Top 5 Best Heavyweights of The '90s

But isnt this list based on accomplishments and not H2H?

If it is, Moorer deserves to be there.

Schulz, Botha, Cooper, Holyfield and Foreman (kind of) is a pretty good set of fights.

Most of the 90's guys were inconsistent, they each have some amazing wins but also some poor losses

 

I don't know about this, Tyson did have some pretty big wins in the 90's if you look at it. His two wins over Ruddock and first round destruction of Alex Stewart kicked the decade off. He captured two world titles after being released from prison. His knockout of Francois Botha was also a good victory. I think these wins especially the two separate world titles he captured make him a clear top 5.

 

He had some solid wins as you say.. But he was absent for basically half of the decade and posted a 90's record of a mere 9-3. some of those wins included weaker opponents like Henry Tillman, Peter McNeeley, Buster Mathis, etc. My top five for the decade include Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe, Foreman and Moorer. He might have a case for pushing the last one out of the #5 spot, but regardless, he's not a strong lock for top 5 in my eyes. If truth be told, I think a lot of people are rating him based on who he was prior to the 90's rather than based on anything he did during that actual period.

 

I think thats what caused his downfall post prison as well.

Holyfield touched on this in an interview he did on here a few years back.

He said something to the effect of, its not what you did years ago, its what you did recently (when referring to the first Tyson fight)

 

Tyson had a better 90's than Foreman did. If you're downgrading Tyson for his lesser wins, than what did Foreman do outside of beating Moorer? Tyson has the better wins.

 

Tyson's best wins:
Ruddock
Ruddock
Bruno
Seldon
Stewart
Botha
Mathis


Foreman's best wins:
Moorer
Stewart
Coetzer
Cooney
Rodrigues
Savarese

I'm giving Foreman a bit too much credit for putting Savarese and Rodrigues there, even Coetzer, but that's the best he did. Arguably his second best win of the decade was his razor thin victory over Stewart. I should probably add Axel to his list. Doesn't help much.

 

"Outside of beating Moorer" isn't the reality. That was quite possibly a better win than any Tyson recorded in that decade and one that established Foreman as one of the 90's lineal champions. In addition, George's only defeats were decisions to a prime Holyfield, Morrison and a potential robbery with Briggs. Tyson was KO'd by Douglas in a fight he was heavily favored to win and beaten twice by a more diminished Evander than the one George took the distance. Neither Foreman or Tyson can boast having much better opposition than the other when looking beyond the Moorer and Ruddock fights. Foreman beat Stewart, Savarese, Rodriguez, Coetzer while Tyson beat Seldon, Bruno, Stewart and Botha. Kind of a wash really. The Moorer win, the loss column comparison and Foreman's 90's record of 13-3 to Tyson's 9-3, is what sets them apart in my eyes.

 

Not really a wash. Tyson's win are clearly better. Tyson's losses just shows he fought the better competition. You're neglecting to mention Foreman's close calls against Stewart and Schulz, which should've been losses.

If you want to get technical about the whole thing, Foreman ducked Tucker who lost to Seldon who lost to Tyson.

 

I don't see anything "clear" about it. One might argue that you could lean slightly in one direction or the other, but neither list stands out as being the clear superior. The things that DO stand out is Foreman's collosal upset over a prime undefeated lineal champion, less damaging defeats, and a better overall record during the period.

 

Oh it's very clear. Bruno beat McCall who beat Lewis. Seldon beat Tucker who Foreman ducked. Two wins that weigh heavily in Tyson's favor. I say "heavily" because they are both better wins than anything Foreman did after Moorer. I thought this would be obvious to you.

I'll give you the Moorer win as the top win between the two. AFter that it's all Tyson, all the way down the line. Ruddock, Ruddock again, Bruno, Seldon, Stewart. Those five wins, count them, 5, are what tips things in Tyson's favor. If you want to count Tyson's losses against him, they came against better competition than Foreman fought. Douglas, Holyfield and Holyfield - compared to Holyfield, Morrison and Briggs. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

 

What's obvious to me is that you must be one of these people who actually thought ( or think now in hind site ) that Bruce Seldon actually DESERVED his #1 WBA rating and that his win over a shot Tucker meant anything. Neither of those men were top raters and Seldon may have quite conceivably thrown that fight. Bruno Beat McCall, who beat Lewis. So what? Lou savarese was arguably a better fighter than Stewart, Mathis OR Seldon if you want to look at depth. Adilson Rodriguez was better than Tillman, McNeeley and maybe Mathis as well. And Moorer is clearly the best win between the two men.

As mentioned before some of the guys you're giving him huge props for beating weren't much better if even at all than some of the guys Foreman beat during that time frame. Ruddock was overrated and made his name by beating has beens. Stewart very likely improved by the time he fought Foreman after losing to Tyson. Savarese and Rodriguez were just as good or better than a lot of the guys on Tyson's list. Its not clear enough to give either man a significant edge. If you want to give Tyson a "marginal" edge in depth, then fine, but its not enough depth to override the fact that Foreman had the bigger signature win of the decade, less devastating defeats and the better record.

Not really. Douglas wasn't supposed to do dick against Tyson and is only viewed as being good now in hind sight solely because he upset Tyson. That loss is a big part of the reason why some people don't even have him in their top 10 ( though I personally disagree. ) Holyfield was in the peak of his prime when he fought Foreman who took him to the cards. The holy who fought Tyson was viewed by most as being shot and many feared for his health at the time.. Foreman's loss to Briggs was a consensus robbery..

 

Holyfield
Lewis
Bowe
Moorer
Tyson
Incomplete Ibeabuchi one more quality won over a top ten I would be tempted to slide him into #3 but there just isn't enough.

 

Lewis and Holyfield clearly #1 and #2.

It's difficult to separate the rest though. Tyson had two tough wins over Ruddock, and guys like Bruno, Tillman, Botha etc, but losses to Douglas and Holy. Bowe has two wins over Holy but beat hardly anyone else of note, and got two beatings from Golota. Foreman beat Moorer and regained the title, but otherwise mostly wins over fringe contenders. Moorer has a good win over Holy and also regained a piece of the title, but was KO'd by Foreman and Tua. Tua had some great KOs but was pretty well shut out by Lewis and also lost to Ike and Byrd. They're all in the mix and none really did much to stand out over the rest.

 

Oliver McCall
David Tua
Riddick Bowe
Evander Holyfield


Tyson / Lewis / Douglas / Norris / Akinwande / Tucker / Holmes

All very close.

 

1- Evander Holyfield
2- Lennox Lewis
3- Prime Tommy Morrison
4- Mike Tyson
5- Prime Ikeabuchi- Riddick Bowe
6- David Tua