The 90s was the 2nd Best HW era..shouldn't Lennox be a Top 3 ATG

He looked good because Tyson was just bad after prison but lenni was more in his prime than holyfield when they actually fought. You have to be joking if you think this was the same holyfield who fought bowe. Moorer was always a garbage boxer.

 

Tyson wasn't "just bad" after he got out of prison.

Again, that's rewriting history. He won the WBC and WBA belts in less than three rounds. He was a HUGE favorite to beat Holyfield. Their first fight was epic.

All this "he was just bad" **** is freaking nonsense.

Mike Tyson was considered the best heavyweight in the world when he fought Holyfield.

When Holyfield fought Lewis, HOLYFIELD was considered the best heavyweight in the world.

After Lewis beat Holyfield, LEWIS was considered the best heavyweight in the world.

Saying "this guy wasn't his absolute best" or that guy "wasn't near his peak" ... is nonsense.

They were all considered THE BEST when they lost. They may not have been at their very best, but they were better than everyone else.

So they were pretty damn good at that time.

 

The 90s might have been a great era had all those guys fought each other in the 90s but in reality the 90s HW division was typified by missed opportunities and several embarrassing debacles.

You didn't get Holyfield-Tyson until after Tyson got out of prison and wasn't really ready for that fight. You didn't get Holyfield-Lewis until the end of the decade when Holy was fading and that first fight left a bad taste in everyones mouth due to how big and boring it was and then the decision. You didn't get Bowe-Tyson or Bowe-Lewis or Bowe-Ruddock, or basically Bowe vs anyone other than Holyfield except Golota and those two fights turned into embarrassments. You didn't get Lewis-Tyson until 2002 when Tyson was shot. Lewis had the Akinwande fight and the McCall rematch which both turned into embarrassments. There was fan man. There was the bit fight. Foreman beat Moorer and then refused to fight anyone worth a ****. The 90s seemed like one misfire after another and one missed opportunity after another with the best guys rarely ever fighting each other and worse they often fought totally meaningless fights: Bowe-Ferguson, Bowe-Dokes, Lewis-Mavrovic, Holyfield-Bean, Holyfield-Czyz, Foreman-almost everyone, Tyson-Mathis (although you can give Tyson a slide because he was perpetually trying to get his mojo back after prison). You could go on and on really but the 90s was more of a stain on boxing's HW division than a golden age. When Don King can literally say "whose that crack head I got?" In reference to moving McCall up the ratings to fight Lennox Lewis and then he actually knocks Lewis out, well, that combined with all of the other absolutely bizarre underwhelming moments leaves it struggling IMO.

 

Are you kidding me? Nobody considers Holyfield at his best when he lost to Lewis and nobody considers Tyson at his best when he lost to Holyfield. People were enamored with the hype around Tyson but the fact is that the guy hadn't fought in 4 years when he got out of prison and his competition up to Holyfield had been woeful. Hed gone a total of 8 rounds in four fights against non-descript and unthreatening opposition in easy fights. He was in no way prepared to go 12 rounds with a tough, skilled, active fighter.

 

That's not what he was saying. Finish reading his post until you come to the part that I quoted below:

 

There were plenty of misfires in the 1990s which arguably would've made the 90s clearly the best decade ever.

But I attribute nearly all (not all but nearly all) of those misfires to Rid**** Bowe.

Most of the top names got around to fighting each other eventually.

And basically Bowe just fought Holyfield.

That said, the Bowe-Holyfield trilogy was filled with great action. The fan man wasn't a black eye on boxing. It only added to drama. (Just before that a man ran onto the tennis court and stabbed the number-one female tennis player. Fans were bursting into sporting events and causing trouble. That's what was going on.) Their second fight was an incredible action fight. A guy from outside bursting in doesn't change that.

Lewis-Mercer, Mercer-Morrison, Mercer-Holyfield, Lewis-Ruddock, Ruddock-Morrison, Tyson-Holyfield 1, Tyson-Ruddock 1 & 2, Tyson-Holyfield 1, Holyfield-Foreman, Holyfield-Moorer 1 & 2 (two was much better) ... even the scandalous ones like Holyfield-Tyson 2 and Bowe-Golota 1 & 2 ... were exciting fights.

The rising prospects like Tua, Golota, Briggs, Ibeabuchi, Byrd ... they were all solid.

There was nothing very boring about 1990s heavyweights.

So little happened in the way of exciting heavyweight fights in the 1980s that the Holyfield-Dokes fight in 1989 was voted the heavyweight fight of the 1980s by one of the publications (it might have been Ring, I'm not sure).

But if that Holyfield fight had occured in the 1990s, it wouldn't be remembered as one of the better fights, let alone the best one.

I thoroughly enjoyed the 1990s heavyweights. I don't know if it was the best decade ever, because fights like Bowe-Mercer, Bowe-Lewis, Bowe-Tyson, Bowe-just about everyone ... never happened.

But, like I said, Bowe was sort of the guy who threw a wrench in most of those.

Had Bowe-Lewis and Bowe-Tyson have taken place, unless they were dull as hell (and I doubt that), the 1990s would've stood above all the others. And it still might, even without them.

 

I said Tyson was considered the best heavyweight when he lost to Holyfield.

Holyfield was considered the best heavyweight when he lost to Lewis.

I didn't say they were AT THEIR BEST. I said they were considered the best (in the division).

And if you can find ONE person who may have been considered better than them at the time they lost to each other ... being the SECOND best at the time was still pretty damn good, too.

Just saying everyone sucked when everyone fought each other because they WEREN'T ALL AT THEIR ABSOLUTE VERY BEST is bulsh*t.

Ali wasn't at his best at any time when he fought in the 1970s. So what? If you beat him, it was kind of a big accomplishment.

