Greatest HW of the last 25 years

Him or Holyfield, yes.

 

I see what you're say BD but it's fighting Holy and Tyson when he did that obviously draws a lot of criticism for Lewis, when really it was out of his hands and is something that niggled at Lewis for a long time.

Tyson was past his best in '96 no doubt but he was better than the 2002 version. If Lewis were to beat Tyson in '96 before Holy burst that bubble, then obviously it would be viewed as a good to great win and likely would've opened the door for a Holyfield fight sooner. Don't forget no one gave Holyfield a chance against Tyson that night other than Ron Borges.

Also Holyfield said 'quote' "Bowe and Tyson chose to fight me rather than face Lennox, because they thought i was the lesser man".

Like i said earlier it can be viewed as fortunate or unfortunate on when he faced them, it depends on your bias.

 

Yep the Bean and Mavrovic fights were unneccasary and everyone knew it at the time.

 

Yes I agree. Tyson's reign of terror in the 80s
Was legendary. Explosive speed and power,
impregnable defense, iron chin, no fear or respect.
Burt Sugar commented on great heavyweight
champions reflecting society and social values.
Tyson represented the 1980s in your face
attitude. Lennox Lewiss greatest win is over
a shot Tyson. Lewis Bowe Holyfield
Wlad and Vitali.

 

1. Lewis
2. Tyson
Tyson was better at his peak, but Lewis was better longer. I don't think it would have been as easy, but I think Lewis wins a H2H at their best against Tyson.
3. Bowe. I fell Bowe often gets underrated. Short reign as WBC, WBA & IBF champion. Not fighting Lewis hurts him more than it hurts Lewis. He did put together a good resume. Including winning the WBO championship and only officialy losing once.
4. W Klitchko
5. V. Klitchko

 

What about Holyfield?

 

Please.

Tyson's prime is 1986-1991. Just before Douglas, he blew out Bruno in 5, and Williams in 1, and after Douglas, he ko'd Stewart in 1, then defeated Ruddock.

I'll grant you his peak was 1988, but in 1990, he wasn't post prime in any way.

And I didn't use Ali and Berbick.

My point is this.

I'm not too fond of using H2H exercises as a way to rank fighters. For example, imagine a hypothetical.

Suppose Don King penciled another fighter, say Ribalta, or Jesse Ferguson, or whoever, to fight Tyson in February 1990, instead of Douglas. And Tyson blew him out. And Douglas never fought Tyson. And Tyson went to prison undefeated, losing only to Holyfield in 1996.

Now in a world like that, would anyone consider that any version of Douglas could beat any version of Tyson, especially the 1990 version, when all we had going was Douglas' record before 1990?

You would be considered crazy, rightfully so, if you said Douglas was going to KO Tyson. People would say that Douglas can not beat any form of preprison Tyson, that Douglas was lucky Tyson fought Ferguson instead of him, etc. And no one would even disagree.

Tyson preprison would be considered invincible, his peak years being 1986-1991 instead of 1986-88 that we most often hear, and that no one could beat him in that time frame, especially someone who quit against Tucker like Douglas.

Or imagine if Rahman didn't get to Lewis in 2001, and instead Lewis fought Ruiz and defeated him and then fought Tyson in 2002 with only McCall as his defeat.

Would anybody here consider that any version of Rahman could defeat 2001 Lewis. You'd be laughed at and ran out of the room for even suggesting Rahman could defeat him. And those who would laugh out such a suggestion would be right! Imagine someone beaten by Oleg Maskaev beating Lewis? It's madness! It cannot happen.

Or if Ishida didn't fight Kirkland. How many of you here would bet that Ishida could defeat Kirkland by knocking him down three times? You'd say Kirkland survived bombs from Julio, and that Ishida is featherfisted with less than 10 KOs to his record, that to imagine Kirkland being KO'd by this featherfisted Japanese boxer would be the the extreme of fancy, and you'd be right. All logic would say that it cannot happen. You would be considered a troll if you say that it could happen.

