Ask The Editors
SecondsOut.com Logo - click here to go back to the home page
News divider Features divider Schedules & Results divider Rankings and Stats divider Community My Profile
Login

RADIO | YouTube

25 OCTOBER 2014

Where am I? Home Message Boards
 

General Boxing Chat


Topic: Greatest Heavyweights of the Bowe-Lewis-Holyfield Era
Subscribe
Johnboy
Offline

Paul Upham
Offline
Paul Upham (8 Posts) on Sat 4-Jul-2009:

That is an impressive list of names. Does anyone think that many of today's heayweights would match-up. Outside of the Klitschko's, who else from today's era could be rated on that list?


Johnboy
Offline
Johnboy (58 Posts) on Sat 4-Jul-2009:

I think that the talent of the Klitschko's is often underrated. That is partly their fault, because they simply aren't exciting. I mean, Mike Tyson managed to be exciting by knocking out truck drivers and coked-out old guys from the Lost Generation. The brothers cannot pin that on their opposition. However, I have little doubt they would rise to the occasion if they met a real challenge.
That said, a prime Bowe or Lewis would have beaten either of them handily. Mercer might have been able to do it. Evander Holyfield always had trouble with big guys, but I think if he were able to force the action for every minute of every round, it would be a bad night for the Klitschko's. The others would wind up in the same situation that everyone else does: having no answer for that piston-like jab in their face.


DBO
Offline
DBO (28 Posts) on Fri 10-Jul-2009:

I like all the names on that list, but Mercer seems high. He never lived up to his potential because he was too lazy in the gym. Holmes took him to school and he went life and death with Ferguson and Cooper, who were gatekeeper type opponents.


Thunder Down Under
Offline
Thunder Down Under (2 Posts) on Fri 10-Jul-2009:

I'm hoping David Haye, but it's yo early to say yet until he fights one one the Klitschos. He's certainly has the skills and a punch, (maybe a suspect chin) but with only a win over Monte Barrett its a bit premature. So I'll pencil him in...
Also I think Mercer deserves to be up there, he was lazy and could of done more, but he would give anyone trouble on his day. Limited skills, rock hard chin though. He gave a peak Lewis a real hard fight.


Curtley
Offline
Curtley (16 Posts) on Sat 11-Jul-2009:

Putting Tyson so low on the list is insanity, sure he was washed up early but the guy at his best is one of the most devastating heavies of all time and is in a different league to the Mercers, Morrisons and Tua's of this world. To me he is number three behind Lewis and Evander and not sure even those greats would have been able to handle him as a 21 year old pre Cus D'mato's death and the Robin Givens escapade.


Cestrian
Offline
Cestrian (82 Posts) on Sat 11-Jul-2009:

I have to say Tyson is 4/5 spots to low..... He would have hammered all in HIS PRIME appart from lewis

Holyfield was hurt and  nearly KO by smoking Burt Cooper around this time - I think a prime Tyson would have had to much power. I think later on Tyson went backwards because of all the well documented problems and Holyfield got bigger at the weight as time went on (hence the two great wins he scored against a faded Tyson)

Tyson would have smashed Bowe.... Bowe was chinny and he hand picked his championsip fights.... no real world champion put the WBC belt in the bin because he sh*t scared of fighting... no amount of smack talk can cover up the coward....


One name that would be a curve ball in this list would be Golota !!! Blessed with all the physical skills and size of a heavyweight great... but the brain of a mountain goat... the big man knocked the crap out of Bowe twice and effectively ended Bowe's career (in the 2nd fight Bowe's trunks band was up around he chin.... but dont get me started there !!) Golota would murder 60% of this list and he is not on it......


