What aren't you sure about? Just compare their fights with Carl Williams, Spinks, and even Berbick. Then throw in Tucker, Tubbs, Bruno, Thomas, etc. Then factor in their own fight. And the fact that Mike was undefeated and the youngest heavyweight champion in history. Seems like no contest.
Spinks, as I've mentioned before, requires an asterisk next to his name as a heavyweight. Holmes defeated a younger, fresher Berbick. Thomas was a cokehead when Tyson got him. My point being, his resume isn't really better if you think about it. I still say Holmes.
That is not a bad list, I would put Hearns over Hagler, exchange 3 and 4... I would have Larry at 5, and take Mike McCallum out. I would take Evander out and put in Chavez. And Benitez could be in there also. That is why I rank Hearns at 3 over Hagler, he beat Benitez,Cuevas and Duran and won 4 and 5 titles at different weights in the 1980s. And had 2 years fighter of the year. 1980 and 1984.. I don't argue with Spinks. Ray being one is perfect, the only argument I have there is he was inactive for half the decade or more. Sanchez? His was more potential than actual accomplishment. You could almost switch Azumah for Sanchez. I would almost have it Ray Leonard Michael Spinks Thomas Hearns Marvin Hagler Larry Holmes Julio Cesar Chavez Azumah Nelson Wilfred Benitez Aaron Pryor Mike Tyson
Yeah, Holmes lost to an asterisked heavyweight that Tyson blasted out early. Edge: Tyson. Williams also gave Holmes all he could handle (I thought he won). Tyson blasted him out early. Edge: Tyson.
Right, but that's the point. Tyson was young and fresh throughout the 80s, and he dominated the best available competition. Holmes wasn't, and he didn't.
Maybe: 1. Sugar Ray Leonard 2. Michael Spinks 3. Mike Tyson 4. Marvin Hagler 5. Thomas Hearns 6. Julio Cesar Chavez 7. Larry Holmes 8. Evander Holyfield 9. Jung Koo Chang 10. Eusebio Pedroza
I wish Salvador would have lived. Can you imagine the rematch with Azumah. and possibles fights with McGuigan. I think he would have been greater than Chavez.
Its hard-so many great boxers....... Mike Mccallum Larry Holmes Michael Spinks Hector Camacho Don Curry Thomas Hearns Hagler Leonard Benitez Saad Muhammed Jeff Chandler Wilfredo Gomez Sanchez Whitaker I think you would need more then ten spots.
Holmes was young early in the decade, and sure he beat some good guys. He was absolutely the dominant heavy at that time
Missed a number of the top heavyweights during the first half of the decade (Page, Thomas, Coetzee, Dokes, etc.) and struggled against a green but highly talented Witherspoon, without even getting into his struggles and losses in the later half of the decade. Great fighter, great career but I still don't understand how this is possibly equivalent to Tyson's run in the 80s. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Yes, I know how it looks. But, there was a lot of talent around in the '80s and ten spaces isn't a lot of room for it all. As far as possible, I've tried to base my list on achievement and recognition; layered on a bed of consistency and perenniality, throughout the decade. But, there's been a fair bit of subjectivity applied because of how close some of the guys are. For me, Leonard's truly top wins came in '80 and '81. After '82, he retires three times during the rest of the '80s; to the extent that nothing significant occurs until '87, when he challenges an 'on the verge of retirement' Hagler and leaves with one of the most disputed decisions in boxing history. Then, in '89, he gets a steal against Hearns and beats a 38 years-old Duran. This, at the very best, makes him a tail-ender in a Top-10 for the '80s. But there's a lot of guys, who could be consider as more deserving of those tail-end spots. Amongst them are: Eusebio Pedroza* Jung Koo Chang* Azumah Nelson* Alexis Arguello Roberto Duran Salvador Sanchez Jeff Chandler Khaosai Galaxy Mike McCallum Donald Curry Hector Camacho (*included in the last three places) I might not be entirely set on the last three places. Although, at this point, I'm reasonably confident that Leonard isn't the most likely candidate to take one of those last three spots.