Nineties heavyweights

Tua Vs Ike was better than all the fights you listed IMO. I don't know if it's just me but having watched TTIM a few times I've found it to be incredibly overrated.

 

You forgot Lyle-Shavers and Ali-Spinks I!

They are two of the best heavy fights I've seen.

 

Some of my fav fights:

Tyson-Ruddock I
Holyfield-Bowe I
Holyfield-Tyson I
Tua-Ibeabuchi
Tua-Ruiz
Lewis-Golota
Lewis-Briggs

 

Whats your name? Would love to see your record.

To the topic the 90's I tend to break into two eras. The second half of the 80's kind of coincides with the first half of the 90's. The second half of the 90's was a real transition in style size and ability in my opinion and a real trend downward in opposition which left Lennox Lewis with a bunch of poor opposition that he could dominate.

 

Well they are pretty much my thoughts exactly apart from 2 fights. Unless Frazier changed his style against old Foreman then I think we could be open to an upset, and I also think Old Foreman would bang Norton early again, I've expressed my views on Norton that he had a good chin but not an ATG one. Even though Foreman was 40+ he still had incredible power and it would only be a matter of time before he caught Ken. It could follow a similar pattern to the moorer fight.

 

The great 70's heavyweight era really ended in 1975. To be honest, 75-79 ranks pretty high on a "shittiest five years of heavyweights" list. What was the highlight - Ali losing to Neon Leon and then regaining it? Holmes-Norton is the one of the few good scraps of that period. Frazier was done. Foreman was done. Ali was holding the title hostage. We all have an emotional connection to Ali and his most recognizable era, but most of his 70's fights after the Manilla are stinkers.

The 90's was great, opening with Douglas destroying Tyson from head to toe, and ended with a spectacular knockout of Byrd by Ibeabuchi. In between you have the Bowe-Holyfield trilogy (better than Frazier-Ali because all 3 were excellent; no one watches Ali-Frazier II), Tyson-Ruddock, Lewis vs Briggs, Holyfield bashing Tyson, Bowe-Golota, Foreman making the most memorable comeback in boxing and perhaps sport history, ending with the Klitschko's rising up the rankings.

If it comes down to a single fight including buildup, then nothing is better than Ali-Frazier I. But as a whole, the 90's had more consistent depth than the 70's.

 

I think an old Foreman could still probably get to Norton, and I think his IQ would let him beat Shavers. He might even do better against Young than the younger version of himself would, due to taking a more balanced approach and not being screwy in the head.

The older version of Holmes would quite certainly beat guys like Quarry, Bugner, possibly Shavers, and would at the leats give a decent accounting of himself against some others like Young, if not win outright.

 

Old holmes fought very close with mccall but that was the some of his success.

Old foreman knocked out moorer but it's not like he's one of the elite of the 90's.

I wouldn't bet against them having similar success in the 70's.

 

It might not have had the glamour of the 70's but the 90's was the greatest ever HW era imo.

The top 4, Bowe, Holyfield, Lewis & Tyson might not quite match up to Ali, Foreman, Frazier & Norton, but the depth was fantastic.

Ruddock, Mercer, Morrison, Moorer, old Foreman, old Holmes, Tua, Ibeabuchi, Byrd, Rahman, McCall, Cooper, Golata, Briggs etc... & so many great fights.

 

Well, old Holmes also completely dominated Mercer, and like Foreman Holmes put in a quite respectable showing against Holyfield, who I think most of us could agree is a top 10 to, at worst, top 15 heavyweight all time.

But nonetheless there's an excellent point there, they weren't really beating the elite of the era, they beat kinda iffy and flawed contenders or champions who were in the right place at the right time, and sometimes they lost to iffy contenders or struggled against them, the way that Foreman needed every point to scrape by Alex Stewart and got outboxed by Tommy Morrison, of all people.

For all that we remember the 70s as Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Holmes, it also had any number of years where the top 10 contenders included Quarry, Mac Foster, Old Patterson, Jose Luis Garcia, Joe Bugner, Old Terrell, a post-Frazier Jimmy Ellis, Chuck Wepner, (who was in the Ring's top 10 in the March 74 issue and #8 the following year) etc.

I mean, how many of those guys would the old versions of Foreman and Holmes be too strong or too smart for? I think they could take care of a fair number of them, and likely put on at least respectable showings with quite a few.

 

I agree that 1975-1979 was weak..

But I don't know if I agree with your comment that I just quoted. From 1975 to the time he lost the crown in 1978, Ali defended his title 10 times, and at points was even defending as many as four times annually. Some of those opponents included Joe Frazier, Earnie Shavers, Jimmy Young, Ken Norton, Ron Lyle, and Joe Bugner. I wouldn't exactly call that " holding the title hostage." There are some who call some of those wins "gifts", but that's a different argument entirely. And yes, there were some lesser challengers like Evangelista, Coopman, etc, but when you're defending a title that often and against the caliber of men he was facing, its inevitable that some of your defenses are going to be weak.. Jack Dempsey can be accused of holding the title hostage... Muhammad Ali can't.

 

So, so true. Well stated. A guy fighting top ranked fighters regularly is doing his job as champion.

 

You're right. But he was involved in a lot of dodgy decisions (Young, Norton II, Shavers), bull**** fights (Wepner, Coopman, etc). I guess what I meant is that he was clearly declining and only a shadow of what he used to be. At that point you're sort of waiting for the next great thing to step up, beat him, and make you excited about the future. Which then turned out to be Neon Leon. :-(