Who was the best Heavyweight of the 90s?

Couple things.

Lewis was actually 29-1-1 in the 1990s and Bowe was 27-1 (1 no contest) in the 90s (if you deduct their pro fights in the 1980s.)

And Bowe dominating the first half of the decade is a bit of an overstatement. He was champ for all of one year. (And, later, for a handful of months as WBO champ.)

And, regarding Golota's fouls, foul play was involved in a number of Bowe's "wins."

Bowe fouled Pierre Coetzer repeatedly with low blows and got a TKO as a result of another low blow.

He fouled Buster Mathis Jr,, punching him while he was clearly down. yet skated by with a No Contest instead of a DQ loss.

Of course, the Elijah Tillery first fight, where Bowe's manager climbed up on the ring apron, grabbed Bowe's opponent and pulled him over the top rope and into the audience. Newman could've paralyzed the guy. And Bowe somehow got a DQ WIN after that.

That doesn't count Bowe commiting a felony against Larry Donald, punching him twice in the face at the last press conference, yet the fight went on as scheduled.

Granted, Bowe was better than Coetzer, Mathis, Donald and Tillery, so people give him a pass. But Golota was clearly better in both Bowe fights, and people don't give him a pass.

I always enjoyed watching Bowe fight. His fights with Holyfield and Golota are classics in their own ways.

I don't think he was particularly dominant in the decade.

It is tricky.

I could see why someone would rate Bowe over Evander because he beat him, even though Evander was a more successful champ in that decade. But I don't see how Bowe would get the nod over Lewis, too. He wasn't more successful than Lewis.

It's like Bowe was better head-to-head against Evander but the rest of his comp isn't as good as the others and he had a really short reign, and Evander had more successful reigns than Bowe and Lewis (yet lost to Bowe twice and Lewis once), but Lewis was more successful than Bowe (and Lewis beat Holyfield, too) but he may have the worst loss of the three.

 

No he wasn't, Bowe never drew with anybody.

 

Greatest HW of the 90s has to be Holyfield. Imo, top 5 HWs of the 90s were: Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe, Tyson, Moorer. Holyfield fought them all at least twice. His record against them: 4-4-1. Holyfield also beat Mercer, Foreman, Douglas, and Holmes. That's a deep resume.

Holyfield fought great HWs while they were in their prime (5 fights against Lewis/Bowe). That's something we have to consider here. Lewis may have gone 2-0 against Holyfield but that was an old Holyfield and that's the only great HW Lewis fought in the 90s. Bowe went 2-1 against Holyfield. Now imagine Holyfield never fought Bowe and Lewis, and he only fought Tyson. His record would be 2-0 against other great HWs. Holyfield fought all kinds of styles and showed that he could compete against anyone, even when he was "washed up". Lewis (a boxer-puncher with a great jab, in his prime), Bowe (boxer-puncher & an excellent in-fighter, in his prime), Tyson (aggressive swarmer with power & speed), Moorer (southpaw with a great right jab and good hand speed, in his prime), Foreman (legendary puncher with ridiculous strength & durability, and a ramrod jab).


"Best" is debatable. If we're talking about the best version of each fighter, then I'd have to go with Bowe from Bowe-Holyfield 1 as the best HW of the 90s. That was a great performance from Bowe (against a prime, undefeated Holyfield). Bowe showed a granite chin, a great gas tank, massive heart, ability to fight on the inside and outside (against someone who could also fight in/out), he went to the body, he threw combinations, and showed great ring generalship. That version of Bowe was the most complete and most well-rounded HW of the 90s imo.

 

Holyfield, by considerable margin. And even his loss to Lennox at the very end of the decade won't change it.

Holyfild has faced by far the best competition of these 4.

He has defeated 6 lineal champions during 90s - Douglas, Foreman, Holmes, Bowe, Tyson, Moorer.
Compared to Lennox's two - Holyfield himself and Briggs (who should've lost to Foreman and his lineal claim is controversial).

Holyfield was an undispated HW champion twice during that period, overall for 2.5 years, while Lennox held that title only for a few months in 90s (if we take from March 99).

Holyfield's resume of wins in 90s was clearly better than Lennox's, like him or not. That's a fact.

 

Very difficult to accept Briggs as lineal champ. I completely agree. And Lennox might've been more dominant but Holyfield has the far better resume. Beating 6 lineal champs in a decade has got to be a record of some sort.

 

I'm a big fan of Holyfield's but your post is an exercise in overstatement... ...Lewis beat Holyfield twice; the first time by a wide margin, at a canter (despite a registered draw, which is a universally acknowledged robbery) and comfortably so, at a trot, in their second meeting.

People will often place great emphasis on Holyfield not being in his Prime, at this time - too much, I think - with little to no mention that Lewis was not in his prime either. Implying that Lewis' wins over Holyfield don't count, indicates a rather skewed view, in my opinion.

