Rank the following fighters

How would you rank the following fighters? On greatness, and in terms of quality in their primes.

Tyson
Pryor
Gomez
Foster
Norris

 

My way of ranking fighters all-time is based on weighing two things, one of which is highly subjective, the other a little bit less so

1) A "League" of sorts... I picture an imaginary "season" where the 40 Light Heavyweights in history (for example) compete in a league where they face each other 5 times a piece... And then I try to think about who would have the best W-L-D record at the conclusion of the "season" ... This is more heavily weighted towards fighters from the 1940s and beyond because they took part/take part in a more sophisticated sport... This method hurts guys from the teens and twenties and thirties

2) Who'd they fight, when did they fight them, how long was their prime, did they accomplish notable things (unifying a title, for example... for more recent guys, the sanctioning body ridiculousness makes that much harder, so I give those guys a break and look more for results against perceived championship rivals, i.e. "unofficial" 2nd best fighter... Same break goes to fighters frozen out in the 30s and 40s because of the mob or because they were black)

I try to combine the two (with the "League" being weighted more heavily) to rank them

For these chaps, I'd say the following

1) Foster (ranks big in criteria 1, ranks decently in criteria 2 because he smashed all available comp and unified the crown, even if the division was only so-so)

2) Tyson (ranks very highly in criteria 1 and, despite the somewhat mediocre comp during his peak, he rates well in the second set because he unified the titles and had alarming results... The Douglas fight hurts him quite a bit, and the Holyfield fights certainly revealed mental cracks in the armor, but realistically how many heavyweights would bet on against him in prime? 2? 3, maybe?)

3) Gomez (122 isn't featherweight, but it's had some tremendous fighters and he'd be right up there in criteria 1) ... Criteria 2 gives him some more leeway... It's true that his two most important scalps were Zarate and Pintor and they were Bantams, but Gomez only moved up the 4 pounds because he couldn't get a title shot at Bantam and Pintor proved capable at higher weights regardless... Furthermore, he destroyed Zarate, it's not like he struggled... There's a lot of ho-hum mandatories and nobodies but his reign was long and the results conclusive... He had some decent wins at Feather, as well, even if the prevailing memories are Sanchez busting him up and Azumah violently knocking him unconscious

4) Pryor is greatly boosted by criteria 1 but he's badly hurt by criteria 2... No, Cervantes wasn't shot when Pryor went right through him but he was certainly older and past his very best... Good win, but not a great win... His other opponents weren't necessarily bad, by any means, but none were particularly good, the division was pretty poor. The Arguello fights are a big boost but failure to secure fights against Duran, Leonard, Mancini, etc. and his rapid decline due to addicition utlimately left Pryor with an incomplete career in a lot of ways...

5) Norris. Blatantly obvious fifth place. Had loads of talent, handspeed, a hard puncher, outstanding combination puncher, good feet, solid skills to compliment his speed... His standing in criteria 1 is hampered by his Entirely unreliable chin and in criteria 2 by the fact that his opposition was either putrid 154 pounders or cynically-matched old, smaller welterweights... I wouldn't rank him anywhere NEAR​ the other 4 as a fighter in a million years

 

I would say Foster is #1. I can see Foster doing very well at 175 in any era and at any stage of Fosters career.

 

Foster was a stupidly good light-heavy. One of the best, if not the best ever at the weight. Agree that he is no.1 of that list.

MTF

 

he was quite something

 

I would agree, it either comes down to Foster or Tyson topping the list. Basically, in their primes they were the two most dominant over their comp of anyone else on the list.

 

agREED

 

Agreed with the consensus that's either foster or tyson. I would tend to put Tyson at #1, since foster opposition is abyssal, and his ridiculous lack of succes at hw as to count against him imo (especially, since the hw at this time weren't that much bigger than the lhw), but I wouldn't argue too much against those who put Foster at the topé



I would put Pryor at number 3, Gomez and Norris close the list

 

Norris 1st and by a large margin.

 

:atu:

 

Foster, Gomez, Tyson-Pryor Tie, Norris

 

Ok, rank the 5 of them from worse chin to best.

There, now you're correct.

 

Tyson #1 for me, and Foster as clear #2. As JOM said, Fosters heavyweight record HAS to count against him, despite how brilliant he was as a LHW. Of course the heavyweight era he competed in was the greatest ever but he couldn't beat the fringe guys/gatekeepers either. Tyson didn't have to face the same issues with regards to weight but if you take everything into consideration he has to be a clear #1 IMO.

 

How dare you!

 

Foster was losing at HW to a handful of the greatest HW fighters ever. I'm not overly concerned by that, frankly - there is NO light-heavy I'd pick to beat Ali, Frazier et al. He had fucking massive plums just trying to fight those blokes. Try sticking RJJ in against Joe Frazier or Muhammed Ali at HW and watch what transpired...

MTF

 

People want to talk about Foster's comp then give Tyson a pass? His best wins are against a totally washed up Holmes and a terrified Spinks.

MTF

 

I've already said I don't count the Ali and Frazier losses against him, that would be insane, but those weren't his ONLY losses at HW. He had an absurd lack of success in the top division, which is in such sharp contrast to his dominance at 175.

 

True but even loses to Tirrell and Foley are hardly loses to utter scrubs. Frankly that pair would be the best wins on Tyson's ledger IMO.

MTF

 

I don't think you know what totally washed up means.

 

That's absurd.

Ruddock would ko both of them easily, especially foley, who was small and slow and unathletic. And spinks beats Foley and probably Terrel also.

 

Dude was 38 year old and semi-retired after two straight losses and a near two year layoff. That'll do for me.

MTF

 

Ruddock was bang average. Spinks was a fantastic LHW who won the title in a classic 'younger fighter meets old fighter way past his best' type fight who literally shit himself on the way to the ring vs Tyson.

MTF

 

holmes proved he still had it up until his ultimate retirement in the early 2000s when he beat esch.

 

True. That was a colossally impressive win which really added to his legacy.

MTF

 

I find foster's HW forays entirely irrelevant... Had he never fought a heavyweight and finished 68-1-1 or something at lt heavy, no such critique would even be mentioned ... How can the fact that he tried and failed at heavyweight hurt his standing when not trying in the first place would have enhanced his record and rep?

 

Foster couldn't even gain enough weight to be 190 pounds... He was not meant to be heavy... Had he never fought a heavyweight, his record would be damned near spotless

 

The problem I have with this is what if he defeated some very good heavyweights? No doubt people would be talking about how amazing it was for the smaller guy to win. It would provide evidence of his high skill level. At the same time when he loses it can simply be dismissed as "well he didn't belong there". It's a bit like with Duran. Give the guy all the credit in the world for beating (or being competitive with) bigger opponents but writing off only the losses as meaningless.

 

Ruddock Buddock would make foster wake up thinking he was an old lady living in a nursing home ordering bananas foster

 

But that's the whole thing, innit? Marvin Hagler and Carlos Monzon never left middleweight ... Are we going to diminish them as a result?

 

I guess what I'm getting at is that the primary thing to me is a fighter's prime and in the case of non-heavyweight fighters, his best weight... The largest part of rating Roberto Duran, for example, should be his lightweight days... They should be weighted more than anything else