Is this a bad list? What would you change?

Do you truly believe that?

 

Well, my original point : Lewis lost to Rahman. Holyfield beat Cooper.
There's no comparison.
Sure, we can make excuses for both. But frankly, Holyfield has far less need for the excuses.

 

If it's true, then Rahman was just as unlucky to lose to Lewis, as Lewis was to lose to Rahman. They both actually lost when they got caught with that final punch.

 

Let's just end it.

Holyfield > Tyson > Lennox

 

I don't disagree.
But with Holyfield-Cooper, I think there are relevant circumstances that explain how Holyfield had trouble with him, and yet he still didn't lose.
I mean, there are reasons and explanations for everything, still we don't excuse the blemishes on fighter's records. And any sort of win over a determined challenger isn't really on a par to losing by one-punch KO.
That's all I'd say.
It seems Lewis's loss gets more explanation, or excuses, than a lot of others.

 

I agree.
I have the same order. :good

 

1.Tyson
2. Holyfield.













3. Lewis

 

delete

 

Holyfield should be over Liston and Tyson imo

 

All lists are subjective, and based upon each list makers biases...and I believe we all have them to a certain degree...

Your list looks solid...granted I would alter a few, but I am sure many would do the same to mine:

But here is my crack:

1. Joe Louis

This content is protected

2. Muhammad Ali

This content is protected

This content is protected

3. Larry Holmes

This content is protected

4. Jack Johnson

This content is protected

5. Lennox Lewis

This content is protected

This content is protected

6. George Foreman

This content is protected

7. Mike Tyson

This content is protected

8. Sonny Liston

This content is protected

This content is protected

9. Evander Holyfield

This content is protected

10. Rocky Marciano

This content is protected

This content is protected

11. Jack Dempsey

This content is protected

12. Joe Frazier

This content is protected

 

To me it looks like a good list, but i feel Marciano is up there in the top half definatley.

Mine looks like this

1) Ali
2) Louis

3) Rocky Marciano
4) Lennox Lewis
5) Larry Holmes

6) George Foreman
7) Mike Tyson

8) Joe Frazier
9) Jack Johnson
10) Evander Holyfield

 

i agree with the posters who rate holyfield above lewis. it seems that the point we're at in history is biased towards lewis - holyfield is getting a lot of bad press for sticking around, while lewis had a near-perfect end to his career (the opponent, result and timing). there is no doubt that lewis has a very neat record, whereas holyfield's resume is a total mess, but for me that's not important.

holyfield beat bowe, tyson twice, old foreman and old holmes. i mention the latter two as good wins because, although far from prime, they were still contenders, and all time greats-turned-contenders are no ordinary contenders, they always have one good fight left in them (and it's generally down to circumstances whether the fighter is given the opportunity to demonstrate this - foreman did so). lewis' biggest names are vitali, holyfield and tyson. for me, bowe and vitali are comparable, although bowe was greater. holyfield's wins over tyson are greater than lewis' over the same man. and holyfield's wins over past-it foreman and holmes were greater than lewis' win(s) over past-it holyfield. although this last comparison is highly debateable!

i'd also like to point out that people are giving lewis credit for avenging his losses, but holyfield's loss to moorer seems to be a mark against him? moorer is a greater fighter than either of the opponents lewis lost to, and holyfield avenged that loss. holyfield also avenged the bowe loss.

i'm not sure exactly, but i think holyfield was a similar age to lewis (or at least at a similar point in his career curve to where lewis was in '03) before the ruiz triology. i consider holyfield's fights against lewis as his last hurrah. his fights in the '00s should not count against his legacy. we don't mind if fighters from the old days accumulated bad losses at the end of their careers, and why should we? they had their reasons for fighting on. holyfield was not as fortunate (or as wise?) as lewis, and so had to continue fighting to this day.

up until the first ruiz fight, holyfield had lost four times, but had beaten every man he'd been the ring with bar lewis. lewis had lost twice, and had beaten everyone. only, holyfield lost to people who were more than 'just punchers'.

they have both been lineal champion twice. but for me, holyfield lost the belt in a more justifable manner, and reclaimed it in a more impressive manner. holyfield lost his crown, but he was in there mixing it with the best. it also seems to me that lewis' career was very carefully planned, in a way that holyfield's wasn't. this may not matter to some, and that's fair enough, but for me, taking on all comers is the mark of a true champion. this is where we get seriously subjective, though!

also, lewis' title reign (as undisputed champion) was solid, but not spectacular. holyfield's was more fragmented, but certainly spectacular! on another note, lewis' second tier wins like tua and golota do not match up to holyfield's over mercer and moorer (some would claim moorer is a first tier win).

i don't care about relative factors by the way. it does not count against lewis that he was generally bigger than his opponents, he was a heavyweight, and he did the best with the attributes he had. so did holyfield. there are advantages and disadvantages to the builds of both men - for another thread.

 

Wlad gets no dap because unlike Holmes, Wlad had few blemishes on the way up which served as a setback.

Holmes has 20 title defenses and his competition is better.

Thing about Wlad is that he's not undisputed. He has a brother to thank for that. Every Heavyweight champion on OP's post was at one time or another the undisputed Heavyweight champion sharing the crown with nobody. Wlad has shared it with Vitaly and there is confusion, as opposed to closure.

Vitaly has a weak resume and can't really be considered a top 15 fighter borderline top 20. His credentials are great but his win's really don't add up. His 4 year hiatus is what really killed him.

Wlad for me is creeping into top 15 territory. But lets get one thing clear;

Wladimir Klitschko is no Larry Holmes..