To put this into perspective... ...Head-to-Head and prime-for-prime, I'd wager on Lewis to beat Holyfield nine times out of ten.

Douglas, Bowe and Moorer were the only opponents Holyfield fought, who were lineal champions at the time Holyfield faced and beat them. Douglas was a one-hit wonder and by no means a high-ranking heavy for the period (or indeed the previous decade), despite his extraordinary victory over Tyson. Both Bowe and Moorer, meanwhile, were only considered lineal champs by virtue of the fact that they'd beaten and taken that honor from Holyfield, in the first place.

Tyson, Holmes and Foreman?? Respectively, six, seven and seventeen years removed from their lineal reigns, by the time Holyfield fought them and, even though Foreman would go on to become lineal champ, three or four years after losing to Holyfield, neither Tyson nor Holmes would replicate the same.

One can add to this, that it was difficult for Lewis to get match-ups for the lineal championship, when he had been continually avoided by the other big three of the period. The fact is that, when they did finally meet, Lewis dealt with Holyfield handily.

Incorrect - Holyfield was undisputed for a single period - from October 25, 1990 to November 13, 1992.

The titles became splintered again, as soon as Bowe decided to dump the WBC belt, rather than face Lewis, that same year.

By the end of 1995, and for three years running after that, Lewis remained the Ring Mag's Number-2 Ranked Heavyweight and it took Holyfield until the next year to finally face him and for Lewis to become the Undisputed Heavyweight Champion.

In the '90s, Holyfield's ledger relies on the Bowe trilogy - which he lost - and the Tyson double, for which he deserves much credit. Personally, I don't think a split pair with Moorer adds a whole lot to Holyfield's ledger for the '90s - But, again, he does deserve recognition for having evened the score. I do think, however, that both Bowe and Lewis would have hammered Moorer into the the canvas, with little trouble.

You might also not remember that, prior to his series with Bowe and Tyson, Holyfield's undisputed tenure was considered by some as a bit of joke. Matching George Foreman and Larry Holmes didn't help; especially, since those fights earned the old-timers more kudos in defeat than Holyfield could garner as the winner.

Lewis, on the other hand; not being given any serious opportunity to fight Bowe, Holyfield or Tyson, had to be content with taking on dangerous punchers like Ruddock, Tucker, Bruno, Morrison and Briggs. So, I think it's debatable, as to whether Holyfield's '90s Heavyweight resume is that much better than that of Lewis and, as previously stated, discounting Lewis' wins over Holyfield is an extreme approach to tipping the scales in Holyfield's favor.


I think the best Heavyweight of the '90s is a close run thing between Holyfield and Lewis and is by no means one or the other of them being so by a "considerable margin".

 

Maybe a comparison of common opponents can suffice? In 1995 I thought Holyfield nicked a win over Mercer with the 9th round knockdown securing it. A year later an out of shape Mercer arguably beat Lewis at MSG.

*(I also felt Witherspoon beat Mercer in their bout).

 

[/QUOTE]

You may be a big Holy fan but you're clearly a bigger fan of Lennox, which is fine by the way.

I disagree with your opinion.

Tyson, Bowe, Douglas, Moorer, Foreman (former andFUTURE HW lineal champion, dont forget that), Holmes (fresh off Mercer win), Mercer himself is better resume IMO than Holyfield, Ruddock, Tucker, Bruno, Mercer, Morrison, Golota.

And no, Lennox was not past his best it 1999, he looked like absolute beast in 1999, 2000 and in the Rahman rematch, his only 'bad' fight during that timeframe was Rahman 1, which he took lightly. He looked clearly better and more complete fighter than the one who struggled with Bruno and got KO'd by McCall, didn't he?

 

At the time I was easily as bigger fan of Holyfield, as I was of Lewis. However, years later, Lewis seems to take a good deal more negative criticism, in retrospect.


Despite Lewis getting better as a boxer over time, I don't consider him being at his physical peak when he faced Holyfield (although, both his physical and mental preparation was probably about as finely tuned as it could have been for Holyfield I). Technical ability and physical/mental conditioning, I treat as separate aspects of a fighter.

On your comment re Lewis/Bruno, one might say with some confidence, that they did not think of Lewis as the finished article, technically, by that time - but, let's not forget that Lewis ended that fight, more or less in direct response to Bruno - a huge puncher - landing his best shot of the night. Lewis showed physical resilience, instinct and power that night - something, I believe, borne out of his natural physical prowess, hunger and natural ability.

I also take into consideration that Lewis' performances seemed to be driven very much by his wide-ranging states of mind. A truly motivated Lewis was indeed a beast, who got in shape and got the job done, whereas Lewis could drift off on opponents he didn't perceive as a challenge. Rahman I & II is a fine example of this disparity, between the two ends of the scale, on which Lewis could operate.