Johnboy
Offline
Johnboy (58 Posts) on Mon 13-Jul-2009:

About, Tyson, I'll repeat what I wrote at that link I posted:
When he won the title at age 20, Mike Tyson essentially became the first fighter of this era to peak, and he peaked very early. He opened the 1990s by losing the title to James Douglas, but started his comeback well with two wins over Donovan Rudduck. Then he was sent to prison for rape, and in his comeback he beat a number of fringe contenders, but lost badly to Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis. One of the great questions of the era is what would have happened if, instead of going to prison, Tyson had instead fought Holyfield in late 1992? As it is, he just barely eeks into the Heavyweight Silver Age Top Ten, mostly because his great accomplishments were made in destroying the tattered remnants of the preceding era.
To make this clearer, since this is about the 1990s, we aren't considering what Tyson did in smashing the aged, coked-up dregs of the Lost Generation of Heavyweights. I could go toe-to-toe with you Tysoniestas on the merits of the 1980s, but that is for another thread. Feel free to start it. This is about the 1990s and early 2000s. If you think beating the Ruddock, Bruce Seldon, and Peter McNeely merit a higher place on the list, you need to make that case based on what he did during the period in question.
For example, Floyd Patterson remained a contender for much of the period of the Golden Age of the division. Should his accomplishments prior to that time be considered when doing a Top Ten List about the Ali-Frazier-Norton-Foreman era? Of course not. That is making the whole thing about Patterson, which is what you Tysoniestas are doing here.


Johnboy
Offline
Johnboy (58 Posts) on Mon 13-Jul-2009:

To say Bowe was "chinny" and that he fought "hand-picks" in the form of Donald and Hide, and then use that as the basis for saying Tyson would have destroyed him... yeesh. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!


Johnboy
Offline
Johnboy (58 Posts) on Mon 13-Jul-2009:

About Mercer: I'm of the school that if a fighter's stock goes up in a loss, that loss obviously isn't of the same caliber as getting a spanking. Mercer had some good wins and some good losses. On the basis of both, he certainly deserves a spot in the middle.

honest
Offline
honest (13 Posts) on Thu 16-Jul-2009:

the heavy division is weak none of these fighters would be able to crack the top 20 of the 40s 50s 60 70s


Johnboy
Offline
Johnboy (58 Posts) on Mon 20-Jul-2009:

I beg to differ. I will take up just Evander Holyfield, who was of a size that would have matched up well against the heavies of the 1960s and 1970s (the unarguable Golden Age of the division), rather than a giant like Lewis or Bowe. I'd give Holyfield even odds or better against the likes of Earnie Shavers, Ron Lyle, the older Floyd Patterson of the late 1960s and early 1970s, Jimmy Ellis, Jimmy Young, Oscar Bonavena, George Chuvalo, and even Jerry Quarry and Ken Norton. Was Holyfield in the same league as Ali or the late 20s Joe Frazier? Nope, but few are.


Paulito
Offline
Paulito (1 Posts) on Sun 26-Jul-2009:

I think Tyson should be fourth...he didn't just beat fringe contenders in this period, he won two world titles (Bruno and Seldon) by knockout, and also notched up KOs over decent opponents like Botha (and Golota a little later on)....in my opinion, that's a hell of a lot more than Tua,Holmes or Mercer accomplished in this period.
Put Tyson at 4th and move everyone else down a notch, then it looks like a decent assessment.


Johnboy
Offline
Johnboy (58 Posts) on Mon 27-Jul-2009:

Bruce Seldon isn't even a fringe contender, and everyone who was there at the time bemoaned that he was able to win a world title in the first place. Bruno, Savarese, Botha, Mathis, etc. were all fringe contenders. If any of them ever peeked into the Top 10, it was just barely, and none ever beat a Top 5 fighter. Botha, since you mention him, had his best performance drawing Shannon Briggs, another fringe contender. 
Tyson's merits during the first half of his career can be argued, but in the second half ... before going to jail he beat Donovan Ruddock twice (who basically lost all his big fights), and then got soundly defeated by Holyfield and Lewis. In the era under consideration, he was a contender based on beating so many fringe contenders, but it is pretty clear that whenever he left that safety zone, he got his ass whomped.
I've since written this piece about Ike Ibeabuchi. Enjoy!


perko
Offline
perko (12 Posts) on Tue 11-Aug-2009:

you got it pretty right johnboy , especially tysons ranking , had plenty of chances to redeem himself in the 90s but only held the belt for about 7 months for the decade . tyson had to defeat a great fighter or win his rematch with holyfield to achive his previous standing as a all time great . in the end could'nt do what louis , ali and foreman did , come back from a long layoff and impose your will again.