Or if Pacquiao died in a car crash after the Diaz victory. If someone would say that after Diaz he would go to 147, beat Oscar, Margarito, Cotto, old Mosley, Clottey, and that he would shut out and humiliate them all in dominant fashion, you'd be laughed out of the room. Pac would be too small, the welterweights too big, too good, etc. And in that hypothetical world, they'd be right. You would be crazy to even suggest it. You'd say that Pac is better off at 135 and that viewed from that angle, the most logical course.

See my point?

That is why I prefer resume, achievement, etc. rather than H2H. The only time I used H2H to rank someone is to rank 2 or 3 guys who actually fought each other, and are near in rank. That is why Liston would always rank higher to me than Patterson, or that Ali would always be higher than Foreman, etc. However, it is only one of the many variables to consider in ranking fighters. You must consider their overall body of work, their achievements, etc.

That is why Tyson always ranks higher than Douglas, Barrera higher than Junior Jones, Baer higher than Braddock, Wlad higher than Sanders, Byrd higher than Ikeabuchi.

 

I agree that in 1990 he wasn't at his peak. He wasn't the same fighter he was in 1988.

But he was still in his prime. Because prime does not equal peak. To me, Tyson's prime is 1986-1991, and his peak is 1988. Fair enough?

 

No.

 

You can argue endless ways because there was so much difference between the three careers. It comes back mostly to personal interpretations and values of elements such as longevity, period of dominance, losses, consistency, H2H vs career stage, etc etc. Tyson burnt brighter than all but over a very short period then was up and down or ordinary. Tyson lost every fight to the other two but was not at his best. Lewis won all (or should have) but couldn't get them in the ring peak. Holyfield was competitive over a long span, but inconsistent. Lewis had two shock losses but avenged them. It goes on forever.

My personal choices (there is but a bee's dick between Holy and Tyson)

1. Lewis
2. Tyson
3. Holyfield

 

1. Klitschko
2. Klitschko
3. Lewis

The Klitschkos would dominate any era.

 

Depends what criteria is used to determine greatness.

Tyson transcended the sport, which is something none of the others did. He transcended it by fighting in spectacular fashion and knocking out solid champions and contenders with mostly contemptuous ease.
He was a total breath of fresh air...the gladitorial image, the explosiveness, the knockouts...these were qualities nobody since a prime Dempsey had. He had a certain something...a stark, primal brutality that appealed to people.

For a teenage fight fan (which I was at his peak) he was just a wet dream. (I mean that in the most manly way possible.) It was like he was every great heavyweight rolled into one.
He commanded the biggest purses, was by far the biggest draw in the sport, the richest sportsman in the world at one time, and nobody could make as much money by fighting anyone else. He was The Man, point blank.

He was also the P4P #1 fighter in the sport for two years running, which is never mentioned today, and that's something no heavyweight since has managed to achieve.

Unfortunately, that lovely wet dream started to crumble slowly but surely, to the point where it became a nightmare.
Tyson was like an ice cold beer...great for the first couple of swigs, but if left to get warm and age a little, it tastes like crap.

The criticisms against him are mostly valid and fair. He lost fights where he was a huge favourite, and no matter what the reasons are, he lost them. I don''t question his heart, but he didn't have a Frazier or Marciano type of heart...he didn't manage to turn a fight around where he was losing. (Came close, but no cigar.)
He was most effective in the early to mid rounds...not quite the same force in the championship rounds. All fair and valid criticisms.

If Tyson was like a cold beer, Lennox was, as he said, more like fine wine. He had an almost perfect career. Gold medal winner, undisputed heavyweight champion, and retired wealthy and with faculties intact. Nobody can ask for more.

Truthfully, for a long time I wasn't convinced by Lewis. He was talented, but I always figured that in a tough fight, this big Brit would fold like a house of cards. Well, I was wrong.
He gritted it out against the tough Mercer and Klitschko, showing his guts and heart.
He destroyed the dangerous Razor Ruddock in two explosive rounds, a fight I personally consider still his best, taking all factors into consideration. He avenged the Rahman loss in great style.
He beat all the big names in the divison at one point or another, even if the timing of some of these fights was beneficial to him. He made Bowe chuck the belt away rather than face him.
In short, he was a guy nobody really wanted to fight, unless they had no choice.

