H2H Heavyweights (Mount Rushmore)

I wouldn't cry over it. I'm not sure about Tyson as he never had to gut out a tough one during his peak. He did stand tall vs Ruddock tho under heavy fire.

 

Not bad. Maybe Foreman gets a bit the benefit of a doubt seeing how few good fighters he met relative to the others, and how he tended to struggle against the boxer types. Conversely, does Wlad get too harshly punished for his losses during the first half of his career, seeing how extremely dominant he was during his second?

And Lewis and Tyson are in, but not Holy who, all said and done, did well against them?

As for Ali and Louis, you can always question how they would fare in more modern eras against bigger fighters, but you can't say much about how they did against the comp available to them.

 

Based on achievements and even H2H you’d have to put Ali, Louis, Lewis and Foreman as the obvious choices each had wins over fellow ATG fighters in their primes

If you combine the Klitschko's record they still lack a win over an ATG seperate the resumes and they are either average in Wlads case or **** poor Vitalis

Listons two losses to Ali hurt his legacy and Tysons lack of a notable high profile ATG win eliminates him from the discussion if anything Holyfield, Marciano and Holmes all have better shouts

 

How so? If you think I am overvaluing Holyfield, no because his resume on paper his extremely high...probably ON PAPER highest next to Ali. You can swallow a few losses when you have that quality of wins.

But as I have said, Holy's record is problematic, because of the losses and other factors, such as the age of opponents and HGH use. I just think it's slightly undervalued. There is no straight mathematical formula to this.

Or have I misunderstood your point?

 

remove Tyson Fury and Riddick Bowe, and that's a pretty good top-10 list

 

Completely agree.

 

NOPE. It doesn't matter what they did in their eras, it's about how they'd do against ATG's from all eras.
Louis gets destroyed. Ali does a bit better, but still gets whooped by Lewis, Tyson, Bowe, Holyfield, Fury, Osyk.

That doesn't matter. Some of the "average" boxers they faced would beat ATGs from other eras. For example Povetkin and Haye would beat an ATG like Johnson, Marciano, Patterson, Louis etc

They shouldn't. He was old, unprepared and had a shoulder injury in the first fight. And took a dive in the second.

No it doesn't. He destroyed Holmes, Spinks and a few other very good HWs and unified all the belts.

Nope. Cause Tyson obliterates everybody in Marciano's era, and also does better than Holmes and Roydifield.

 

Nope. H2H they clearly belong.
Take for example Bowe. Greatness wise, Marciano is clearly higher, due to what he achieved in his own era.
But H2H wise, hell no, Marciano doesn't stand a chance against a more modern boxer and Bowe will obliterate him.

 

Excellent post yet again! Now edit it, and include Williams as a H2H monster, and it'll be top-tier.

 

Copy. Still not quite sure I fully get it, but I will let it go. Good luck in the poll.

 

Are you actually being serious no fighter would absolutely destroy Louis he was too good and hit too hard.

Also Ali does slightly better you seem to have a strong bias towards the modern generation of fighters things haven't evolved that much in boxing in 50 years - case in point old and fat Foreman gave a prime Holyfield all he could handle imagine a prime Ali against Evander would box circles around him.

Usyk is the same size as Ali and doesn't hit hard enough to really worry him and is much slower so to say with confidence that he would whoop Ali is non sense.

I would place Ali as the firm favourite over the following Tyson, Bowe, Holyfield and possibly Usyk. Lewis would be the favourite against Ali but not by a lot maybe 60/40 and against Usyk I would give Ali 60/40 chances of winning

That doesn't matter. Some of the "average" boxers they faced would beat ATGs from other eras. For example Povetkin and Haye would beat an ATG like Johnson, Marciano, Patterson, Louis etc

Again using Povetkin and Haye against Louis is stupid he wasn't that much smaller, hit just as hard if not harder and achieved more than both combined.

They shouldn't. He was old, unprepared and had a shoulder injury in the first fight. And took a dive in the second.

Being unprepared is his fault and not an excuse, either way two bad losses always hurt your legacy regardless of whether you avenge them or not (he didn't by the way)

No it doesn't. He destroyed Holmes, Spinks and a few other very good HWs and unified all the belts.

So on one hand Liston was old and unprepared but then you overlook Holmes literally getting off the couch to fight Tyson in his late thirties and with no training camp, name one ATG fighter Tyson beat in their primes or close to it

Nope. Cause Tyson obliterates everybody in Marciano's era, and also does better than Holmes and Roydifield.[/QUOTE]

 

The problem with the nostaglia argument is Holyfields struggles against 40+year old Foreman and Holmes will always lead people to the conclusion that the 70s HWs are superior. There is no getting around that. Its like a weight holding down not just him but his peers. His peers all have better resumes though including Moorer. Whatever he added by fighting longer than his peers was not worth what he lost. Holyfield has lost more title fight losses than any HW in history. This doesn't even count the trilogy loss to Bowe. John Ruiz has lost the 2nd most and Holyfield is 1-1-1 against him.

Holyfield is generally considered a top 10 HW all time with the most title losses. To think hes underrated you have to think he should be rated higher than he is and I don't know how one gets there. He lost the Bowe trilogy, Holyfields rated higher. Hes 1-1 against Moorer who has less than half his losses Holyfields rated higher. Where should he be rated? What "juggernaut" of a resume are you talking about? His peak(in terms of dominance) was 3 title defenses 2 of which were against 40 year olds he struggled to beat. After that he is sub .500 in title fights.

Another thing is at HW Holyfields KO percentage plummented. His career KO percentage is 66 percentage which while lower than all his peers is solid. But it got there from 83% at CW. And one of his HW stoppages was a LHW another being the KO or KOd Tyson. His power really didn't translate to HW.



Holyfield only got stopped twice in his era and he was capable of beating anyone in his era but not consistantly or comfortably. He was competitive in a respected era until the end but never dominant. That isn't worthy of this level of respect at least not as a HW. And if we're being honest someone with a comparable resume in another era would not be getting it.

Want to make clear having Holyfield above Moorer and Bowe is debatable and even him being the 2nd best HW of the 90s is debatable. It being the obvious cultural consensus and Holyfield being in the same breath as Foreman/Louis/Ali above guys like Tunney(the HW transplant with the fewest losses) is the issue.