Top 5 Best Heavyweights of The '90s

Hmmmm, let's look at it like this: What if we switch both men's resumes from the 90's!? I would CLEARLY pick Foreman.

Switching Foreman's and Tyson's opponents would go down like this... Foreman loses the championship against 42-1 underdog Buster Douglas. Next he destroys Henry Tillman and then contender Alex Stewart (who gave Holyfield all he could handle) in the 1st round. Next, Foreman knocks out #2 contender Ruddock in the 7th. Then he pastes Ruddock over 12 rounds to show the world he's the guy that should be facing Holyfield for the belt. After 4 years in the clink, Foreman returns and obliterates club fighter Peter McNeeley within one round. In his next fight he detonates one bomb and wipes out Buster Mathis, who had given Bowe fits one year before. Foreman then gets rushed into a title shot where he slaughters Frank Bruno in 3 rounds. Then going for the unification he pushes Bruce Seldon to the brink of cowardice in 89 seconds to reclaim a second belt. 2 months later he gets stopped by a rejuvenated Holyfield in 11 rounds, then disgraces himself by biting Holyfield's ear in the rematch and gets DQ'd.

After 1 1/2 years away from the ring, Foreman comes back with a 5th round come from behind bomb to stop former IBF champ Frans Botha. Then comes the 1st round no contest against Norris, (these next few occurred in the year 2000, mind you) the 2nd round drubbing of Julius Francis, the 37 second whupping of Savarese, and the 3rd round quit job by Golota. Not bad for a 40 something year old fat man. Not bad at all.

In 1990, Tyson destroys the corpse of Gerry Cooney and plants him back 6 feet deep. He obliterates Mike Jameson before dismantling Adilson Rodrigues in 2 (Rodrigues was trounced by a single left hook from Holyfield in 2 rounds a year before). Then he destroys no hopers Ken Lakusta and Terry Anderson to stay busy for a title shot. Tyson then fights a better than expected scrap before losing to Holyfield over 12. His next outing he knocks out full time carpenter / part time boxer Jimmy Ellis in 3. He's finally tested once again against Alex Stewart, and after knocking down Stewart twice early Tyson barely holds on to win a majority decision (if Tyson didn't knock Stewart down early he loses the fight). Next up Tyson destroys Pierre Coetzer, which is a good win considering Coetzer fought Bowe in a WBC title eliminator. After Bowe beat Coetzer, Frank Bruno crushes Pierre before Tyson does. Next, Tyson gets blanked while losing a 12 round unanimous decision to Tommy Morrison. Tyson retires for a year.

Coming out of a one year retirement, Tyson gets a shot against undefeated champ Michael Moorer, and coming from behind lands one bomb to knock Moorer out to regain the championship. Instead of facing #1 contender Tucker, Tyson gets stripped of the WBA belt and faces unheralded Axel Schulz, barely winning a 12 round split decision. Tyson is forced to defend against Schulz next but snubs the IBF, who strips Tyson of the belt. Belt-less, Tyson faces Crawford Grimsley, winning unanimously in a fight that nobody cares about. Next up is undefeated Lou Savarese who Tyson scrapes by with a split decision. Then against Briggs the judges screw Tyson as he loses a majority decision. Tyson then retires out of disgust.

Tyson is 13-3 but goes 1-2 (Moorer, Holyfield and Morrison) against Ring ranked opposition. Foreman is 9-3 but goes 6-3 (Stewart, Ruddock, Ruddock, Bruno, Seldon, Botha, Douglas, Holyfield and Holyfield) against Ring ranked opposition. "Clearly", Foreman has the better resume.

:hi:

 

Rejuvenated Holyfield my ass.. The Holyfield Foreman fought and took the distance was an all time great in the peak of his prime. The one Tyson got KILLED by was diminished and who's return to boxing was ill advised. And using the annual ring ratings to determine what these guys were ranked or weren't ranked at the time doesn't build much of a case. My argument is based on Foreman having the better legacy victory, less discrediting defeats, and the better overall record for the decade. Yours seems to be bolstered by inane comparisons about who was better between Seldon and Coetzer or Mathis and Rodriguez. If that's what it boils down to, then I think I'll stick to my position without any further argument.....

 

Your ass? Holyfield's return was ill advised because he lied about having a hole in his heart. Unless Benny Hinn miraculously cured him, of course. The Holyfield that Foreman fought was brawl happy. The one Tyson fought had the experience and patience to put a game plan together that worked. Let's not pretend Foreman didn't get his ass kicked either.

Using the Ring rankings shows the difference between fighting someone like Frank Bruno and comparing him to no hopers like Terry Anderson. I mean, DUH!!! Don't be dumb Magoo.

Your argument with Foreman having the one defining legacy win is basically the only argument you have. One that I agree with, but not much else. I already said Moorer was the best win between the two, but then Tyson has the next 6 best W's. Not really debatable if you ask me.

Less discrediting defeats? I'd say getting blanked against technical genius Tommy Morrison for 12 rounds, barely holding on to beat Alex Stewart, getting a gift against Axel Schulz and scraping by Lou Savarese is far less forgiving than getting knocked out by Douglas and Holyfield. The Douglas defeat is a bad one, but let's not get carried away here. Foreman fought 3 ranked opponents in the 90's and went 1-2. Did I mention he got arguable gifts against Schulz, Savarese and Stewart?