Linden
Offline
Linden (11 Posts) on Tue 11-Aug-2009:

Tysons peak lasted about 3 years and he was starting to slide from ’89 onwards – he was on the way down in the Bowe / Lewis / Holyfield era.  If you view Tysons career post Buster Douglas he still went 15-5 over the next 15 years (with 4 years out for prison) and beat some pretty decent guys.  Even in the period 1999-2001 he was still good enough to beat Botha, Golota, Nielsen -- over 10 years past his best and a shadow of what he once was.  Think about it – what other pressure fighter in any division (let alone heavyweight) managed to fight so long past his best yet still continue to beat decent fighters?  People forget just how good Tyson was.  Not just the punch, but the head movement, speed, balance, accuracy, power, technique, and absolutely incredible (and fast) footwork,.  Holyfield commented after he fought him that he was shocked at how quickly Tyson could get into punching range. When you think of Tyson you have to think pre-Douglas.  He was a totally different animal back then.  Of course the four years in prison meant he missed the best years of the Bowe / Holyfield / Lewis era, though he still managed to win the WBC and WBA titles. 


Johnboy
Offline
Johnboy (58 Posts) on Tue 11-Aug-2009:

Glad to see the thread inspires interest Smile
I freely admit that Tyson scored a steady string of victories over fringe contenders through the 1990s. I mean, I wrote a profile of his career in this period and could hardly escape wins over the Brunos, Bothas and Norrises of the world. The thing a Tyson-lover needs to recognize is that without that, Tyson could not even get on a list of top fighters in the 1990s.
However, that alone does not earn a high ranking spot. Let's face it: Tyson only fought Top 5 type fighters twice: Holyfield and Lewis. He plainly only took the Lewis fight to earn a big payday. Tyson's whole career in the 1990s was defined by cherry-picking and avoiding anyone who could pose a threat to him unless the fight paid very, very well. He could only do this because of his existing persona. I don't hold it against him, but I don't read anything more into it than what it is.
P.S.
Since this started, I got to Ike Ibeabuchi, David Tua, and Chris Byrd.


Linden
Offline
Linden (11 Posts) on Tue 11-Aug-2009:

There is one boxer I think should be on your list - Oliver McCall.  If you compare McCall to Mercer for instance he beat three fighters that Mercer couldn't (Ferguson, Lewis and Holmes) for a start; took a recognised belt in the WBC, and had some good victories over the likes of Damiani, Maskaev and Seldon.  He was outpointed a few times but the fights were alway close and against good opposition (peak Tony Tucker, Frank Bruno).  I think on balance he has a better record Mercer who generally came up short against the better fighters.  I think I would have backed McCall in a head-to-head too (thought it would have been a cracking fight).   


razr89
Offline
razr89 (1 Posts) on Tue 11-Aug-2009:

Tyson so low??!! I don't believe it. In his prime he was the most devastating puncher the world ahs ever seen. He destroyed Holmes, Burbick, Spinks etc. Ok, he got washed up too soon but at his brutal best he would have beaten Holyfield, who  I find very over rated and would have given Lewis a real run for his money. What a fight that would have been!! I just dont understand how Foreman made it on that list. He was not even a dominant champion. I would also put Vitali and Vladimir both in that listm especially higher than the likes of Mercer. Now, David Haye is going up against Valuev, I think this could either be the making of the Hayemaker or his destruction. 


