The Rings 50 greatest Heavies.

Also, how about Bruno and Mercer replacing Dokes and M. Spinks(another definite for the LHW list...probably top 5)?

 

What about it do you disagree with? Moorer(and Spinks) belongs on the LHW list. He beat a war weary Holyfield then promptly lost his strap to a 90 year old. He then proceeded to get vaporized by The Tuanator. Weaver is a better choice but either Bonavena or Chuvalo deserves to be there if Dokes, Gibbons, Thomas and Weaver are there.

 

Because at heavyweight I would call Moorer a clearly different class above Chuvalo and Bonavena. What did Bonavena and Chuvalo accomplish that puts them above Moorer? They had better chins, obviously...but...what did they actually do that made them elite heavyweights compared to Moorer? Moorer was a three-time titlist and a one-time linear champion. And I'd take a "war weary" Holyfield over any of the versions of name fighters Chuvalo or Bonavena actually defeated that I can think of, off hand (I might change my mind if I'm forgetting someone, which is cool). I'd also favor H2H the best HW Moorer over the best HW Chuvalo and Bonavena, even though they both had a fair enough shot at stopping him. I mean, you can pick the few Moorer losses and talk about them, but Jesus, look at the Bonavena and Chuvalo losses that aren't to great heavyweights.

 

Bonavena has wins over Peralta and Chuvalo... and what most people believe was a victory against Frazier in their first fight. These accomplishments alone put him on the list above Moorer. He also gave Ali everything he could handle and beat Martin and Mildenberger.

I admit that an argument for Chuvalo is a bit more difficult but he does have a win over a prime Quarry, which is a better victory than anything on Moorer's resume.

 

Most people? ...Really? Haven't really even seen anyone make a fuss over it.

Anyway, Peralta ... very good fighter. Wouldn't put him over Moorer for that though, personally. I can't think of one distinguishing heavyweight victory for Peralta at the moment that would make him such a valuable scalp. Bonavena does have a win over Chuvalo...but look how many unremarkable fighters also have a win over Chuvalo. This is far from a distinguishing win for a top 50 spot above Moorer, imo.

And giving Ali a good fight...it's a long list of guys who aren't all that good giving a tough one to a great fighter. Wepner was not much in my book but he gave Ali a tough one too. Regardless, it's still not a win, as the Frazier fight wasn't. Maybe we could give Moorer points for giving Foreman all he could handle before getting stopped too? :conf A prime and inconsistent Quarry beats a "war weary" Holyfield or an excellent former cruiserweight (heavyweight of the Chuvalo era) champion in Jirov (Zhirov) maybe, but I don't agree. I feel comfortable having Moorer over either. Hard for me to see it the other way but I respect your opinion.

 

Considering Tyson's Prime supposedly lasted 2 years and he got stopped by James Douglas when he was still in his physical prime (don't give a **** about his mental state) I think he is about right where he is. He beat an old Holmes and a scared to death LHW champ in Spinks which are his 2 best wins... other than that who did he beat? I love watching Mike fight... great highlight reel.... does he have a cv that puts him in the top 10 ATG list.... NO

 

Ruddock - Went some solid rounds with Tyson but was never really going to win the fight. He was a good contender maybe the 4th or 5th best contender.
Morrison - Shot to fame because of a street fight with Rocky Balboa, but he was never more than a prospect and their was always a big question mark over him, with him being more potential than anything else. Was never really a serious challenger for the title (be honest does anyone think he would compete well with Prime Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe or Lewis, even now). He was just a contender, and not really even one of the better ones.
Golota - Good contender after the Bowe fights, but even still, was probably the 4th best rated contender, at best. He certainly wasnt Bowe, Lewis, Holyfield or Tyson, who were the big contenders.
McCall - Was known as a Tyson sparring partner, and certainly not considered much of a fighter. I dont think Lewis really got or deserved much credit at all from the rematch, since everyone could see that McCall was not in shape. I think he was probably considered a top 10 contender but certainly not an upper echelon fighter. Shannon Briggs had the lineal title, but it was taken by Foreman, who was pretty openly stated that he was not fighting the best contenders but was fighting the youngest to give them a chance and only those who would stand in front of him and not run.

