Classic Forum! Let us decide on the Best 10 Wins in History!

Yep. You go by how the ref counts. It's never an honest to goodness stop-watch ten seconds. Questioning the count was pure bull**** by Don King.

Anyway, I think the Tyson/Douglas fight is clearly eliminated from this list, based on the criteria given: "the criteria for a BEST WIN is QUALITY OF OPPONENT and QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE - this thread is NOT NOT NOT asking for the TOP TEN WINS WITH REGARD TO HISTORIC STANDING/SOCIAL IMPACT/CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE etc etc, it's about the quality of the win as an in-ring feat of boxing only!!!!!"

Douglas was not a high quality opponent, and Tyson gave a horrible performance from round one. Furthermore, had Douglas went on to actually accomplish something, it would be another story, but his performance was a fluke one-time thing from him.

It's one of the greatest upsets in all of sports history, and has a lot of historical and social significance, but those are traits specifically listed as not to be considered.

A truly great fight needs both opponents giving excellent performances.

 

Why does everyone keep mentioning Burley-Moore. Burley beat a green Moore who would later develop into a bigger better fighter. I think other guys beat better versions of moore, more decisevly.

 

Some (although a minority, such as Charley White, the referee, expressing his private opinion, or Bat Masterson, etc) thought Attell was better, based on landing harder punches. Sounds like Barrera-Morales I, Morales landing by far more punches, but people giving it to Barrera for landing harder punches.

 

I haven't read any of this thread, but Ali over Foreman (not just historical significance, but where Ali and Foreman were respectively at that time) must be one of the top wins.

 

Moore said his entire life that Burley was the best fighter he ever saw. I doubt he meant that in a way where he himself felt he'd ever beat Charley.

 

If Marquez beats Mayweather.......

 

i hope this plays out....

 

Your telling me you think Charley Burley would beat a fully mature Early 1950's 175lb version of archie moore with burley weighin 160lb? Not a chance in hell. Moore would knock him out in less than 5.

 

No doubt in my mind whatsoever this belongs in the top 10.

 

Douglas in general was not a high quality opponent, but that night he fought a brilliant fight.
Tyson's performance wasn't horrible. It was sub-par, but it wasn't horrible. I still think he'd have knocked most people out that night, but Douglas wasn't having that. It only looked horrible because Douglas was using Tyson's head for target practice in the latter rounds.
Lastly, why was it a fluke?
Did Tyson injure himself on the way to the ring? Did Douglas blindside him when Tyson wasn't looking?
No.
He stuck that jab in Tyson's face all night long, pasted him repeatedly with right hands and almost knocked his block off with a terrific uppercut followed by four good punches when Tyson was going down.

If this fight doesn't qualify, then I don't know...

 

Couldn't agree more. Saying that Tyson wasn't "himself" is the same difference as saying Hagler had a bad lunch before the Leonard fight or that Schmelling was messed up because of the Nazi propaganda that he didn't support.

A remarkable win is just that. The side notes are just those SIDE NOTES!

 

Great topic. I think we have to define the criteria we want to use to decide what the 10 best wins in history are. Whether a fighter is in his prime or good mental/physical condition, or if it's a big upset or a legendary performance in a classic fight between two legends. Those so much to work with and we'll have to come up with a lot of nominations and try voting on it (If this has been done I look dumb since i haven't read through the entire thread).

*Edit* Seems like this is the basic list so far. Don't understand why people won't to eliminate Tyson vs Douglas. Douglas is fighting one of the most feared and gifted Heavyweights of all time. Although Tyson wasn't at his best mostly mentally, Douglas fought a near perfect fight. We're talking about the best 10 wins in history not the 10 best fights in history, there's a difference. Whether Douglas is a low quality fighter only enhances the win not degrades it. I'm not sure if the fight will make the top 10 cut but it certainly shouldn't be omitted so quickly... that's for sure.