Johnboy
Offline
Johnboy (58 Posts) on Wed 12-Aug-2009:

razr - This is about the Bowe-Lewis-Holyfield era. It says so right on the title. Frankly, I don't know why people have such a hard time with a little stricture like that. It would be like talking about everything Ray Robinson did as a welterweight when trying to examine his accomplishments as a light heavyweight.
 
Linden - I think you rate McCall too highly. He had his night against Lewis, but that was when he had been schooled to perfection by Steward, Lewis was overconfident and had a lot to learn yet, and finally the "knockout" victory was suspect in the extreme. Lewis got up and was willing and able to fight. The stoppage always stank, IMHO.
 
Against that, he lost to Tucker, Douglas, Norris and Bruno. His win over Maskaev was in big Oleg's SEVENTH pro fight! That hardly counts for anything. He had some good wins later on - Akinwande, Wilson - but his record is decidedly on the bad side of mixed.
 
Comparing that to Mercer, I think the problem is that Mercer was a screw-up. He lost to guys like Fergusson not because he couldn't beat them, but because he got lazy. I hold it against Mercer, but that still does not mean that Mercer on a good night was not in a whole other league than McCall at his best.


Linden
Offline
Linden (11 Posts) on Thu 13-Aug-2009:

Johnyboy - as Joe Friday would say “Just the facts …”.  Ultimately boxing is a results business.  Comparing the attributes of boxers is subjective – results impossible to predict.  You can only look at records.  When you compare the results for Mercer and McCall, McCall comes out well on top.  There’s simply no comparison.  The same goes comparing McCall to  Tua or Morrison.  They might have peaked higher than McCall and beaten him on their best night (though I’m not convinced) but when you look at their careers McCall wins hands down.

McCalls (52-9-0)  - WBC Champ

Best wins

Lennox Lewis

Larry Holmes

Francesco Damiani

Bruce Seldon

Henry Akinwande

Sinan Samil Sam

 

Mercers  (36-7-1) – WBO Champ

Best wins

Tommy Morrison

Francesco Damiani

Bert Cooper

Tim Witherspoon

 

Mercer’s marquee wins were  against Morrison and Damiani – and both were come from behind stoppages  (Morrison was absolutely hammering him and he was well behind on points against the fat Italian until he broke his nose). 

Morrison has nobody on his record comparable to Lewis or Holmes.  Also I would have backed McCall against any of Mercer’s big wins but you demonstrably can’t say that the other way around.  Witherspoon might have done it but I would have put my house on McCall starching Morrison and Cooper (granite chin vs no chin).   Could you even say with any confidence that Mercer would have beaten Akinwande or Sam?

With common opponents McCall KO’d Lewis in two / Mercer was outpointed over ten.  McCall outpointed Holmes / Mercer was outpointed by Holmes.  McCall outpointed Ferguson / Mercer lost and won a split decision.  McCall outpointed Damiani / Mercer won via TKO (but again – a fight he was losing handily).

As for a head to head you know that A). McCall is not going to get stopped B). He’s going to come into the fight in top shape C). He’ll fight the full 12 rounds.  Not things you could say about Mercer.  A peak Mercer at the top of his game would be a very tough contest ….. but what are the odds he would turn up?  A fighters attitude, dedication and work ethic is all part of it.  McCall was more consistent; beat better fighters; won a more prestigious title against a better caliber of opponent; and had a longer career (he’s still competing  against good guys even now!).


perko
Offline
perko (12 Posts) on Thu 13-Aug-2009:

iron mike did'nt peak pre - douglas , at the time he was considered unbeatable by everyone , douglas was considered a joke  , a fighter with little will to impose himself who tentered to unravel when under pressure , mike just had to turn up for a easy early ko , tyson was a young gifted champion at the peak of his powers . what happened he got outclassed and knocked out , the reason is as old as the first forms of fighting, styles beat styles , iron mike has no left jab to pile up points and needs to close to score , if he cant he loses against stick and move outfighters  ,just what every boxing trainer on the planet knows.