I feel that he could be hesitant, even boring, at times. He fought down to some of his opponent's levels...Lewis could look fairly ordinary sometimes. His personality was rather bland and unremarkable. (At least, that was the face he chose to show us...maybe he's a really interesting guy...I dont know.)
He lost twice, by KO, in the prime of his career, to two unfancied fighters. The fact that he avenged them doesn't excuse the fact that they happened in the first place.

Holy was a guy that went unappreciated for a large part of his career. We always knew he had class, but nobody seemed all that eager to give him his due until after he lost to Bowe, where he showed heart and grit in spades.

Unbeatable at cruiser, he was seen as something of a lightweight as heavyweight champion...especially as he was taken the distance twice by grandfathers and won the title from a cearly disinterested Douglas. He showed tremendous heart and resolve in finally getting rid of the unexpectedly stubborn Bert Cooper, but the fight in reality should should have been a non-event.

Still, he proved his worth going against the bigger, stronger Bowe, and although in error fighting Bowe's fight, he walked away from the fight with all the praise he never got as champ.
Holyfield not only had great intangibles. He had a cement-like chin, had great balance and could box or brawl. Underrated puncher...punch for punch many have hit harder, but Holy threw them with great leverage and in bunches...something was going to land, and he was a really good counter-puncher as well.
Great finisher as well.
Fitness was never usually a problem except when he was sick, and nobody else in this list could fight hard for 12 rounds like he could.

The Tyson fight, the fight which I personally believe had always been Evander's Everest, showcased exactly what the man was made of. Tyson was still a force, the speed and power, the ferocity was still there. He was still a mean mutha.
Holyfield took his best shots and spat out his own. He didn't just beat Mike, he owned Mike.

These are my three candidates. I could quite easily pick any three, although my personal choice would be Mike. (Yeah, I'm a bit biased.)

The other three?

Bowe...didn't do enough. Not even close. He beat Holy twice (Personally, I thought he won all three fights.) but he looked good because Holy fought Bowe's fight the first time and was sick in the third fight.
His reign was brief and not particularly remarkable, the Holyfield win aside.
That said, he was a damn fine offensive fighter, the most fluid of the really big guys, and the only one of the really big men who knew how to fight inside. Lovely fighter to watch when on song.
But throwing a belt in the can rather than face your arch rival is not something that a great fighter does. He was also pretty hittable.

Vitali...a bit thin in terms of name opponents, but his fight against Lewis showcased his inner strength and resolve. His awkwardly effective style and toughness makes me think he'd be very effective aganst a lot of very good heavies in history.

Wlad...I've probably been too harsh on him lately, but he frustrates me no end. Here is a guy with great size, strength and power, yet he fights like a sissy. Sorry, but he often does. It's frustrating to watch.
I know why...we all do...but for instance Tommy Hearns also had a questionable chin, but he never changed his entire style to compensate for a weakness. I also hate how he desperately hangs onto a smaller guy when caught by anything remotely solid.

But I have to give him credit as well. He has a lovely jab, hooks off it very well, has good overall technique and had good ring generalship.
He has reinvented his career after three disasterous losses. If he had his brother's chin, he would be a monstrous heavyweight and a top five all-time lock.

As it stands...no. Those losses will forever niggle at me. I think the right type of style and opponent would destroy him quite quickly and easily. The flaws are still there.

A fighter's worth is not only measured in terms of longevity, record and all that, but marketability and bankability as well. Wlad's big in Europe, but in the States, which remains the mecca of the sport, he's a no-show.

 

On Wlad

"Tommy Hearns also had a questionable chin, but he never changed his entire style to compensate for a weakness."

You are criticizing the wrong man.

"markablitiy"

First, as you said, he might be more popular in Europe than many another.

Secondly, I can't agree that box office determines greatness. Jack Johnson would probably have had trouble getting his family to buy tickets if it weren't that race made him a "villain" and caused lots of people to buy tickets in the hope a white man would beat him.