Your Top 10 Heavyweights Of All Time.

[Boxing Goat]

Mike Tyson can be 'grossly overrated' but also be 'grossly underrated' depending upon who is doing the rating. It's usually one extreme or another.

In one hand, you have people claiming Mike Tyson is the greatest fighter ever that would beat any human in history in one round.

On the other hand, you have others claiming Mike Tyson was nothing special and would pose no threat to other great heavyweight champs.

Both those positions are incorrect in my opinion. I choose to select the middle ground and give him the props he deserves without overrating him.

Mike Tyson competed in the heavyweight division during an era when athletic and / or skilled super heavyweights were becoming the norm. And he did better than any other boxer his size did in an era full of such heavyweights.

Guys like Tony Tucker and Frank Bruno are modern super heavyweights that Mike Tyson defeated for example. He always managed to hold his own against giants whilst he was significantly out-sized.

Ok, lets look at it this way.......

Barring freak injury, can you see anyone Tyson beat giving any real problems to Vitali Klitschko? And I do think prime Holmes would have put up a good fight, Tyson beat nowhere near a prime Holmes. That's what I'm saying. Tyson's best win was Spinks, who was a blown up LHW. Other than that his reputation was built from knocking out bums early. Not that he wasn't good for a bit, but he's badly overrated......in my opinion of course.

[tonysoprano]

Ok, lets look at it this way.......

Barring freak injury, can you see anyone Tyson beat giving any real problems to Vitali Klitschko? And I do think prime Holmes would have put up a good fight, Tyson beat nowhere near a prime Holmes. That's what I'm saying. Tyson's best win was Spinks, who was a blown up LHW. Other than that his reputation was built from knocking out bums early. Not that he wasn't good for a bit, but he's badly overrated......in my opinion of course.

That's harsh. He may not have beat a prime Holmes but he pretty much demolished him in 4 rounds. The same Holmes who 4 years later was still good enough to take a prime Holyfield the distance and beat Ray Mercer.

In my opinion there are 2 Tyson's. Pre-Spinks Tyson is a legit ATG. After that he deteriorated badly which is ultimately why he isn't as highly rated as he might have been.

[JimRaynor]

You've never heard of those names yet you talk like your an authority on Boxing history? Sam Langford is considered by most historians to be one of the 10 best fighters ever. Stanley Ketchel is one of the greatest middleweights ever and Bob Fitzsimmons was the sports first three division champion. You said no all-time greats I gave you three undisputed ones. I'd say it's laughable you've never heard of them.

"Besides Ali, Frazier did not defeat anyone that Wlad didn't defeat, and especially didn't defeat anyone that Lennox Lewis didn't defeat."

What does this mean? They fought like 30-40 years apart. It's almost impossible they'd fight the same guys. When ranking in historical context it's useless using mythical matches. You've got to use what and whom they actually defeated as it's a better reference.

It's not that I never heard of those fighters it's that they're nothing to brag about in terms of heavyweight accomplishments. Most of who you listed were middleweights! Langford for instance stood 5'7 and was a bonafide middleweight. He moved up to heavyweight where he had no success. That's like golovkin moving up to heavyweight and losing to Povetkin, would anyone really consider it a noteworthy win?

My point is twofold. For one the competition was far weaker back then. For instance Joe Louis defended his heavyweight title against fighters who were 3-3 and or 20-10... No way in hell would that fly in modern day boxing, and that was half of Louis title defenses.

Which brings me to point two,

I'm not going to give ancient fighters a pass because they fought in a different era, that all falls into the equation. The only reason Joe Louis makes the top 10 and is as high as he is is because he managed to have such a long reign and a record number of title defenses, even if some of them were against 3-3 competition.

But aside from Louis and to some extent Marciano, none of the other fighters accomplishments you listed in your top 10 are impressive enough to put them ahead of Wladimir Klitschko.

[lparm]

The real Tyson Mr Tyson Fury would've battered Mike.

[joseph5620]

“In terms of accomplishments,” and you have Tyson at number four?

Vitali Klitschko doesn't belong anywhere near that list either.

[joseph5620]

I'll keep this short and sweet. You're extremely naïve and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Says the guy who puts Vitali Klitschko in his top 10 heavyweights of all time

[joseph5620]

ABC alphabet titles really don't matter much to me. What matters more to me is who you beat, irrespective of whether you hold any alphabet titles. And beating the best available opposition from the top 10 / 5 ranking at a consistent basis proves one's greatness over a period of time. That's exactly what Wladimir Klitschko did and the belts are only there to show for it. That's all! Nothing more!

I think common sense would dictate that when there are more belts around, it's much more difficult to become the undisputed champion. It's much more difficult to win 5 titles independently from 5 different opponents to become undisputed than it is to win 2 belts to become the undisputed champion. Wladimir Klitschko objectively held just as many belts, if not more for a longer period of time than Muhammad Ali did.

Majority of Joe Louis's reign were against opponents with losing records (more losses than wins in their records) and against sub heavyweights (opponents weighing less than 200 pounds). Modern heavyweights like the Klitschkos wouldn't even be allowed to defend their titles against such opponents. They'd be deemed mismatches but in Joe Louis's case, they aren't.

And I disagree! I think Ruslan Chagaev would beat Joe Frazier. I believe Alexander Povetkin would beat any of Muhammad Ali's opponents and Samuel Peter vs George Foreman would be a true 50/50 fight.

I've seen Joe Frazier's fights and he looks like a inferior version of Ruslan Chagaev. Not to mention, he is blind in one eye and is extremely one dimensional. He just ducks down, comes up with his head and throws a left hook and then repeat...... This is what he does for pretty much the whole fight.

1970's version of George Foreman really wasn't better than Samuel Peter in anyway. They were both power punchers with horrible technique.

This sums up the lunacy of this entire post and many in this thread.. I really should stay out of NSB.

[Elroy The Great]

quality of resume wise -
ali
lenny
holy
foreman
wlad
vit
tyson
holmes
louis
rocky

h2h (primes) -
holmes
lenny
ali
vit
wlad
holy
tyson
foreman
louis
rocky

[Boxing Goat]

That's harsh. He may not have beat a prime Holmes but he pretty much demolished him in 4 rounds. The same Holmes who 4 years later was still good enough to take a prime Holyfield the distance and beat Ray Mercer.

In my opinion there are 2 Tyson's. Pre-Spinks Tyson is a legit ATG. After that he deteriorated badly which is ultimately why he isn't as highly rated as he might have been.

In my opinion, Tyson didn't so much deteriorate as his style was figured out. Douglas shouldn't have beat him in a million years. He was still in his peak prime at that time. He was like 25 years old. There's no getting past that, in my opinion of course. Tyson was kind of one dimensional and was only going to beat a certain skill set of fighter. I think prime Holmes and Ali would have toyed with him and old Foreman would have beat him as well.

[Boxing Goat]

Vitali Klitschko doesn't belong anywhere near that list either.

You're an idiot. He's a 3 x champ, 16-2 in title fights, Ring champ and came back after 4 years of retirement to win a world title in his first fight back.

Foreman is like 6-3 in title fights. Get real man.