Johnboy
Offline
Johnboy (58 Posts) on Fri 14-Aug-2009:

Other fighter before Douglas had certainly tried to box from the outside before, and failed miserably. Those guys might not have been better than Douglas at his best, but if they were not they were certainly more consistent. A lot of things went wrong for Tyson that night, but 4/5s of them were wrong with Tyson himself.


Johnboy
Offline
Johnboy (58 Posts) on Fri 14-Aug-2009:

Linden: I am of the opinion that when a fighter puts on a strong showing that improves his standing, but loses anyway, it should always be considered as a part of his merit down the road. Do we discount the performance of Tommy Hearns in Leonard I and Hagler? Of course not.
 
That kept in mind, Mercer's two losses to Lewis and Holyfield score more points for him than pretty much anything McCall did in his entire career... except the suspect win over Lewis. When Witherspoon and Morrison are thrown in there too, he just comes off as a stronger contender. Certainly everyone at the time thought so.


Linden
Offline
Linden (11 Posts) on Sun 16-Aug-2009:

Losses should be taken into consideration but you give them far too much weight.  This is one of the problems with boxing (and the rankings boxing organisations publish) -- they are too subjective.  In no other sport are losses rewarded.  If a tennis player loses a five set thriller has still lost.  If Hull put up a great show against Man Utd and lose, then they get nil points in the league table.  McCall's win against Lewis wasn't suspect.  He practised the right hand with Manny Steward and KO'd Lewis with it.  That's not chance.  To say that Mercer's losses against Holyfield and Lewis rank higher than McCalls wins against Holmes and Lewis is preposterous.  You could quite easily argue that Lewis' showing against Mercer had more to do with him taking Mercer lightly after his outings against Ferguson (twice), Holmes and the mighty Marion Wilson (remember him - the guy Mercer drew against with the 7-9-2 record?).  We all know Lewis had that tendency.  Mercer and Morrison were more high profile and so got more column inches.  Mercer the Olympic gold medal hero with the fierce rivalry with room-mate Bowe ..... Morrison the exciting movie star, related (sic) to John Wayne and with a big mouth.  McCall v Morrison?  Boxing is spectacularly hard to predict but I would have put my house on Morrison leaving the ring via stretcher!  Don't get me started on Morrison!  Hype -- it plays far too big a role in boxing.


Linden
Offline
Linden (11 Posts) on Sun 16-Aug-2009:

Johnboy - here's one for you.  You really seem to count respectable losses - where does Frank Bruno sit with you then?  After all he was actually ahead against a prime Lewis until getting stopped in the seventh.  Came within a punch or two of stopping Mike Tyson,  again at his peak (he certainly gave him his toughest fight until that point).  Leading on the cards for most of the fight against a prime Tim Witherspoon until getting stopped in the 11th .... Here's a guy who was beaten five times and only by current or future world champions in their primes -- three of those loses coming against two fighters who would feature in the top five GOAT list of many people.  I suppose the only dodgy one on his resume would be Bonecrusher Smith and even then he'd probably won ever minute of every round until the 10th round stoppage. If valiant losing efforts are rated so highly I would be interested to see where he sits.  If only he'd had better stamina. . ...


Linden
Offline
Linden (11 Posts) on Sun 16-Aug-2009:

Perko - Tyson did beat tall boxers with fast hands and good jabs.  Remember the 6' 3'' Tony Tubbs wobbling across the ring in Tokyo?  This was the same Tubbs who three years later ran Riddick Bowe VERY close (i.e. within a couple of points).  Or the 6'5'' (35-0) Tony Tucker?  Or the 6' 5'' unbeaten Olympic gold medallist Tyrell Biggs?  Tyson's style was 'power boxing' at it's peak.  A high energy style with a lot of foot movement, upper body movement and combination punching involving clusters of power punches.  It was a style suited only to a young, clean living gym rat. Once Tyson got older and slacked off the training it was a style he couldn't maintain longer for more than four or five rounds (which to be honest was good enough against most heavyweights).  He also lost that Jonesesque edge in quickness.  That's something that people seem to forget.  At his peak he was soooo much quicker than other heavyweights it actually stopped them throwing their own punches.  They would get in there and very quickly go into their shell --- unwilling to throw punches through fear of getting countered.  That was a BIG weapon that he'd lost by the turn of the ninties.


