So, What Greats Would Crush The Most...

I can see Tyson, Foreman and maybe Liston and Dempsey crushing some ATG:s while being dominated by others. Marciano and Frazier would always giving it a good go, but being outgunned on occasion.

Louis would always be very dangerous, but I see him having a tough time against Ali, Lewis and possibly Holmes (the reverse is of course also very true). Tyson could very well steamroll him early, but that would of course be a possibility for anyone facing Tyson.

Lewis, Ali and Holmes are the ones I see giving the most even perfomances (Louis aren't far behind, though), because of their versatility. They would of course not win every fight, but probably wouldn't be crushed either.

 

That, and the way he beat Hopkins was mighty impressive. Does make you think how he'd do against other middleweights. I think someone like Hagler won't do; it'd take a Monzon to beat him, and that's saying something.

 

Tyson beat a past prime Holmes and a scared former lhw as his "ATG" wins.

Why are you always talking down wins of fighters? Holy put on a great afford and came of two wins over Tyson and Tyson himself turned back the time for the first round against Lewis and showed that he was past it but not shot.

 

As much as I agree with you, I just want to mention that you should take the state the opposite fighter was into account.

 

I wasn't making a case for top wins, the thread is about ability to dominate vs ATG's, I was showing how your case didn't hold more merit than Suzie's, though you said so in your post.

Holyfield fought well in the rematch vs Lewis, good win. He was still not in his prime, and was a few years removed from the Tyson wins. As for Tyson, he may have turned the clock back and shown that he wasn't shot for a round, but certainly not the rest of the fight.

 

Well, that Tyson didn´t hold on to the form of the first round has more to do with Lewis´ uppercuts than anything else imo.

And yes, even wins against great fighters who are past his prime tell us more than wins over some contenders.

 

roy jones would make other atg's look average with his style and speed

 

Zarate at bantamweight

 

116-112 on all judges cards.

 

Doubt it, he never proved he could with the exception of Toney who seemingly wasn´t at his best. I doubt he could make guys like Charles, Langford, Monzon and so on look average.

 

I gave Hopkins 3 rounds, and those rounds he won rather because Jones was taking a rest thanbecause he was actually in control or gaining ground. It was an easy win by Jones, regardless of the judges' scorecards, which have shown to be off the mark more often than not.

Toney was 45-0 and on the finest winning streak of his career, whereas Jones had 26 fights. I don't look much in weight drain excuses; it was his own fault and when he wasn't he was fat.

Hopkins had 22 victories under his belt and at age 28, he was at his physical peak. If he was green, then Jones was even more green because he had fewer fights at this point.

Hopkins did go on to improve somewhat, but at the same time it should be noted that

a) Jones was better at 168
b) His aggressive, pressure oriented style in 1993 was better suited to beat Jones, than the patient, counter punching style that he displayed at his peak, around 2000. Just ask Toney how far a defensively oriented style gets you against a superhuman speedy guy like Jones.

 

Well, I had it 8-4 in Jones favour but yeah he won clearly.

Yes Toney was p4p #2 and 45-0 but he also was looking like he wouldn´t even get into the ring. Jones cought him at the right time. A Toney who would be at his best would still lose but not that way.

I never said Hopkins was green but he wasn´t as experienced at the top level as Jones - compare their amatuer career - and while Jones only improved slightly since then, Hopkins improved a great amount - you could say he only did because he lost to Jones, Hopkins himself said that he learned very much from this loss. Saying that Hopkins did improve somewhat is a massive understatement but funny
Hopkins never fought at 168 so yeah he was better there, what´s your point? Or do you say Jones at 168 was better than Hopkins at 160? Don´t see it. More flashy and impressive yes but he didn´t do any better.
Nah, I disagree. Firstly, Hopkins prime was from 1997 till 2002 and he wasn´t fighting as a counterpuncher exclusivly at the time, remember the Johnson fight? And secondly, Hopkins became a far better ring general than Toney or Jones ever was - not like in Jones-Hopkins I where Jones was the better general. Also my reasoning about the Jones-Toney fight kicks in here. Jones beat the defensive style of Toney quite impressivly but Toney wasn´t at his best, Toney at his best would win 4 rounds perhaps even 5. Hopkins would imo do even better - 50/50 fight.

 

Roberto Duran is my pick here.

I think a fight with Whitaker is about 50/50, probably a slight edge to Duran in 15 rounds.

Other than that, I see Duran beating every other lightweight in history, and I've never really had any doubts about it. He doesn't neccessarily "crush" them, but he defeats them nonetheless.