We'll have to agree to disagree on who has the better resume for the period - and, it is a matter of opinion.

I tend to lean towards the thinking that cleaning out the division goes a lot further than continued rematching between the same pool of boxers, whether or not it includes the passing of the lineal championship back and forth is of no consequence, to my mind. This was the case for Holyfield and the use of the term "lineal champion" as a means of attempting to somehow boost his rating is, in actuality, somewhat insubstantial.

Beating a bunch of former champions is not unheard of in the multi-belt eras of boxing, is it?


Ultimately, Bowe dines out on his two wins over Holyfield more than anything else, because he has little to nothing else to dine out on. His surviving Golota, twice by DQ does not engender much in the way of awe.

Holyfield gains Kudos for being able to have regained the title from Bowe - but it's that and his two fights a with Tyson which provide his status for the period the boost.

Post-prison Tyson was installed in the rankings and, despite his carefully guided path towards a title, never made an impact on the top tier heavyweights of the '90s.


Lewis was avoided continually, throughout the period and beat every man he ever faced. During the decade, his one blip was against McCall; a fight in which Lewis should have, in my opinion, been given the chance to continue. The only other opponent to get close to beating him was Ray Mercer. No one else could make a dent, including Holyfield.

In an era as rich in dangerous opponents as the '90s, I find that to be quite extraordinary. So, Lewis is a serious consideration for the top spot for the decade, in my view, along with Holyfield. However, I select Lewis for the obvious reason.

 

Bowe imo is one of the greatest tragedies of boxing. The man who beat Holyfield was the best heavyweight of the 90s, and imo would have beat any other heavyweight (including a ko over Steward-era Lewis and any version of Iron Mike). He was so great at the time he was ready to fight Lewis right after the fight (and let's not forget how fresh he looked at the end of the 12th round....WOW). But that was just one night (cue Phil Collins). He just didn't seem to care enough after he won the title...I get the feeling he was fighting more for other people than himself after winning the title.

That said, his wins over both Hide and Jorge cannot be discounted. Yeah, Hide was small for a heavyweight, but he knocked out big guys before. He had a terrific combination of speed and power...had he been in his prime in the late 70s, early 80s he might have been (perhaps WBA) champ for a good while. Rodriquez was no joke at the time Bowe fought him and the latter brutalized him severely. That might have been the last flash of the great fighter Bowe could have been (and even then he showed his wear).

So, yeah, as far as potential goes, Bowe was the best fighter of the 90s, and I count his first victory over Holy as the best performance by any fighter in that decade. Watch his jab, monstrous (near-Foreman level) uppercut, his heart when taking punches, his determination.

That said, he was done really early; Golota exposed him (even with Superman's trainer Futch backing him). I'd be pretty astonished if anyone thought he even came close to winning either of those fights. He lost, abysmally, to a fighter who (judging by his not-too-much-later fights) kind of sucked.

Holy was the best fighter of the 90s, Lewis' failure to obtain a ko after Holy had already been kicked the yee-haw out of several years before counts Lewis out of the top two (let's not forget, Holy and Bowe never lost a fight the way Lewis lost to McCall, folks). Lewis became the Fighter of this Century after the Holy fights, he proved himself beyond any doubt as full of heart, courage, a terrific jab, and thanks to Steward a great sense of generalship.

Just my humble opinion.

 

Fair enough, it's your opinion and of course, Lennox had some fine wins during 90s.
As for prime Lennox, I consider him the best between 1997 and 2001 (exc. Rahman 1).

He was quicker in the early 90s, but that's it. Lennox has improved his jab and balance significantly under Steward, he clinched better too. He was more skilled offensively and defensively in the late 90s while being still quick enough. He was just better boxer in that part of his career.

 

It could be argued that, though Lewis might have been faster in the 90s, he was a mostly one-armed fighter. Most everything in his style (pre-Steward) was built around landing that minor-league Shavers right hand (and that is STILL a compliment to Lennox, btw. Even minor-league Earnie is NO JOKE!).

 

To me the answer is Holy as well. The man was just fantastic. I rate him only beneath Ali, Louis, and Holmes (and just above Lewis) as ATG.

In his prime, Holy had this seemingly original, darting in-and-out style that I'm not sure existed before him. He wasn't exactly a great puncher (even Holmes had a more powerful right hand), but he had some seriously dangerous combinations.

Even back in Ali and Larry's day, Evander would have conducted himself quite well (both would have needed extra time to figure him out, especially Larry who hated unorthodox fighters). And I don't think either would have stopped him. UDs for both those old champs, but it would have been a FIGHT!!!

 

Correctly myself. Lewis's right hand was really getting to Bowe in the Olympic Gold medal match, which Lewis won.

Bowe was at his best early. Lewis improved far more as a professional.

 

I agree with the consensus. Its Bowe by a good margin.