ATG Legends Heavyweight

Yeah it's down to your criteria honestly.

Like for example i wouldn't have Dempsey in my top 10 but in regards to his impact on the sport and how much of an icon he was in his era he has a case for top 10 in regards to that.

 

Personally I could put him #9 or #10. I got him like #11 or #12.

 

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Wladimir Klitschko
5. Mike Tyson
6. Larry Holmes
7. Evander Holyfield
8. George Forman
9. Joe Frazier
10. Oleksandr Usyk

 

Crazy to think the 90s had 6 on your list.

 

Funny I never realized that lol shows how much depth the 90s had

 

I'm curious why you have Mike above Holmes.

 

It's close between them imo, I honestly switch between the two depending on the day. But overall, I'm just not that impressed with Holmes. I feel like he struggled way too much despite reigning in a relatively weak era. Tyson, on the other hand, pretty much beat most of Holmes’ best opponents and did so in much more impressive fashion including Carl Williams and Spinks, two guys who beat Holmes (Williams was close, but I have a hard time scoring it for Holmes).

Tyson also beat contenders Holmes avoided or didn't fight, like Pinklon Thomas and Tony Tubbs. I base my rankings mostly on wins and how impressive those wins are, and overall I just feel like Tyson had better and more dominant victories including his win over Holmes himself.

Obviously, Holmes had way more longevity, and I give him credit for beating Mercer and giving Holyfield a tough fight well past his prime. But I also don’t weigh losses too heavily when I rank fighters, so Holmes being undefeated in his prime doesn’t hold that much more weight to me compared to Tyson’s loss to Buster.

 

The one fighter I see that has no business near the top 10 is Usyk, only 23 fights and his best wins are over past it Fury and a mentally weak Joshua?

 

Also surprised to see some of the lists without Joe Louis in his usual 2nd spot.

 

That's kinda unfair comparison as Holmes fought Spinks and Williams way past his prime and Tyson was at his absolute peak. Counter argument may be: old Holmes did better against prime Holyfield than Tyson did against past prime of him.

 

That’s true, but Holmes also has shared wins over guys like Berbick and Smith, not just the losses. And even past his prime, Holmes was still a high-level fighter, as shown by how competitive he was against Mercer and Holyfield later on.

As for the Holyfield comparison yeah, old Holmes did better, but I don’t judge fighters based on how they look in losses. I base my rankings on wins and how impressive those wins are, so that kind of comparison doesn’t really apply to how I evaluate fighters. And to be fair, Tyson wasn’t at his best anymore when he fought Holyfield either.

 

Sure he did. And he stopped Smith while Tyson UDed him, but Smith of course fought differently in both fights. Regarding Berbick, and that's an honest question just for the sake of discussion, don't take it as an attack or something. Do you believe a fighter can dominate a fight in few ways? For example, if a fighter wins all rounds against an opponent, clearly outboxing him, using the tools he has in his box, it can be perceived as a domination on the same level as someone using the tools in his box knocking him out in 2 rounds? That's basically a comparison between how Holmes and Tyson handled Berbick and that's the only comparison of prime versions of both fighting the same fighter.

Yes, but Tyson was closer to his prime than Holmes was to his when he fought Holyfield.That's just a side note tho, I don't want to base any arguments on this, since like I mentioned above, Holmes and Tyson were different fighters with different tools and the box. Tyson tools just by their nature are known to be more inclined to get rusty faster. I get the point about not rating fighters on how they performed in losses, but that takes away a lot of great performances of ATGs in losses f.e. Holmes with Holyfield and McCall, Klitschko with Joshua or Hagler with Leonard.

 

Of course, dominance doesn’t only come from knockouts. That’s why I rank someone like Mayweather so highly, winning every round and completely outboxing an opponent is absolutely a form of dominance, and I’d never argue otherwise.

My reasoning for favoring Tyson’s wins over Holmes’ against Berbick and Smith isn’t just about how the fights ended it’s about the versions of those opponents each faced. Holmes fought both guys when they were still inexperienced and hadn’t done much yet. Tyson faced more seasoned versions: Berbick had just beaten Pinklon Thomas, and Smith was coming off wins over Weaver and Witherspoon. That context matters to me.

Tyson also won every round against Smith, while Holmes lost a couple (at least according to the average score on BoxRec, though I admit that could be off). And to be fair, I did forget that Holmes actually stopped Smith so that’s on me, and I appreciate you pointing it out.

But overall, I just place more value on the version of the opponents Tyson beat. I think they were better, more proven fighters by the time they faced him but I'm open to a counter argument like I said this isn't something I'm dogmatic about I can see it either way.

Yeah, I think that's a fair point, Tyson was definitely closer to his prime than Holmes was when they fought Holyfield, no argument there. And I agree with you 100% that different fighters have tools that age differently. Tyson's style was explosive and reaction-based, so once that slipped even a little, it affected him more than someone like Holmes, who relied more on his jab, ring IQ, and toughness.

As for the “great performances in losses” thing I totally get where you’re coming from. Fights like Holmes vs Holyfield, Klitschko vs Joshua, or even Hagler vs Leonard do tell you something about a fighter’s ability, toughness, and how competitive they were against top-level opposition. I don’t ignore that stuff completely. It’s just that when I rank fighters, I personally prioritize who they beat and how they beat them a little more than how well they looked in fights they ultimately didn’t win.

That said, I respect that others weigh performances in losses more heavily. I think both approaches are valid depending on what you're trying to measure its just not one I rely on for how I rank fighters but fair play if you do we all have our own criteria.