Linden
Offline
Linden (11 Posts) on Sun 16-Aug-2009:

An interesting question for everyone based on the last few posts ....... imagine that Douglas did not get the long count and somehow managed to drag himself to his feet before the count of ten.  He's had four and a half seconds less to recover and (crucially) instead of the bell going as the boxers close on each other Tyson has four and a half seconds left in the round to go at Douglas.  Question : what happens in the rest of the fight? Does Douglas still win?  Does he get kayoed then and there?  Does he ride out the round but take extra damage that reduces his effectiveness for the rest of the fight?  Answers on a postcard ..


perko
Offline
perko (12 Posts) on Tue 18-Aug-2009:

regarding the count , douglas done nothing wrong , picked up the count and got up at nine seconds . no ref ever gets 10 seconds exactly . tyson was beat by then , had lost every round bar the knockdown round , if he was as good as we all thought should have been able to solve buster out in early rounds . remember every expert at the time thought tyson was at the peak of his prime for the douglas fight , he was the biggest favorite in the history of championship boxing  , in hindsight everyone knows he did'nt have the overall champions package to be a great legend , too many loose screws up top.


perko
Offline
perko (12 Posts) on Wed 19-Aug-2009:

so called long count is a don king myth created to steal back the belt , tyson was down for a fraction longer than douglas and counted out in the act of rising . douglas's knockdown was a flash knockdown , he got careless , got caught and went down , rolled over banged the canvas for being careless and picked up the count at 4 and rose at 8-9 in the count .douglas was focused and clear eyed for the whole count . ref octavio meyrans count is the same as morets , neumanns , steeles , cappuccinos , giapas , lanes , cortezs , smogers , garzas, cottons , nadys and oconnells . they all go over 10 seconds for knockdowns and knockouts , none ever get it right or do a fast count under 10 seconds , its always 11-12 seconds . question for you linden what do you think the scenario would have been if douglas had got up 5 seconds earlier , which one of your different scenarios would have played out.


Linden
Offline
Linden (11 Posts) on Wed 19-Aug-2009:

Well there's no doubt that Douglas was boxing Tyson's ears off.  However - the count is there for all to see and is well documented.  The timekeeper is counting four and the referee picks up from 1. What's also not in dispute is that Douglas gets up on the referee's count of ten.  The question wasn't really concerned with whether Douglas could beat the count -- it was more to do with the ref robbing Tyson of those four and haf seconds. That's a long time for one of the best finishers in the business to go to work . ...


Nico7
Offline
Nico7 (1 Posts) on Wed 19-Aug-2009:

Tyson too low, Bowe too high. Check out the nominees in the World's Greatest Ever Boxer heavyweight list - 6 fighters from this era are represented. It seems this era should be regarded as the golden age of heavyweight boxing and not the Ali, Frasier Foreman era


corley
Offline
corley (8 Posts) on Wed 19-Aug-2009:

bowe great 4 1 night only,besides lewis n holyfield i would have backed ironmike against any of the others circa 96 after his ban he was just 2 outta control n he wasnt the same mentally


perko
Offline
perko (12 Posts) on Wed 19-Aug-2009:

linden the count by ref meyran is ok , its a myth created by don king that the timekeeper was up to 4 seconds before meyran counted one , have watched this knockdown 1000s of times and buster was down for one and a half seconds before meyran counts 1 , not don kings four and a half seconds everyone talks about , the tape footage made don king look foolish and still does . knockdown happened inside the 10 second mark of round 8 even though the bell did'nt ring until both boxers were waved in to fight again. timekeeper messed up and bell should have rung when count reached 7 .


