In what order do u have Holyfield, Lewis, and Tyson on ur ATG list?

I rate Holyfield the highest.
Wins over Bowe, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Douglas, Mercer and all the rest does it for me. His size is also a factor that I take into account and why I rank him first of the group.

 

Moron on stick, I said "probably" in my very first post. Look it up. And yes, a 31 year old Spinks was probably better than an old washed up Tyson that had already been knocked out twice by Evander, i.e., Lennox's win. And yes, Spinks was probably better than an old Holyfield that had been knock cold by Bowe in their third fight two years before he fought Lewis. The real probably is reserved for Bowe. Bowe might have beat Spinks head to head, but he certainly didn' thave a better resume than Spinks.

 

Same way old lewis crippled old tyson... prime 4 prime i have it even

i think holyfield always ha tysons number

 

If Lewis was fighting a prime Bowe, and a comparable fighter to Lewis skills, he would have probably been retired early. Remember who Lewis lost to, and almost lost to?

 

Holyfield was and still is my favorite of the group. But I find it incredibly difficult to rank him that high seeing as how he was beaten twice and even knocked out by Bowe when he was in his prime. And though Bowe had obvious talent, his resume is not all that impressive. Aside from the wins against Holy, what does he have. Yes, he technically beat Golota twice...technically. Than what? If you judge him seriously, he might not even be a top thirty heavyweight. Certainly, without the Holyfield wins he isn't even in the top 50.

 

:huh

Spinks retired because he had no right being at HW, the guy proved little at the weight.

The bold part has me confused. Holmes fought Mercer a full FOUR years before Lewis when he was only 18-0, geen as hell, and you bring this up?

Fighters struggle with styles, sometimes fight down to their opposition, but you already know this so why the hell bring it up?

 

Holyfield
Tyson
...
...
...
...
Lewis

 

Lewis
Tyson
Holyfield

Lewis beat every man he ever faced, 2 blips in his record he made up for by avenging them in style thus proving it was just a lack in preparation. Faced some very decent heavies and beat every one.

Tyson's rise to the top was immense. Shame his prime didn't last too long. The level of opposition he beat wasn't as good as Lewis' either. Still, a great great fighter.

 

Lewis, Tyson, Holyfield

 

Lewis
Holyfield
Tyson

 

That's your opinion, the facts speak for themselves. And the facts say that Spinks beat the best heavyweight in the world who was undefeated at the time, twice....which makes your opinion about proving little at that weight damn near certifiable. The Mercer question. Okay, I was off by a few years. But Mercer was clearly still in his prime and Holmes was clearly still a good fighter even after Tyson beat him. That was the point.

 

Spot on post

 

Your face does change somewhat, when you earn a living from having people give it a good twatting a few times a year.

 

EVERY boxer has that point where they just don't have it anymore. Damn near certifiable my arse.

Tell me, is Antonio Tarver a 'great' or even 'good' fighter for beating RJJ when he was practically unbeaten at 49-1-0 or did he catch RJJ at the right point just as his skills were failing?:deal

Holmes was still a good fighter and to prove this I'll give you an 18-0 green Mercer as proof, sorry that doesn't cut it. Who else of note did Holmes beat after Tyson?

 

Beating an undefeated Holmes and stopping him from reaching Marcianos incredible record of 49-0 was unimpressive. Sorry, you're far too stupid to talk to. I've got better things to do.