Joe Frazier wasn't at his best after 1971.

If you simply discount Ali and Frazier because they weren't at their best nearly every time they fought in the 1970s, it sort of cuts the legs out from under that whole decade.

 

I would say Tyson's stature at that point had more to do with hype than anything he had proven in the ring. Whether he was actually the best or one of the best is a great point to try to p**** out but when Frank Bruno is the toughest guy you've met in the last five years you have a lot of fighting to do to prove you are the best. I don't doubt that a bunch of casual fans thought that but that doesn't make it so. Tyson sold magazines, newspapers, and got people to watch their TVs but he didn't do jack **** to prove he was the best. Holyfield, Bowe, Foreman, Lewis, Moorer, Mercer, Witherspoon, etc were all still fighting and the first of those guys Tyson met beat him convincingly. Had he actually tried to build himself back up into a fighter instead of just trying sell circus tickets and collect meaningless belts that Don King finagled into weak hands he might have been ready for Holyfield. There is a big difference between perception and reality and Tyson was so popular that the general perception of him was distorted and masked the reality of how much work he needed (and even getting that work was no guarantee he would ever reach the same pinnacle he had in the 80s).

I agree that Holyfield was the best when he fought Lewis (and I thought he beat Lewis the second time) but the fact is that those fights were totally unsatisfactory for a couple of reasons each and took place YEARS after they would have really been meaningful. In reality they both fizzled (the second slightly less so) both had unsatisfactory decisions, and all they really served to do was pass the torch to Lewis.

 

Agreed. But if you take 1966-1976, it could be closer.

 

I agree his win over Vitali is suspect, and he ran from the re-match.

I disagree if you think his resume of wins isn't decent.

Ruddock, Tucker, Morrison, Mercer, Bruno, McCall, Briggs, Golota, Tua, and Rhaman are all good names. Several of the above were world title holders. When you add in Holyfield who had something left, and Vitali you've got a good resume. Better than most outside of say Ali.

If you can name five better resumes, I'd like to see it.

No I am not joking. Lewis resume > Tyson's. Both head to head and vs common opponents. Tyson was actually carefully matched in the 1990's. He's not mixing it with Mercer or Tua!

If you can post five resumes of better wins at heavy, I'll be here to read them.

 

"Ready for Holyfield?" "Meaningless belts?"

You're framing this around fights where you already know the results.

Which belts HAD MEANING?

At the time, the heavyweight champions were Frank Bruno, Bruce Seldon ... the IBF belt was vacant because Frans Botha tested positive for steroids ... the WBO was vacated by Bowe because Holyfield refused to fight for the WBO belt in their third fight.

Two titles were vacant. Two were held by actual people. Which was the meaningful one? The two empty slots?

And BUILD HIMSELF FOR WHO?

How much time did he need to prepare for Bruno and Seldon?

When the Tyson-Holyfield fight was announced, NOBODY thought Tyson needed more work to prepare for Holyfield. Holyfield had been knocked out by Bowe the year before. He was a 26-1 underdog.

Nobody thought he needed more work to prepare for Holyfield.

Just like nobody thought he needed more work to prepare for George Foreman, who hadn't fought since the Axel Shulz fight.

Nobody thought he needed more work to fight Michael Moorer - who had just edged Shulz.

Nobody thought he needed more work to prepare for Lennox Lewis (who had just fought Ray Mercer and arguably lost and was about to fight McCall - who'd already knocked him out - for the vacant WBC belt).

Nobody thought he needed more work to prepare for Rid**** Bowe, who was in the process of having his entire career ruined in a matter of months by Andrew Golota.

Or Tommy Morrison had tested positive for HIV and had just retired.

Everybody wasn't stupid then. They saw the fights, and how all the other top guys looked against each other, and they thought Tyson was the best. Because he was at that moment.

Mike Tyson was the guy streamrolling everyone. He blew out Bruno faster than he had in 1989. He was considered the best heavyweight when he signed to fight Holyfield. And their fight was epic. An all-time classic.

And as soon as Tyson lost, people changed their tunes and said, "he shouldn't have rushed things."

And if he'd knocked out Holyfield in one round like EVERYONE thought, they'd have said the fight never should've been signed because Holyfield had no chance against the Tyson juggernaut.

Every time a champ loses, everyone who thought for sure he was going to win the day of the fight can't believe they didn't see it coming.

 

Not a single top Marciano opponent was 10 to 15 years older. Tyson fought several that were 10 to 17 years older. Facts are facts.

The men I listed were 32 to 38 years old when they fought Tyson. Tyson's youth and remarkable age advantage was a major assest in his style as it was for Patterson.

 

Lewis was given the WBC title in 1992, Holmes, Foreman, Holyfield, Bowe, Moorer, Bruno, Tyson, Seldon, Hide, Wladimir all held versions of the Heavyweight title during the 1990s. Yet Lewis never fought any of them. Lewis and his camp claimed, every fighter was "afraid of him" Yet Lewis turned down career-highest paydays, from Bowe 93 & 95, Tyson 96, Hide 97, Holmes 92, Moorer 97.. Lewis was also stripped of WBA belt for refusing to fight No1 Ruiz. IBF for refusing to fight No1 Chris Byrd. i fail to see how Lewis is atg top 3

 

excellent post... looking back now to 96/7 Mike Tyson was nowhere near to being the fighter he was pre-prison. Holyfield beat him easily, because he was virtually `shot`..Tyson beat the likes of McNeeley, Seldon, Bruno with fear, nothing else. His boxing skills had gone, the day they carted him off to prison.

 

Because he was 21 they were 10 years or more older. He was the youngest heavyweight champion ever. Of course he fought older people.

Marciano wasn't even boxing when he was 21. Let alone fighting in heavyweight title fights.