The last great heavyweight....!

I think there are a lot of interesting observations here, and I have to agree.

Look at how Ali is perceived – almost everyone agrees that his prime was '66-'67. But for what? Who did he defeat at that time? A broken Folley? A wounded Williams? Terrell, who isn't listed in any historical rankings? Think about it.

If Ali in 1975 was rated (a bit biased in my opinion) as the 8th best heavyweight in history, he would probably have been even lower had he not returned from exile, even though his best years were before his exile.

People say Ali lost his best years in '68-'69, but if he had dominated then, his potential wins over Frazier in '68 wouldn't have been as valuable as a win over Frazier in '75, even though Frazier in '68 is athletically much better than Frazier in '75.

 

Fury emasculated Wlad? Have you watched that fight? I've seen rougher chess matches .

 

So another proven contender, not an ATG win he is now. And it's the same fighter.

 

Honestly, I don't know what point you're trying to make.

 

Well, maybe that’s a bit far.
Still, If Wlad doesn’t run in to Fury, he just wins easily against another bang average guy and his fans think nothing of it. Because it’s Fury he was old

 

Wlad is the last truly GREAT heavyweight. I doubt we will see another of that echelon in our lifetimes.

 

I think there were a few since Holmes. Tyson, Lewis and Holyfield are locks for greatness in my book. Wladimir Klitschko might barely make it. His long reign and number of title fight wins is what does it for him. The reason he’s a borderline case for me is that he never beat any true great heavies and has multiple losses to guys who’s whole resume is based on beating HIM. He also had more than his fair share of lackluster or underwhelming performances . Riddick Bowe had an excellent career and equally excellent record. But his win list lacks depth. Can’t think of too many others. Oleksandr Usyk is more of a p4p great in my opinion rather than a great heavy

 

I agree that Tyson blew up early in his career but there was already a lot of quality in there. Youngest belt holder in heavyweight history . 37-0 before acquiring his first loss. 10-11 title fight wins and a unified crown. Two hall of famers on his win list ( though past it. Then after prison he regained two fragments of the title before dropping it to Holyfield.

 

I think Wlad is edging the Top 10 maybe 9 or 10 himself? He wasn't the most exciting heavyweight but he was consistent. His biggest problem was Vitali since he was the other best boxer during his time and naturally since they wouldn't fight each other there was still a question over which one was better. Uysk as you said is ,certainly a p4p great and has a decent heavyweight resume although he does need to add a bit more depth.

 

Interesting. I'm not sure Holmes beat any true great Heavies either (though he's my #3 all time), aside from a shot Ali, which is irrelevant to his all time standing imo, though Norton and maybe Witherspoon can be considered borderline ATG HWs.

What true ATG, or even borderline ATG, heavies did Tyson beat?

FYI, I'm not disputing Tyson is an ATG HW, he makes my top 10 all time. I'm just interested in your rationale for Wlad only qualifying as a borderline ATG on the basis he didn't beat any true ATG HWs, yet you (rightly, imo) consider Tyson an ATG HW.

 

You took the words right out of my keyboard.

 

Not an Usyk fan?

 

The absence of ATG’s on Tyson and Holmes resume is only half the equation . Wlad was beaten twice by fringe contenders and once by a journeyman. I mentioned as much already. This never happened to Holmes and only once to Tyson at least anywhere near prime. I also said that Wlad is a borderline case for ATG and that his longevity and lengthy title reign is what did it for him . Incidentally, Tyson beat and undefeated Spinks who is an ATG just not at heavy. But he was the linear champ

 

Interesting, thank you for your response.

I think different people can mean different things when it comes to "prime". I think it's important to establish whether we are talking about losses at an age typically considered a boxers prime years or whether we're talking about how effective they were relative to their peak, as sometimes these two things overlap and sometimes they don't.

Both Wlad and Tyson lost x 3 by the age of 30. Wlad aged 22, 27 and 28, whilst Tyson aged 23 and 30. Most HWs aren't yet prime at 22, but are at 30. However, neither were their peak versions, that dominated the division, for any of their defeats.

Imo, their respective 3 x defeats damage both as they occurred in and around an athletes prime years, but in the context neither was at their best. Obviously losses to Holyfield are less damaging, but this should be offset by Wlad's far greater longevity of dominance over the division, imo.

 

That sometimes circumstances trump or boost status of boxers regardless of how good they are.