Conveniently.

I'm glad to see we agree. The rest is called excuses.

Hmmm, not really.

I have already exposed my argument, you just chose to ignore it. Great wins+longevity>>great wins alone.

Not if the great wins are better than the other great wins.

Longevity doesn't automatically rank you ahead of another.

No because he doesn't have any great wins yet. But if Wlad ends his career with 20 or more defenses you bet your ass I will rank him over Foreman.

Not as much as your Evander Holyfield past his prime, Lennox never beat a great fighter in his prime, I had Holyfield and Lennox 1-1 nonsense. What it all comes down to is your obvious bias towards american fighters, nothing more.

I can safely assume you weren't around in 1999? Right?

Because there is no way you can honestly believe Holyfield was in his prime in 1999 if you followed his career.

Holyfield and Lewis being 1-1 is not even uncommon.

Lewis was obviously robbed in the first fight but the second fight could easily have gone either way.

Ahhhhh, you think I'm American? That explains my obvious bias?

Why is it there always has to be a bias? A guy can't just like a fighter or rank a certain fighter without there being a bias?

You genuinely believe that anyone who ranks those guys over Lewis has an American fighter bias? It's bull****, man.

And I'm not American, I'm from the UK.

There's your argument out the window.

[joseph5620]

Both Lewis and Tyson....who are considered one of the greats at HW got knocked out at their peaks. How do you feel about that?

What about Norton who you praise so much got knocked out by some dude who was suppose to be no challenge?

The difference is nobody is calling Norton a top 5-10 heavyweight the way you are with both brothers. I also don't rate Norton over Wlad. But Norton is a better opponent than either brother has beaten. Wlad has a strong case for top 10.

Vitali has no business being rated top 10. He lost to a past prime version of Lewis.So how the hell is his resume better than Lewis? And his resume is clearly inferior to both Lewis and Tyson. I've ready gone over Lewis accomplishments. And as much as you want to think otherwise, Douglas was a better fighter than Purity,Brewster, or Sanders.


With that said, Tyson is not an automatic top 10 heavyweight for me either.

[turbotime]

I guess if you rank strongly off H2H then he argubaly has a case.

Then again, I'd still pick quite a few I already rank higher than against him in a fight anyway.

He's not in my Top 10 but I wouldn't disagree at all with anyone who had him in there's.

Top 5 however, I would.

Out of the top 10- the fighters to give him hell would be Foreman (70s version), Ali, and Holmes. The rest I feel Lewis would handle. It's all opinion really, though.

[IronDanHamza]

Yes, every american fighter was out of his prime when they suffer embarrassing losses, how could I forget this important fact... oh yeah, it's not fact, it's just BS.

So, you think Larry Holmes was in his prime at that point?

Does any fighter's prime end to you?

You think Holyfield was in his prime when he fought Lewis and you think Holmes was in his prime when he fought Spinks?

That's just ridiculous.

Trying to bait me to discuss the brothers when it is Lennox I'm discussing about here, huh? I'm afraid you'll have to be more slick than that, bro. Open another thread to discuss about the Klitschkos since it's clear you're obsessed with them.

Why is it, everytime someone doesn't praise the Klitschko's they are 'obsessed with them' or are 'haters of them'?

Why is that?

Everytime I read a converation about one of the Klitschko's if a poster say's anything critical about them they are branded a 'hater' or 'obsessed' with them. It's bull****.

That's why you never see me debating about HW history in NSB. Because the likes of yourself come out and brand everyone who doesn't love them as haters of them.

And I'm a fan of Wladimir Klitschko and in fact, have supporting and rooted for him to win in every fight he's ever had. Including the 'Foreigner' David Haye.

Before you drop the 'hater' or 'bias' lines on me. Oh wait, you already have..