Fourth and fifth best heavyweights of the nineties ?

[NoNeck]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

Rating the quality of a victory based on what the opposition " went on " to do is irrelevant. What counts is what the win was worth at the time.

And that's a bullshit argument.

That's like saying Jones' win over Hopkins is worse than Rigo's win over Rico Ramos because Rigo beat the more established fighter.

If a fighter falls apart after a loss that's one thing, but a win can gain value in hindsight.

I'm guessing you're a fan of Foreman to suggest that.

[lufcrazy]

Lewis was a miles better fighter than MM even at the time of the mutual losses. MM scraped past a Holy who had a heart attack mid fight. Lewis destroyed Ruddock, Mason, Tucker, he knocked out Bruno and had Bowe's management in fits trying to avoid the fight. He was the Olympic Gold medallist and an undefeated 6'5 230 pound monster.

It's not even close.

[mr. magoo]

=NoNeck;13969660]And that's a bullshit argument.

No. Its a valid argument.

That's like saying Jones' win over Hopkins is worse than Rigo's win over Rico Ramos because Rigo beat the more established fighter.

Not sure if I'd use that comparison but incidently, Rigo had only 8 fights and beat a world champion.. Jones was an established contender who beat what was THEN considered as a very inexperienced nobody. Nevertheless, if rating victories based on what a fighter would accomplish LATER is what determined the greatness of a win, then I guess we have a lot of great fighters running around who can say they beat Archie Moore.

If a fighter falls apart after a loss that's one thing, but a win can gain value in hindsight.

Perhaps. But the key thing is, Lewis improved after changing managers, then went on to do his best work later. Now, if McCall had beaten Lewis in 1997 RATHER than in 1994, THEN his win would be better than Foreman's was over Moorer. As it stands McCall did the opposite by beating Moorer in 1994 and losing in 1997... Get my drift?

I'm guessing you're a fan of Foreman to suggest that.

Actually I'm a fan of both Foreman's and Lewis's. But also have the insite to know how wins should be valued.

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Lewis was a miles better fighter than MM even at the time of the mutual losses. MM scraped past a Holy who had a heart attack mid fight. Lewis destroyed Ruddock, Mason, Tucker, he knocked out Bruno and had Bowe's management in fits trying to avoid the fight. He was the Olympic Gold medallist and an undefeated 6'5 230 pound monster.

It's not even close.

Head to head I absolutely agree with you.. If placed in the ring together in 1994 or anytime for that matter, Lewis would have beaten Moorer handely, or at least I think he would. As for their standing at the time and the perception of the value of the wins, I'd say they were just about equal. Moorer was 35-0 and the defending lineal champ in his prime. Lewis was 25-0 and holding a fragment that he had won in vacant fashion. Lewis had wins over Ruddock, Mason, Biggs, Tucker, and Jackson. Moorer had wins over Holyfield, Stewart, Cooper and an old Bonecrusher. Both men had beaten fighters who were either past prime or jaded in some way, like holy for example with his bum shoulder against Moorer. Ruddock had just taken two beatings from Tyson a year earlier. Mason was coming back after a torn retina injury and looked like shit against Martin and Wills before fighting Lewis. Bottom line is, their standings as top heavys were very, very close. Both had good resumes, but not ones without flaws. Both men were beaten by fighters whom they shouldn't have been. The deciding difference is that Lewis would resurect his career where as Moorer wouldn't. But hindsite doesn't change what was going on at the time..

