ESPN.com: Top 10 Heavyweights

If Frazier and Foreman are top 10 then Ali undoubtedly is number one because he beat both of them in their primes.

 

I don't know why anyone would rank Frazier ahead of Tyson.

People denigrate Tyson too much for his post-Prison career, but that's not fair. A man can scarcely be the same after three years in prison.

In his prime he only lost once. He was the youngest to win a Heavyweight title and the 2nd youngest to win the linear title. His first reign was 4 years and he is one of a handful of men to regain Heavyweight titles...doing so post prison.

He had 9 defenses of the Heavyweight title in his first reign and had beaten many decent fighters:

Berbick, Bonecrusher Smith, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs, Tony Tubbs, Larry Holmes, Michael Spinks, Frank Bruno, Carl Williams, Razor Ruddock

Tyson is a definite top 10, anyone who thinks otherwise needs their head examined...

 

I think this is an especially valid point considering how Frazier fared after his 67-72 period where he fought so well.

It isn't like Frazier had a great win post-prime either, so if we're merely comparing primes, its hard to argue against how Tyson looked in that time.

 

I agree with you, but the problem is Teddy Atlas has made it very easy for just about anyone and everyone to bash Mike Tyson these days.

 

Because Frazier was a 15-round fighter who beat Muhammad Ali, and Tyson was a four-round fighter who beat Michael Spinks.::

 

not true.

frazier only fought ali once in his prime and he whooped his ass.

 

Yet Jimmy Young beat Muhammad Ali and George Foreman, but he's not in the top 20. :laughing:

 

dsimon writes:

How can you put Holy ahead of Lewis?

 

not as bad as Frazier in front of Foreman... ok he beat Ali but George decapitated him twice... :kick:

 

With regards to the ESPN list, I can only presume it has typographical errors, because any 'Top 10 AT HW' list which does not have the name of 'Lennox Lewis' on it somewhere is clearly nonsense, IMO.

I agree with almost all of this. There is no version of Holyfield which beats Lennox Lewis IMO. Lewis won both of their fights clearly (the first by a country mile) and was the definition of stylistic nightmare so far as Evander was concerned.

For me, Lewis was a far greater HW than Holyfield. FAR greater.

On this, I'm not so sure. I'm one of those who think Tyson is a leetle overrated by some of his more rabid fans, and on close analysis his pre-prison comp does not really justify the hyperbole.

That's not to say that he was garbage or anything daft like that, I'm just not buying the whole 'prime Tyson = unstoppable wrecking machine' position taken by some.

IMO, Holyfield is exactly the sort of calculating, smart and durable little bastard that gives any version of Mike problems. I always felt that Tyson thrived on fighting guys who he intimidated to death before he got in the ring with them. He could never do that against Evander. Not shitting himself before the first bell rang was half the battle.

MTF

 

Tyson never beat a GREAT heavyweight in his prime.

 

True, but he never really had the opportunity to face a great heavyweight in his prime.

 

I can accept someone having Lewis ahead of Holyfield, but they are BOTH top 10 Heavyweights.

Evander had beaten Douglas, Foreman, Bowe, Moorer, Tyson, Mercer, Holmes, Stewart, Dokes Pinklon Thomas and an OLDER version of Evander seemed to DRAW the second fight with a prime Lennox.

Evander's achievements of winning his second championship off Bowe and third off Tyson (a much better version of Tyson than the one Lennox faced) are arguably better than Lewis' best wins.

Also Evander was never knocked out in his prime the way Lewis was twice (I think there was something wrong with him the night of the third Bowe fight).

All in all...Both Lewis and Evander are all time great Heavyweights and neither should be excluded from a top 10 list IMO...

 

If he hadn't raped someone, then he might have had the chance to fight Lewis, Bowe or Holyfield in the early 90's...

Certainly he was in no hurry to ever fight Lennox- he paid Lewis a lot of money to sidestep him a good five years or so before they actually fought.

 

That's true, but it's not as if Tyson went to jail on purpose to have his prime years cut short.

 

Obviously, but my point is that the opportunity to cement a legacy was certainly there, it's just that Tyson completely fucked it all up of his own accord. :doh:

Had he not done so, he could have had those fights and made this debate academic...

 

This has been a debate for years, and will be for years to come.

A top ten list for any division is verry hard to come up with accurately for a variety of reasons.

Accomplishment as opposed to actual skill. Today vs. yesteryear. And, quality of opposition.

let me explain a bit....