DURAN v LEONARD I
- GREB v TUNNEY I
- LANGFORD's win over WILLS
- FRAZIER v ALI I
ALI v FOREMAN
- DOUGLAS v TYSON
- ARMSTRONG v ROSS
- ROBINSON v GAVILAN II
- LEONARD v HAGLER
- HARADA v JOFRE I or II
- FITZSIMMONS v CORBETT
- CHARLES v MOORE I or III
- BURLEY v MOORE
- LAMOTTA v ROBINSON I
- ALI v LISTON I
Jimmy Wildes win over Joe Lynch

Max Schmelings win over Joe Louis

Barbados Joe Walcotts win over Joe Choynski

Jem Driscolls win over Abe Attel

Mike Gibbons win over Jack Dillon

Terry McGoverns win over Joe Gans
Terry mcgover vs pedlar palmer

Leonard-Hearns 1
Napoles-Griffith
Jones Jr - Toney/Hopkins
BHOPs-Tito (Tito was P4P no1)
Tunney-Dempsey 1
Barrera-Morales 1 (which Barrera really won by a landslide)
Pacquaio-Barrera 1 (domination over a top3 P4Per and legend)
Pacquaio-Delahoya (amazing weight hopping and what if DLH isnt shot?)
Foreman-Frazier
Liston-Patterson
Tyson-Spinks
Patterson-Moore
Benn-McCellan
Eubanks-Benn1
Eubanks-Watson2
Hagler-Hearns
Hamed-Kelly
Charles second PTS win over Burley
Sandy Saddler-Willie Pep 1
Sandy Saddler-Willie Pep 2
Jim Driscoll over Abe Atell
Dick Tiger vs Jose Torres
Foreman vs Moorer
hopkins vs pavlik
Fitzsimmons-Corbett
Spinks-Holmes I
Jofre-Legra
Zivic-Armstrong I
Ali-Liston I
Harada-Jofre I
Holyfield-Tyson I
Dempsey-Willard
Tunney-Dempsey I
Randall-Chavez I
Pacquiao-DeLaHoya
Tarver-Jones II
Leonard-Hearns I
Hearns-Hill
demsey vs willard
johnson vs Jeffries
Louis-Schmelling II
Fitzsimmons-Corbett
Schmelings win over Louis
Joe Choynski over Jack Johnson is a good result.

Holyfield over Tyson I was a good win.

Braddock's win over Baer
jack johnson vs Tommy burns
what about RJJ vs ruiz

We should decide to cut a few from the list and I then try voting on the 10 best through a poll or this same thread.

I still think we need to establish a solid criteria. To me, the best win deals with an excellent performance against an incredible fighter. We should bear in mind the prime and performance of that great fighter as well as the opposing fighter, but if the win comes from a fighter that isn't as good that doesn't diminish the significance of how great of a win it is, if anything it enhances it. This ain't the top 10 best fights of all time it's wins. I have a quesiton though... does how the fight end play any matter in this thread? If a fight between two legends end quickly does that tarnish the win? Example would be Hagler v Hearns. I would say it shouldn't although that leans that the other fighter had problems, exposed himself, and didn't fight the right gameplay... or that fighter just got completely overwhelmed. If that's the case then it isn't such a terrific win, but let's not play revisionist history here. That's a dangerous deed to do.

*Edit* Another thought, how much does historical significance play into this? If a fighter is thought to do better but the fight becomes a contested battle does that hinder the win? Does Ali v Frazier I become a better more important win since the opinions were split than Ali v Frazier III?

 

I think you`ve just mentioned all the best ones, tho from your top 4, Id swap Frazier/Ali (since its not about historical significance & opinions were split as to who might win) for Ali/Liston, Ali/Foreman or Leonard/Hagler.
Much more people expected Joe to beat Ali than SRL or Ali to beat Hagler, Liston or Foreman.
Ali had only 2 fights in 3 n a half yrs going in vs Frazier.... Leonard had 1 fight in 5 n a half yrs & had not fought in 3 yrs going in vs the marvelous one.

:good

 

I mean fluke in that it was a one time performance from Douglas. Douglas didn't go on to accomplish anything with this win. He went back to his old ways. Had he turned a true corner in his career, it would give the fight more credence. Without that, it is nothing but a colossal upset. I don't disagree that it is one of the most significant, unbelievable fights of all time, but based on the criteria given, I don't think the original poster was looking for upset-type wins. That's all I'm trying to say here.

I also DO feel that Tyson gave a no-doubt-about-it poor performance. He came out flat from round one. He didn't even launch into his usual early fury. He even looked bored during his introduction, not doing his usual impatient walking around. Nothing Douglas did caused any of this. So am I really being that unreasonable by feeling that a truly great fight has both boxers giving good performances?

I'll also add that when people hold this fight in such high regard it is actually an indirect compliment to Tyson as well.

 

Short answers:

To the first paragraph - no, not at all.
To the second paragraph - yes it is.

Anyway, we're risking hijacking this thread a little, so I'll say no more on this fight.