How do you rate Tim Wiherspoon in an all-time rankings

I'm not seeing it.

John Ruiz won as many paper titles. John Ruiz beat as many or more names. John Ruiz made more successful defenses. John Ruiz had problems with Don King, too.

If Witherspoon is between 10 and 12 ... how high is Ruiz?

 

Would John Ruiz arguably beat the Holmes of 83?

There's no comparison between them. But yes, anything above 15 is far too high. Even top 20 is pushing it a bit.

 

You made a very compelling argument for it. I could maybe consider putting him in my top 30 based on that. But he's not really thought of that way, and bloggers are generally immune to rational arguments on resume for ATG status once they've made up their mind or been exposed to conventional wisdom. Considering how criminally underrated Vitali Klitschko is, clearly no worse than the number 2 HW of his era, beat somewhat better competition than Witherspoon, with vastly fewer and less decisive losses, and yet is generally only regarded in top 25 on this board, I think you'll have a hard time convincing people Spoon deserves a higher rating that someone like Journeyman Jimmy Young, the Ross Purrity of his era in that he had a terrible record but beat or did well against some of the best. But!! He did well against Ali!!! And beat Foreman!!!!!!!! Who cares if he was approximately the 20th best of his era!

 

I don't think there's anyone on here that would put Vitali outside of the top 15. I can't even see an argument for it.

I place him top 10 myself.

 

I posted my comment before reading the rest of the comments. I was surprised at how many intelligent comments were made.

Until I got to you. Someone had to prove how stupid some people are on this blog, and I guess it was your turn.

Yeah, arguably the best HW of his era, top 10 all time in total title time and defenses, and consecutive defenses and time, #2 in ko percentage, beaten about 20 top 20 HW's against only 2 losses (both of them non decisive, to say the least), which is another ratio that is easily in the top 10 all time, and the guy is usually put around 25 on this board. Yeah, sure, that's overrated. Any reasonable metric would have him no lower than top 15 on resume, top 3 H2H.

 

Of course there's a comparison between them. Ruiz is more accomplished.

Could John Ruiz lose a decision to the 1983 version of Larry Holmes, sure. Of course he could. The Ruiz who battered and floored and clearly beat up Evander Holyfield in their rematch was just as good as Tim Witherspoon on any night of Witherspoon's career.

Witherspoon didn't beat Holmes. He caught Holmes who was expecting an easy night.

Witherspoon never looked as good against a top heavyweight again. It was a one-off performance.

Lots of heavyweights have those.

 

Wow! That's great, again you prove to be an unusually rational poster, even though we've disagreed at times on other matters!

But be ready for a @#^! storm, because anytime I've mentioned something like that the blogs literally explode in outrage. I post facts and figures, and then they never really respond to that, just put up laughing emogi's or say things like "part time golfer" in lieu of arguments. Even a lot of people who are Wlad fans or say they like Vitali usually just buy in to the bogus CW and say "its really hard to make a case he's above top 20", while ignoring the case I lay out.

 

I dislike Vitali myself actually, but that doesn't prevent me from being rational about his standing.

My issue with him is mostly resume. He did beat a lot of ranked guys, but most of them had a very short and questionable ranking and went on to lose fight after fight once Vitali beat them. Solis/Arreola/Johnson/Gomez were probably more hyped than they should have been, and Sosnowski was a late replacement for Valuev so it's excusable. He was also ducked quite a bit.

But the bigger issue I have is his poor resume prior to his first retirement, specifically in the 2000-2003 period when he lost to Byrd until he fought Lewis. In that time frame he beat Hoffmann, Norris, Purrity, Bean and Donald, and none of them were ranked in the top 10 I believe.

The division back then while not stacked was fairly decent, you had Ruiz, Rahman, Maskaev, Tua, Byrd, Golota, Tyson, hell, he probably could have gotten Holyfield into the ring with him for a free meal. He was coming off a loss to Byrd back then and was largely considered a quitter and heartless, a lot of these guys would have fought him then and he should have went for some of these matches to redeem himself.

In the end, what gets Vitali into my top 10 is his exceptional dominance against some decent fighters, longetivity, and the fact that I myself can only make a case for 5 fighters in history that could beat him.