Johnboy
Offline
Johnboy (58 Posts) on Mon 24-Aug-2009:

About the Tyson v. Douglas long count: It's an overstated myth, even if it had happened stuff like that hapens in boxing, and finally it took place BEFORE the era in question, so what difference does it make?
 
About Riddick Bowe: I suggest anyone who thinks he is too high or that he had "only one good night" against Holyfield either read my biography of him (see the link on the original Top Ten list) or go to boxrec and review his record again. I consider Bowe to be one of the worst examples of wasted talent in modern memory, but man, he had talent to waste.


Linden
Offline
Linden (11 Posts) on Tue 25-Aug-2009:

Actually - having watched it again (it's been a while) it's not as bad as I remember it - though it is long.  Douglas looked in better shape too.

Bowe could have been one of the best ever.  He could fight on the outside, was great on the inside .. . . he had an excellent career but it could have been a great career.  I think his best was better than any other heavyweight in the 90's.  At his best I would have taken him over any of the others in a head to head. 


corley
Offline
corley (8 Posts) on Tue 25-Aug-2009:

i think lennox was the best of the lot,bowe was an excellent fighter at his best,its just his best didnt last long enough,bowe was finished by the time,lennox just started to come into his own,ps why did bowe duck lewis 4?


Johnboy
Offline
Johnboy (58 Posts) on Tue 25-Aug-2009:

I think in terms of talent, Bowe develop much more rapidly than Lennox. Bowe peaked around 1992, and remained quite formidable in 1993 and 1994. Lewis did not start peaking until 1995. Actually if you look at his amateur career, it seemed to be Lewis's thing to bloom later than his contemporaries. Anyway, if Bowe and Lewis had met between 1992 and 1994, on paper Bowe should have won. Except events in the ring often don't work out like the statistics and resumes say they should. Bowe was a bully, and had serious character issues that dogged his whole career. Everything would have to go right for him in the ring, because if Lewis rocked him, I doubt Bowe would have had the heart to put it back together over the man who humiliated him at the Olympics...


corley
Offline
corley (8 Posts) on Tue 25-Aug-2009:

lennox i think learnt his trade slowly,he became a much more rounded fighter after he lost 2 mccall,whereas when bowe became champion he embarked on a world tour that i would say effectively killed his hunger,he took it that he achieved his dream and no longer trained as hard as required,any bowe post 93 would have lost 2 lennox


corley
Offline
corley (8 Posts) on Wed 26-Aug-2009:

just checked big daddys record,i see pinklon thomas,dokes,hide,seldon n not much else no tyson lewis mercer morrison and jorge luis gonzalez wont make up 4 that!


Paul Upham
Offline
Paul Upham (8 Posts) on Sun 30-Aug-2009:

Buster Douglas did benefit from a long count against Tyson, but probably deserved to win that night anyway. Tyson took him easy going in and Buster had the best night of his career. Another one of the reasons why boxing can be so special.


Johnboy
Offline
Johnboy (58 Posts) on Tue 1-Sep-2009:

Go to the original post and check my profile of Bowe. It spells out anything I would have to say on this matter in detail. I decline to write the same thing twice.
corley (6 Postson Wed 26-Aug-2009: 

just checked big daddys record,i see pinklon thomas,dokes,hide,seldon n not much else no tyson lewis mercer morrison and jorge luis gonzalez wont make up 4 that!


corley
Offline
corley (8 Posts) on Tue 1-Sep-2009:

michael moorer another heavy big daddy failed 2 face,aside from holyfeld he cleared out nothing but the trash that was left over from the 80s


Johnboy
Offline
Johnboy (58 Posts) on Wed 2-Sep-2009:

Even indirectly suggesting that Riddick Bowe avoided Mike "China Chin" Moorer is a good way to instantly reduce one's credibility to zero.


corley
Offline
corley (8 Posts) on Thu 3-Sep-2009:

haha good1!!!im not saying that bowe avoided him,just the fact that he never fought him, its another top 5 heavyweight bowe cant claim on his record.


