Greatest heavyweight with weakest resume?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by themostoverrated, Nov 25, 2024.


  1. Ney

    Ney Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,202
    10,675
    Feb 13, 2024
    Tell me again who has more title defenses, Tyson or Johnson?
     
  2. The Undefeated Lachbuster

    The Undefeated Lachbuster On the Italian agenda Full Member

    4,900
    7,574
    Jul 18, 2018
    I went inactive for a while, but i was one of the more active posters here back in 2018-2020
     
  3. themostoverrated

    themostoverrated Active Member Full Member

    557
    655
    Feb 9, 2022
    I fail to see how Frazier's resume is flimsier than Tyson's.

    Frazier beat Ali, an ATG. Tyson's only win against a heavyweight ATG was Holmes, who was badly out of shape and untrained.

    Frazier lost twice to Ali and twice to Foreman. Tyson lost twice to Holyfield and once to Lewis. Frazier put up a much fierce resistance and better show in his fights against Ali. Tyson couldn't even make it close in any of his losses.

    Tyson lost to a journeyman - Buster Douglas. Frazier didn't.

    Tyson in his final fight lost to two rank journeymen Danny Williams and Kevin McBride. Frazier in his comeback fight earned a draw against rank journeyman Floyd Cummings.

    Tyson beat a slew of contenders and alphabet champs - Berbick, Thomas, Smith, Tucker, Ruddock (twice), Seldon, Bruno (twice), Williams, Tubbs and Botha. But so did Frazier - Bonavena, Chuvalo, Ellis (twice), Quarry (twice), Bugner, Jones, Mathis and Machen. I am not sure if Seldon and Botha would have been contenders in Frazier's era.

    The only better win for Tyson was against Michael Spinks. Frazier beat Foster but Bob wasn't as good at heavyweight as Spinks.

    As a matter of fact, I don't think Marciano's resume is flimsier than Tyson's. The case with Dempsey might be different though.
     
    MaccaveliMacc and young griffo like this.
  4. Ney

    Ney Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,202
    10,675
    Feb 13, 2024
    It was an indefensible claim & Seamus knows better or so I would expect.
     
  5. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    61,677
    46,318
    Feb 11, 2005
    Shoulda, woulda, coulda.. He already beat a continuous slew of top fighters, did that thing so very rare amongst heavies and "cleaned out the division". Title challenger Tillis, one loss Green, one loss Frazier, RIbalta, ex champ Bonecrusher, champ Berbick, ex champ Pinky, champ Tucker, undefeated Biggs, Larry freaking Holmes (who would come back to title challenge half a decade later), ex champ Tubbs, champ Spinks, future champ Bruno and that dude who hit like a mule kicks Ruddock TWICE? And he fit all that into four years rather than rest on laurels in Hollywood and make title defenses against complete cherries like Carpnetier or Firpo. Or get a round robin of old men, light heavies and white dopes like Marciano. If his career merely ended in 1991, Tyson's legacy blows Dempsey and Marciano's out of the water.

    Frazier, who holds the greatest victory in the division, has a better case but Tyson's depth is greater and he didn't flame out like Frazier until after a 3 year stint in the can. But again, I will not even include his victories against Bruno, Botha, Golota, etc that occurred when he was obviously compromised during his "second career".
     
  6. GoldenHulk

    GoldenHulk Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,648
    5,210
    Jan 7, 2007
    Larry Holmes still an ATG, but particularly after Cooney, even before some of those guys.......still making 20 defenses against anyone deserves a lot of merit.
     
    mcvey likes this.
  7. GoldenHulk

    GoldenHulk Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,648
    5,210
    Jan 7, 2007
    Marciano probably the weakest, Walcott, Charles and Moore were old enough to be Rocky's father.
     
  8. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    61,677
    46,318
    Feb 11, 2005
    And Ali was in great shape for Frazier, right? Still, I give Frazier full credit for his victory as I do Tyson.

    Let's focus on what Tyson did before prison, which was 42 fights, or 6 more fights than Frazier ever fought.

    Wouldn't call a 6-4, super talented dude who beat Berbick, Page and McCall and Tyson a journeyman per se. Perhaps a career underachiever who rose to the occasion several times. Dempsey had his Flynn and Meehan. Johnson had his Choynski. Ali should have had his Cooper were it not for Dundee. Sht happens in the ring, especially when you are a coked up alchy. But what Tyson had already done was enough.



