Do you agree with these Tiers Of Greatness for 1980s fighters?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by horst, Jul 12, 2011.


Page 4 of 4
  1. Zopilote

    Zopilote Dinamita Full Member

    19,247
    20
    Dec 12, 2009

    Hah i see that! Very good list my friend, i agree with you :good
     
    Zopilote, Jul 12, 2011
    Zopilote, Jul 12, 2011
    #46
  2. horst

    horst Guest

    IMO, Holyfield is not worthy of tier 1. Definitely not. But I think your ATG view of the Real Deal depends heavily on how highly you rate his wins over Tyson.

    Say we take the cut-off point to be the Lewis fights, because after that Evander is more or less shot, considering he starts dropping fights to Ruiz, Larry Donald, etc.

    Cruiserweight: A past-prime, undersized Qawi is his best win, and EH needed an SD to beat his 1st time out, whereas Michael Spinks beat a much better version of Qawi more convincingly years earlier at Qawi's best weight. Also beat De Leon, good cruiser.

    Heavyweight: Against his 2 best opponents, Bowe and Lewis, Holyfield goes 1-4, counting the first LL-EH fight as the win for Lewis which it patently was. Has 2 extremely high-profile wins over Mike Tyson, but it's up to you how good you think that version was Tyson actually was. Other than that, he loses to Michael Moorer but avenges it, and the best wins outwith that are Mercer, well past-prime Holmes, old Foreman, Douglas, Dokes, Thomas.


    In no way do I view this career as being the equal of SRL or Whitaker. As I've already said, I can see how someone such as yourself would prefer EH to be in Tier 2, but Tier 1 is just out of the question IMO. If he had beaten better fighters at cruiser or not had the sloppy loss to Moorer or managed to get the win over Lewis at the second time of asking, maybe then it'd be different, but as it is I believe EH was truly great, but not consistent enough to match SRL or Pea.
     
    horst, Jul 12, 2011
    horst, Jul 12, 2011
    #47
  3. horst

    horst Guest

    The cynic in me says Hagler (1-weight fighter with best wins coming against naturally lower-weight fighters), Chavez (no wins over bona fide A-class ATG fighters in his career), Sanchez (too short a championship career) and Holyfield (see my previous post to spud) should all be ranked clearly below Hearns (long career, multi-weight success, stellar wins on resume) and Spinks (best lhw of Golden Age, cleans out division, then at 199lbs has historic wins at hw).

    I'm much more of a Hagler fan than a Hearns fan and I'd much rather watch Chavez or Sanchez than Michael Spinks (much preferred their skillsets), but when you are objectively weighing up resume, accomplishments, skillsets, etc, I personally disagree with you and spud, though I take your point.
     
    horst, Jul 12, 2011
    horst, Jul 12, 2011
    #48
  4. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,645
    21,951
    Sep 15, 2009
    him just wanna bring something up, you talk about cut off point in regards to holyfield.

    i view fighters like that in a similar way, erm i feel most comfortable describing it mathematically then i'll relate back when i make sense myself of what i'm saying.

    imagine a fighters career is a set of data which you can organise chronologically. in maths we can split the data by averages, for this example i'm using upper and lower quartiles.

    now drawing it as a box and whisker diagram you have a small section at the front (one whisker) a box for the majority and a small section at the end (last whisker)

    what i mean by this is if you imagine in a boxers career that everything between the upper and lower quartiles (the box) is his prime years at the top level and everything before and after (the whiskers) is the boxer pre-prime and post prime. during the "wkisker" stage i give great credit for victories and almost no penalty for losses.

    using holyfield as an example, i believe he hit his prime years in 1987, so any victories before then are very good and any losses wouldn't count. his years at the top ended with the loss to lewis in 1999 so during this time he gets penalised for losing to lewis, moorer and bowe (i know some people believe he was shot in the knockout loss to bowe but he was still top level as he proved by beating the best hw in the world [mike tyson]). after the loss to lewis i hold no loss against him but give him great credit for beating ruiz, rahman and valuev.



    now all the maths talk aside (that was just my way of sorting out my thinking in my head) does anyone else do the same, i.e. with hopkins he gets huge credit for his victories after taylor but no penalty for any losses he might suffer?
     
    lufcrazy, Jul 12, 2011
    lufcrazy, Jul 12, 2011
    #49
  5. elchivito

    elchivito master betty Full Member

    27,489
    439
    Sep 27, 2008
    Salvador Sanchez definitely tier 1. Gomez and Nelson were great wins and beat alot of very good competition in a short period of time. To be compared to Willie Pep as the greatest featherweights of all time and looking sensational in those wins makes up for the short time at the top issue. Not many can or will accomplish so much in so little time. I remember SS sharing Ring Fighter of the Year honors with Sugar Ray Leonard thats how great Sanchez was.
     
    elchivito, Jul 12, 2011
    elchivito, Jul 12, 2011
    #50
  6. left right left

    left right left Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,748
    1
    Aug 14, 2010
    Hagler and Holyfield.
     
    left right left, Jul 12, 2011
    left right left, Jul 12, 2011
    #51
  7. JASPER

    JASPER Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,214
    8
    Jul 21, 2007

    You have the greatest Middleweight Champ and Cruiserweight Champ of all time and a top 5 Heavy in Tier 3? I agree that in any era you can tier fighters but I do not agree the way you tier them
     
    JASPER, Jul 12, 2011
    JASPER, Jul 12, 2011
    #52
  8. left right left

    left right left Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,748
    1
    Aug 14, 2010
    The TS may object, but I'll bring up the '84 Olympics. Whitaker and Taylor were supposed to be the stars on that USA Olympic team, a team going in that was considered to be equal to the great '76 team. But Holyfield was so obviously the best boxer on that team by a full step.. no hype.

    Hagler must be tier 1. Ring magazine should name it's fighter of the year award the Marvin Hagler FOY Award.. and that's no hype either.
     
    left right left, Jul 12, 2011
    left right left, Jul 12, 2011
    #53
  9. bandido

    bandido The Black Bandit Full Member

    6,638
    2
    Feb 25, 2010
    Tier 1 (within top 30):
    Ray Leonard, Marvin Hagler, Pernell Whitaker, Julio Cesar Chavez

    Tier 2 (within top 50):
    Michael Spinks, Thomas Hearns, Salvador Sanchez, Larry Holmes

    Tier 3 (within top 70):
    Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield, Aaron Pryor

    Tier 4 (within top 100):
    Khaosai Galaxy, Azumah Nelson, Eusebio Pedroza, Mike McCallum

    Tier 5
    Hector Camacho, Donald Curry, Dwight Muhammad Qawi, Jung Koo Chang, Michael Nunn
     
    bandido, Jul 12, 2011
    bandido, Jul 12, 2011
    #54
  10. Beatle

    Beatle Sheer Analysis Full Member

    9,270
    269
    Apr 12, 2009
    Tyson should be n.1 - he unified the HW titles and dominated until 1990 with huge KOs.
     
    Beatle, Jul 12, 2011
    Beatle, Jul 12, 2011
    #55
Page 4 of 4