Pavlos2009
Offline
Pavlos2009 (7 Posts) on Tue 20-Oct-2009:

How come Mike "China Chin" Moorer is rated above even this version of Tyson?
And for that matter, the only impressive win in this era by George Foreman is also over "China Chin" Moorer....how did that land him at number 4? Seriously, can anyone show me articles or opinions from that period where George Foreman was rated that highly in the 90s? We all loved to see his achievement of winning the title, but was he really the fourth best? A strong argument can be made that he didn't deserve the wins over Stewart and Savarese (both crushed in a round by the post-prime Tyson of this era) or Axel Schultz.
Tyson seems to be assessed more harshly (and thoroughly) in this list than George, in my opinion. Granted, Foreman was further past his prime, but that's entirely the point...it's purely his performances in this era that should be assessed for what they were.


Johnboy
Offline
Johnboy (58 Posts) on Thu 29-Oct-2009:

I've been over it again and again, so I decline to repeat the same (and far superior) argument about Mike Tyson. What I will say is that if that your counter in the matter is little more than a statement that "Tyson is great." Try making an actual comparison, eh?


Pavlos2009
Offline
Pavlos2009 (7 Posts) on Thu 29-Oct-2009:

Ouch...you really can't cope with people disagreeing with your opinions, can you?
As for making direct comparisons and arguments in the same era, here it is,based on common opponents :
Foreman v Savarese : Foreman wpts 10
Tyson v Savarese : Tyson KO1
Foreman v Stewart : Foreman wpts 10
Tyson v Stewart : Tyson KO1
Foreman v Holyfield : Lpts12
Tyson v Holyfield : L by KO 11, L by disq 3
Other than that, I'd say they're much of a muchness....which is why I don't think Foreman belongs at number 4.
 
 


Pavlos2009
Offline
Pavlos2009 (7 Posts) on Fri 30-Oct-2009:

And now that we're being asked for specifics,I also love this line from the original article, titled "Greatest Heavweights of the 1990s:
"Spanning 13 years of what was arguably the division's second most talent deep period (eclipsed only by the Golden Age of Ali-Frazier-Foreman), the 1990s were far from perfect."
Yes,you read that correctly, the author states that this ranking of the 90s decade actually covers 13 years...why the extra three years?
Specifically, if you're going beyond the 1990s to include an extra three years, why is it 2000-2002,rather than 1987-1989 that are included?
I suspect that it's to focus on the best of Lewis and exclude the best of Tyson....hence we have a 1990s list where the 2002 Lewis win over Tyson is factored in, but Tysons win over Holmes is blasted for being out of the date range..even though Lewis was also a pro in the late 80s.
How about just doing a straight rating based on 1990 thru 1999?
 


Pavlos2009
Offline
Pavlos2009 (7 Posts) on Fri 30-Oct-2009:

And sticking with the rating of Foreman at number 4 (the point of my original post, not so much the rating of Tyson)...I'd have rated Holmes above him.
Larry Holmes ran Holyfield a lot closer than Foreman did, he also came close to beating McCall, and he completely outclassed your number 5 in this list, Ray Mercer. Foreman was taking a beating from Moorer before landing a dream punch in the 10th, and was also outboxed by Tommy Morrison.I don't think his performances at world class were anywhere as good as Larry's in this period.




 




Topics on the message boards:






No end in sight for Hong Kong protests after nike free 5.0 v4 talks

Hong Kong: Hong Kong student leaders said on W...
1 Comments


People Who Can't Stand How Perfect Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds nike free tr fit 2 donne Are Together

The Kardashians Have Literally Taken Thousands of Selfies—See Their nike air max 2014 mens Most Obnoxious Photo Moments!





License/buy our content  |  Privacy policy  |  Terms & conditions  |  Copyright  |  Advertising guide  |  Site Map  |  Write for SecondsOut.com  |  SecondsOut Contacts  |  Contact Us

© 2000 - 2011 Knockout Entertainment Ltd & SecondsOut.com