 

Very fair, again don't agree with everything but very defensible positions. There are frustrating elements to Vitali's resume, although most of it wasn't his fault. Vitali is probably the most "what if" HW of all time. As you said, he was avoided a lot. Valuev shamelessly ducked him. Haye turned down an offer to be his last fight. Imagine this scenario, Tyson beats Williams, then fights and is beaten by Vitali next (that was the plan when he was upset), Vitali recovers enough from injuries to fight Rahman before he goes on hiatus, tkos Rahman. Instead of Kevin Johnson, Vitali fights and beats ancient Holyfield, instead of Sosnowski, he beats Valuev, and instead of Charr, he beats Haye. All that except the Holyfield one were on the table, only injury, upset, or ducking got in the way (I don't think Holyfield would have faced VK in the 00-03 time period, but definitely would have at the Kevin Johnson period, never understood why neither K fought him, would have been a lucrative, easy fight that would have boosted their resume's far beyond the difficulty level of the fight).

Anyway, make all those simple changes, and his resume would be easily top 5 all time with only the hard core haters questioning it. As it is, with Wlad losing, its still enough imo to let him scape into the top 10.

 

But that's exactly the rationale for rating Witherspoon so highly.

He fought Holmes close in 1983.

Nothing else he did makes him stand out from most of the other guys in that era as one of the best heavyweights who ever lived.

He won a questionable decision against Snipes. He won a questionable decision against Page. He won a questionable decision against Tubbs. He won a questionable decision against Carl Williams. He won a questionable decision against Mike Williams.

You flip a coin, it lands on heads, he could've lost the decision against all of them.

He wins a clear decision over Smith and then gets knocked out in one round in the rematch.

The guy wasn't one of the best heavyweights who ever lived. He was a good heavyweight in a good era. Not really better and not really worse than most of his peers around him.

In that era, I'd take Pinklon Thomas head-to-head over Witherspoon any day of the week. He doesn't have as many names on his record, but just watching them, IMO, Thomas was clearly better. And, when they fought, Thomas was, too.

Frankly, the Holmes fight is Witherspoon's saving grace. Without it, he'd be an afterthought. Especially after some of his truly awful performances in later years.

 

Yeah. In 2004 he could have faced Johnson, Lewis and Tyson had he not lost to Williams, following it up with a grudge match against Sanders and a win over Rahman, then retiring. Then come back, beat Peter, Valuev and Haye.

With that resume and H2H ability I would place him in my top 5.

 

No offense. But those are more than a few "simple" changes.

Yes, if Vitali had made a few "simple" changes like beating Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield, Hasim Rahman, Nicolay Valuev, Sam Peter, and David Haye ... of course he'd be a top five heavyweight.

If Roy Jones had beaten Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield, Hasim Rahman, Nicolay Valuev, Sam Peter and David Haye back then .. he'd be a top five heavyweight, too.

If anyone beat all those guys then and became undisputed heavyweight champion, they would be an all-timer.

If Coley Wallace beat Rocky Marciano, Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Joe Louis, Archie Moore, Floyd Patterson, Eddie Machen and Zora Folley and was the undisputed heavyweight champion ... he'd be a top heavyweight all-time, too.

If only Coley had made those few "simple" changes.

 

It's the thing that pushes him out of the pack of three of 4 HW's contending for 3rd best of the 80's. Difference is if you take away Young's performance against Ali and Foreman, he's literally just a journeyman. If you take Spoon's performance against Holmes, he's still the 1st fighter to claim two different belts, some other quality wins against fewer losses. He wouldn't be a clear #3, but would be basically inseparable from 3 or 4 others.

 

My suggestions really weren't any more than simple changes. I'm not saying he beats Lewis. He still would have been the underdog against Lewis. I'm saying he gets the fights he actually did try to get, and does what he would have been favored to do in all of them.

 

We're talking about fights that were possible for him.

He was supposed to fight Lewis in 03. He would have fought Tyson if Tyson hadn't lost to Williams. Rahman was a mandatory. Both Valuev and Haye pulled out of fights.

What I'm talking about is basically that he often had bad luck when it came to getting big fights. He would have won all of those except maybe Lewis. And even that one is debatable.