    What is this crap argument? Do we want to talk about his Jake Paul fight, too. Let's focus on his reign of terror when in a 4 year prime run where he crowded in the fights rather than laying on settee getting blown by starlets.
     
    Jakub79 and Overhand94 like this.
  9. themostoverrated

    themostoverrated Active Member Full Member

    557
    655
    Feb 9, 2022
    Ali was in much better shape in his fight against Frazier. He had also won two solid tune-up fights, against Quarry and Bonavena, two of the top contenders of the time. Holmes on the other hand had not fought for two years. Ali also had more time to prepare and wanted to fight Frazier all along.


    Why? We are discussing career resumes here. Why cherry pick a certain period of one boxer's career? And the 42 fights contain some 15 odd fights against cans in 1985. Why should this take precedence over Tyson's fights over Holyfield for instance?

    It isn't a crap argument if you see how Frazier in a similar state of his career picked a draw against similar opposition. And it isn't a crap argument if you see that in history, there has been only one undisputed/unified/lineal champion (Primo Carnera) who finished his career with two defeats against low-tier opposition.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2024
    MaccaveliMacc likes this.
  10. HistoryZero26

    HistoryZero26 Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,750
    4,174
    Jan 6, 2024
  11. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,745
    29,122
    Jun 2, 2006
    Johnson signed to fight his 3 outstanding black challengers,Langford,Jeannette and McVey.the fact those fights did not happen was not his fault ,and this is totally verified in several books.
     
    NoNeck and MaccaveliMacc like this.
  12. Jakub79

    Jakub79 Active Member Full Member

    1,011
    1,127
    Mar 3, 2024
    Tyson won 75% of his victories in the 1980s. By 1989, he won 37 fights, including 10 for the title. In the remaining 12 years of his career, he didn't win even half of the fights he won in the first 5 years of his career... this is the most uneven it can be, and these periods are clearly divided. We can, of course, take into account the fights with Lewis, Williams, Nielsen, McBride and say - Tyson was a complete fake. Or watch the Douglas-Tyson fight and say, Buster should have been the youngest champion, he should have unified the titles, not Tyson, and wonder how it didn't happen. We can also assume that Jersey Joe Walcott's career is also a fake, at his best he lost to journeymen and even to rivals who had more defeats than victories, and wonder what the hell Rocky Marciano had in mind when he said that Walcott was his best opponent. I have no idea why people treat other people, athletes, like characters from a computer game who still have the same skills, the same power, speed, stamina, etc. No, they don't. The whole history of boxing shows this... But no one, absolutely no one in history, he has never reached the top like Tyson. He didn't do it that way.
     
  13. HistoryZero26

    HistoryZero26 Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,750
    4,174
    Jan 6, 2024
    While he obviously should have fought Langford again technically speaking Jim Johnson was the best black HW he had not fought. He'd beaten Jeanette and McVea many times there was no reason to make those fights.
     
  14. themostoverrated

    themostoverrated Active Member Full Member

    557
    655
    Feb 9, 2022
    Nobody is saying that the physical attributes of fighters don't wane or that they remain constant throughout their careers. But they do wane for everyone albeit though not in the same way and to the same extent. The comparison here is between two boxers in roughly the same stages of their careers - shot and way past their best. If the first loses to unknown journeymen and the other doesn't, it either means that the second guy was a better fighter, or the first fighter's decline was far greater than the second's. But then if the first guy loses to unknown journeymen and nobody else in history does, then there could be only one conclusion. The excuse of 'lost to guys like Williams and McBride because he was washed up' works for only two guys in history, one of whom isn't rated anywhere near the best champions of all time. Jersey Joe Walcott isn't the only one with numerous bad losses on his resume. James J Braddock, Jack Sharkey and Max Baer all have them. It was a characteristic of the era. It is a bad example, really.

    P.S: Nobody in history received the opportunity to reach the top like Mike Tyson. Boxing isn't a fair game.
     
    MaccaveliMacc likes this.
  15. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker

    25,439
    9,427
    Jul 15, 2008
    Zzzzzzzz, again?
     
    Dynamicpuncher likes this.