A better overall record against tomato cans and unranked jobbers. Much like both of his careers, those numbers are padded against less than stellar opposition. I mean, Tyson's victory over McNeely is better than Foreman's over Ellis for fukk's sake. At the very least McNeely was a full time boxer.

And last, why even have rankings for fighters if, according to you, it's "inane" to compare them? That system usually helps when determining credibility. Should Coetzer have been ranked? Seldon beat Tucker, whose only losses prior were to Tyson and Lennox - better than ANYTHING Coetzer accomplished.

 

I saw Foreman's fights with Stewart, Savarese and Schultz and the only one that I gave to the other guy was Schultz. But if we swap that one with the Briggs robbery where Foreman got dicked, then George likely comes out looking even better. Savarese was 36-0 and had basically sent your boy Buster Mathis Jr. Into early retirement. Adilson Rodriguez was 36-3 ranked by two of the alphabet organizations and got sparked in two. Stewart was in better form for his meeting with Foreman and gave him a great fight, but the two knockdowns George Scored sealed the deal. Guys like Terry Anderson and Crawford Grimsly were at least the comparable of Tillman and McNeeley. Pierre Coetzer was worthy of fringe. If we remove the two best wins Tyson and Foreman had which were Ruddock and Moorer, with moorer of course being more valuable, then there really isn't much to go by. For Tyson you have Seldon, Bruno, Mathis, stewart and Botha vs Foreman's wins over Savarese, Stewart, Rodriguez, Coetzer ( and arguably Briggs. ) The difference is minuscule at best. About the only one that stands out is Tyson's win over Bruno. And yes getting KTFO by a 42-1 underdog and beaten by a 34 year old Holyfield with on and off health issues, who had fought once against Bobby Czyz in a year and got pummeled by Bowe was worse than dropping a few decisions to prime fighters, one of which was a robbery.... Sorry but as close as it may be, foreman had the better decade in my eyes, and I most certainly disagree that it was a " landslide" for Tyson. You also put a lot of stock in Tyson's win over Seldon and seemingly on the basis that he was holding a title . I can remember as plain as day around 1995 or so when Larry Merchant said how ridiculous he felt it was that Tony Tucker was #1 and Seldon was #2, during their vacant title bout. Having watched both of those men quite a bit, I agreed with him... Tucker was 37 years old and hadn't beaten any one of note in many years. Seldon had never beaten anyone period and had some less than flattering defeats... Bottom line, Seldon was a gatekeeper level opponent who was set up as a lamb for the slaughter so that Tyson could get his hands on a belt... Period..

 

1. Holyfield
2. Lewis
3. Bowe
4. Tyson
5. Foreman the Old/Moorer

I would put Tyson over Foreman, because neither was really all that active in the decade. I Foreman has the best single win but think Tyson overall got the better wins against live opposition and appeared less vulnerable.

Tyson:

Ruddock x2
Bruno
Stewart
Norris
Mathis Jr
Tillman
Botha
Seldon

Losses: Holyfieldx2, Douglas

Foreman:

Moorer
Rodrigues
Saverse
Coetzer
Briggs*
Cooney
Ellis
Grimsley

Losses: Holyfield, Morrison, Schulz*, Stewart*

 

Bottom line....
Top 4 Lewis Holyfield Bowe Tyson
You could debate who was 5th forever....Nobody clear cut.

 

So fighter A has 3 defeats all by stoppage.

Fighter B has 3 defeats, NONE of which were by stoppage, and 1 of the points defeats was by one of the guys who stopped fighter A.

Both in the same decade, and yet fighter A is deemed to have had a better decade.

Yep that just abut sums up Tyson fanboy logic.

 

:huh I never said it was a landslide. I said Tyson "clearly" had a better decade. It's not evn close. If you think Foreman fought equal comp than you're pigeonholing yourself with the idiot Foreman fan brigade. Fine by me. :hi:

 

I completely agree. And it is really that simple. I'd like to add that If Foreman was considered a lineal champ for one fight, than Tyson was considered the best heavyweight for a lot longer than that. :good

 

1 Holyfield
2 Lewis
3 Bowe

.... after those 3 it's a bit tricky.
I guess Ray Mercer, who sometimes gets overrated, would actually have a good argument to be placed #4.
Maybe Moorer, Tyson or Ibeaubuchi at #5.

 

Hell No, who did Mercer ever beat? I dont feel he has an argument. Yes he gave tought fights to Lewis and Holyfield, but he still lost.

If he had a handful of good-very good wins on top of that, then i agree, but he doesnt.

Moorer deserves it much more.

Hell if Mercer can be placed at 4* i can easily find an argument that Bruno should be placed 4* as well.

 

Mercer's fight with Lewis could easily have gone his way. And his fight with Holyfield was close. I feel Moorer barely got past a
significantly worse version of Holyfield (injured?) in 1994.
Mercer beat some ranked fighters like Damiani and Morrison, inside the distance. He had another very close win over a rejuvenated Witherspoon.
Like I said, after the top 3 it's tricky. I think Mercer's got as good an argument as Moorer, and better than Bruno. On the other hand, he had some terrible low points too.