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

Head to head I absolutely agree with you.. If placed in the ring together in 1994 or anytime for that matter, Lewis would have beaten Moorer handely, or at least I think he would. As for their standing at the time and the perception of the value of the wins, I'd say they were just about equal. Moorer was 35-0 and the defending lineal champ in his prime. Lewis was 25-0 and holding a fragment that he had won in vacant fashion. Lewis had wins over Ruddock, Mason, Biggs, Tucker, and Jackson. Moorer had wins over Holyfield, Stewart, Cooper and an old Bonecrusher. Both men had beaten fighters who were either past prime or jaded in some way, like holy for example with his bum shoulder against Moorer. Ruddock had just taken two beatings from Tyson a year earlier. Mason was coming back after a torn retina injury and looked like shit against Martin and Wills before fighting Lewis. Bottom line is, their standings as top heavys were very, very close. Both had good resumes, but not ones without flaws. Both men were beaten by fighters whom they shouldn't have been. The deciding difference is that Lewis would resurect his career where as Moorer wouldn't. But hindsite doesn't change what was going on at the time..

Yeah and what was going on at the time was Lewis had Bowe's team in hiding. Moorer got a decision that was undeserved in my eyes.

I don't care about Lineal or not. Lewis was clearly the better fighter with a better resume.

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Yeah and what was going on at the time was Lewis had Bowe's team in hiding. Moorer got a decision that was undeserved in my eyes.

I don't care about Lineal or not. Lewis was clearly the better fighter with a better resume.

Bowe's team ducking Lewis is without question.. No argument here.. Moorer receiving a gift, was not the case.. He earned the win but against an opponent who not at his best. Cut it however you want to..

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

Bowe's team ducking Lewis is without question.. No argument here.. Moorer receiving a gift, was not the case.. He earned the win but against an opponent who not at his best. Cut it however you want to..

Either way, when giving my opinion I go by my scores. You don't have to agree as boxing's a subjective sport.

During both's reign as undefeated belt holder, the best HW in the world was Bowe. Neither was the top man (although talent wise it could have been argued that Lewis was).

The point is moot, if you're willing to rate the MM victory over the Lewis victory than we have vastly differing opinions on how fights are rated.

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

if you're willing to rate the MM victory over the Lewis victory than we have vastly differing opinions on how fights are rated.

That's what makes arguing on internet forums so exciting.

[janitor]

For 5th place, Ray Mercer might be in with a shout.

[Flea Man]

Rico Ramos by the way was not more established than Hopkins was when he fought Jones either IMO. If anything, Ramos having more exposure just let everyone see he was the worst titlist. Ever. At any weight. Ever. Abysmal.

[Webbiano]

Originally Posted by janitor

For 5th place, Ray Mercer might be in with a shout.

Please argue his case jan, because I honestly can't see how he even makes the top 10. A win over Bert Cooper, Tommy Morrison and a well past it Spoon surely isn't enough to go above the likes of Moorer, Tua, Ike etc.

[NoNeck]

Originally Posted by Flea Man

Rico Ramos by the way was not more established than Hopkins was when he fought Jones either IMO. If anything, Ramos having more exposure just let everyone see he was the worst titlist. Ever. At any weight. Ever. Abysmal.

Insert someone else then.

[Boxed Ears]

No one is actually seriously counting Foreman's "victory" over Schulz, are they? I mean, that was really a disgusting, sleazy robbery, yeah? It's actually one of the single worst robberies in heavyweight title fight history, as far as I'm concerned. Foreman only won a few rounds on my card. And only one of them clear. Schulz was robbed, robbed, robbed, robbed.

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by Flea Man

Rico Ramos by the way was not more established than Hopkins was when he fought Jones either IMO. If anything, Ramos having more exposure just let everyone see he was the worst titlist. Ever. At any weight. Ever. Abysmal.

Well then maybe if Ramos turns his career around and becomes an all time great, then someone can use Rigo's win over him to boost his legacy in hindsite. There are certainly enough people around here who like using that tactic.

[NoNeck]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

Well then maybe if Ramos turns his career around and becomes an all time great, then someone can use Rigo's win over him to boost his legacy in hindsite. There are certainly enough people around here who like using that tactic.

Tell me about it. I can't understand why anyone would bring up the Hopkins win when discussing Roy Jones' legacy. Complete and utter nonsense. I mean he also beat Derrick Harmon and The Pazmanian Devil. Let's talk about those wins!