Fourth and fifth best heavyweights of the nineties ?

Then his "losses" to Briggs or Morrison shouldn't count either.

Tua should not be in the running, he was schooled by Byrd and lost to Ike or was that 2000?

 

Jones win over Hopkins was a very good victory as was McCall's win over Lewis. But the value of the wins have to be measured by what those men were worth at the time of the fights and not what they became later. That's all I'm saying. Still good wins though. At any rate I think we've gotten way too caught up in this argument about Moorer and Lewis. Back to the original subject. Do you still honestly feel that Oliver McCall was the more accomplished heavyweight in the 90's over George Foreman? That's fine if you do. But I just can't see awarding him that claim.

 

definitely

 

Foreman was nowhere near winning the Morrsion fight on the cards so I don't know what you're talking about.

 

Head to head, Tua, the K bros, Ibeabuchi, Ruddock, and maybe Sanders were more formidable than Moorer. Mercer had his good nights too.

 

This is ridiculous.

 

well if I think Ike deserved the nod he's got legit victories over Tua and Byrd which is two of the best victories of the decade (taking the 0 from a top contender).

If I think Tua deserved the nod then he's only lost to Byrd whilst having a fairly good and destructive resume.

These are my choice for 5 & 6, I just dunno in which order.

 

Tua didn't lose to Byrd in the 90s. Ike was his only loss (I though Tua won).

 

cheers mate :good

 

So you'd rate these wins over Douglas's win over Tyson, Lewis's win over Ruddock, Bowe's win over Holyfield, Foreman's win over Moorer, McCall's win over Lewis, Holy's rematch win over Bowe and several others that I can think of?

Here bro, let's take a look at some things together.

Here were the ring's ratings of Ike, Tua, Foreman and Moorer during the 90's.

GEORGE FOREMAN:

1990 - #10
1991 - #6
1992 - #6
1994 - #1
1995 - #8
1997- #6

Total Years ranked - 7
Highest ranking at any given point -#1

MICHAEL MOORER:

1991 - #10
1992 - #4
1993 - #4
1994 - #4
1995 - #4
1996 - #4
1997 - #3

Total Years ranked - 7
Highest ranking at any given point - #3 ( was probably closer to #1 in the monthly ratings of 1994, prior to losing to Foreman. )

DAVID TUA:

1996 - #8
1997 - #9
1998 - #8
1999 - #5

Total Years ranked - 4
Higest ranking at any given point - #5

IKE IBEABUCHI:

1997 - #8
1998 - #7
1999 - #4

Total years ranked - 3
Highest ranking at any given point - #4

CONCLUSION:

What you're basically doing is taking two contenders who were only ranked a few years and rating them over two guys who both ranked roughly twice the duration and who both held the lineal title. There is no logic in doing this.

 

I'd rate them above Foreman's victory over Moorer but not the other's listed.

I don't care whether it's the lineal title or the WBC international title. the man makes the belt, not the other way round.

Tua has beaten: Ruiz, Izon, Maskaev, Tubbs and Rahman. If I think he deserved the Ike fight I'd happily put him number 5.

If not, Ike has taken the 0 from two top unbeaten contenders and would be deserving also.

 

So beating Chris Byrd who hadn't done dick to deserve a rating and David Tua who's best win was over an unknown Ruiz trumped a win over a 35-0 reigning world champion? That's really ****ed.

And who the hell did Moorer and Foreman beat to win the title? I believe it was THE MAN who held it before him, hence the expression " you have to beat the man to become the man. "

So you'd rank him at #5 for the entire decade based on wins over a 10 fight Maskaev, Derek Izon who never accomplished anything, John Ruiz who was nobody at the time, a washed up Tubbs and Rahman? How in the blue **** are these wins suppose to ad up to Moorer beating Holy, Cooper, Stewart, Botha and Schultz and Foreman's wins over Moorer, Savarese, Rodriguez, Stewart and Coetzer plus the claims of being two world champions? Seriously bro, if you have to start throwing around names like Izon you must be scraping the bottom of the barrel.

So right now as it stands with you, Ike has one win over an unaccomplshed Contender who's best win was Ross Purity and an undecided outcome over a guy who was very nearly as unaccomplished? THIS is your criteria for flip flopping between the two of them as being the FIFTH best heavyweight of the 1990's?

 

yeah Byrd, Tua > Moorer.

I don't think Holy won the Bowe rematch and I don't even think Moorer beat Holy so the lineage there means jack to me.

Yes as it stands I'm flip flopping between those two, I'm pretty sure I said that a few posts ago though.

 

Schulz was 'roided up when he fought Big George.

 

You need to go back and actually WATCH some of the fights you're commenting on, and it wouldn't hurt to take a course on rating fighters either. My guess is that you're rating Tua and Byrd based on what they did in the 2000's era and not where they stood two decades ago.