Briggs was nothing more than an up and coming fighter, even though he was a lineal champion. Maybe (at best and realistically he was ranked nowhere near as high) but most would have considered his claim almost as good as Philadelphia Jack O Briens claim to the world title.

Bruno - was a top 10 fighter, but was not seen to be in the same class as the champions. He was shown up badly by Tyson and not in his class. He seemed to be in Lewis' class on this performance

Akinwande - was just a fighter. Certainly not rated anywhere near as high as the much maligned bum of the month club, but probably a fringe top 10 fighter for the time. A carl morris or Jack Renault of the 1990s maybe.

Mercer - Another good contender but not proven to be in the class of the top 4 fighters of the era. And i guess it was really a telling thing for some that had to eek out a tough one!

Absolutely ridiculous call and most of these.

Archie Moore - clearly had beaten the best fighters of his era except for Rocky Marciano, by this stage. Admittedly, like lewis he rated arguably behind Marciano, Walcott and Charles but, he had proven that he was definitely in these guys class and he had that amazing longevity.

Bowe - Bowe had beaten a world champion fighter in Holyfield who was and still is seen as a clear class above Every fighter lewis faced at that time. And Bowe beat him clearly and decisively 2 to 1. Plus he showed an amazing chin. He had to be rated higher than Lewis then.

Williams - I would have to think about this one (i am sure some of his fans can argue). But Williams pretty much seems to be accepted as the third or 4th best fighter of his era. I am not so sure whether or not i agree but this places him about even with Lewis.

NOrton - Ranked behind Foreman, Frazier and Ali but this still has him sitting level with Lewis. He was a clear No 4 for most in the strongest perceived era ever, with his Ali winning (perhaps unfairly) and his old showing against prime Holmes putting him in the same class as several all time greats. Clearly he had to rate against Lewis at the time.

Baer - No competition here, at the time. Baer was the best fighter in the world at one stage, before Joe Louis emerged. (and arguably we shouldnt even consider him because he just was that good) but Baer was a tad inconsistent, but he showed in his fights that he was an all time great and clearly one of the top 3 or 4 of his era and capable of beating world class fighters. Being the best fighter in the world (and he was considered quite clearly the best at this time) due to beating Schmelling (which would have been the equivalent of a Holyfield win for Lewis) is enough to trump this Lewis. And the Braddock loss was certainly no worse than the McCall loss.

Tunney - Tunney beat Dempsey - twice - in all but one round! This is the equivalent of Lewis beating Tyson in such a fashion which he eventually did, but hadnt done so yet. And by the way Dempsey was considered a lot better than Tyson was when Tyson fought Lewis, even though we now know that neither was at their best. And Tunney s other heavyweight fights were against top contenders who were ranked every bit as high in their time as the guys Lewis had beaten. He must be higher than Lewis.

Fitzsimmons - this isnt even close. Fitz beat the best fighter in the world, Corbett by KO. He beat the second and third best fighters Ruhlin and Sharkey by KO. He beat top contenders like Maher and Choynski by KO. The only fighter he eventually lost to was Jim Jeffries, who was considered the greatest ever for a long time and possible could still be to this day. And he gave Jeffries all he could handle even though he was really old and semi retired by this day. Fitz is without a doubt the most underated heavyweight in history. He trumps anything Lewis had done by a long way. IN fact it is not as silly as it seems to have him trumping anything Lewis has done, ever.

Jeffries - I dont think i should even dignify this one with an answer. Jeffries beat the best fighters and cleared the division until their was no one left to fight when he retired as undefeated champion of the world. Anyone who rates Lewis (at that time) over Jeffries, loses all credibility imo unless of course they are using the evolution theory, in which case if a fighter before say 1960s is included on the list they again lose all credibility.

Possibly, but any list is hard to do and will have some abnormalities. At first galnce it has some strange calls but i would need to study a lot more before being so critical. By the way, for all of those who are screaming blue murder for Lewis' ommision, if you accept that he was at best the fourth best fighter in the world at the time (as many legitimately did) then would you be screaming the same blue murder today if a list was done and it didnt include the 4th best fighter from today s era. For arguments sake say Russian Chagaev.