Make no mistake that a great like Dempsey never had to defend against the size, speed and power of a modern day Tyson. Also, Joe Louis's opposition wasn't nearly as worthy as someone like Frazier's.

I guess you could really come up with two or three top ten lists, based on certain important criteria.

Accomplishment being one.
At each one's best being two.
And a combination of both being three.

As for me, I like to use the third.

And as unpopular as it may seem.....Marciano would be hard pressed to make my top ten.

 

I find any scorecard that had Holyfield even or ahead in the second Lewis fight highly suspect...and have no idea what you mean by "seemed to DRAW" with Lewis...if you believe it, state it. I know media proponents of Holyfield (and/or detractors of Lewis) like Katz and Saraceno tried to convince their readers the decision was controsverial and an over-correction to the backlash from the first fight and I don't buy it at all (and neither did the majority at the time, from what I could tell).

I think it's much much easier case to make the case that Holyfield "seemed to DRAW" in the second Bowe fight. That was a razor-thin fight that much more easily could have been a loss/draw, IMO...and that seems forgotten now (and while it's not always appropriate to point out, I think it deserves to be mentioned that Bowe wasn't in nearly as good of shape/condition the second fight...which also had some very unique circumstances surrounding it).

As for Holyfield's first reign...the opponents he fought during it are no better than the one's Mike Tyson faced during his prime title reign, so I don't think he deserves that much credit. Douglas was in no shape to defend his title, Foreman still wasn't taken that seriously at the time, and though Holmes had beaten Mercer he wasn't exactly considered a great challenger at the time (and it was an absolutely dreadful fight to watch).

Holyfield (like Lewis) had different stages of his career...he made a lot of changes over the course of his career, he got a lot stronger (again, I think valid questions remain on how he did it), he slowed down, fought much more measured, more intelligent, incorporated more holding/grappling into his style...didn't slug it out the way he did early on with guys like Foreman, Cooper and Bowe. (I think Steward deserves some credit for this, and was a significant factor in his performance against Bowe in the re.)

To the point of how Lewis fared against an "older" Holyfield...I actually think the earlier, "younger" version of Holyfield would have had less success against Lewis (when he got to his best). Holyfield would've been significantly lighter, and wouldn't have crowded Lewis as much/well...which helped him stay inside Lewis' power punches in their two fights.

Lewis' knockout losses count against him, no question about that...however, it's also worth noting that he won both rematches (emphatically) and in doing so, he beat every fighter he ever faced...no fighter had "scoreboard" against him.

Since I think Lewis' prime was his second reign, it does significantly hurt him that he lost to Rahman (moreso than the first reign, pre-Steward, KO to McCall, IMO), the lack of discipline and focus that he had prior to that fight were well recorded. That isn't to say he deserves any kind of pass on that fight. But if we're talking about a fighter's prime, there's no way he was in prime condition for that fight...he was at a career heaviest wait, took time out to film a movie, showed up to the altitude of South Africa late (Rahman had been there for a month). Lewis showed how much different a fighter he was, when focused, when he came back lighter and in shape and absolutely dominated Rahman in the rematch (though, in truth, he was easily out-pointing him in S. Africa up until the KO round).

It was in Lewis' biggest fights (like Holyfield I, Holfield II, Tyson, Golota, Ruddock, Rahman II - which, in truth, was only significant because he'd been knocked out in the first fight) where he often looked his best...and despite your assertion, I think he won them all clearly.

I don't think Lewis' win over Tyson counts for much of anything...which is the way it should be. However, Holyfield's wins over Tyson helped to pretty much secure his "greatness" in a lot of minds...and I'm not quite sure why. (I think Ring magazine had one heavyweight list - one of many useless one's they put out - sometime in the fight's aftermatch where Holyfield was something like #3, which I never understood or found justified).

 

Excellent post :bears:

 

1)Lewis
2)Louis
3)Ali
4)Holmes
5)Marciano
6)Foreman
7)Frazier
8)Dempsey
9)Johnson
10)Jeffries

Irrefutable, simply irrefutable.

 

That list is incorrect.

 

Better resume, better fighter. Lewis beat an old Holyfield, not a prime Holyfield. He also has a pair of very ugly knockout losses.

Better resume, better fighter. Frazier was in his prime in the 1960s; his prime ended in 1971. He was 10 pounds overweight when he fought Foreman and nothing like the fighter he was in the 1960s. He still had a few good fights after 1971, but saying that Foreman beat a prime Frazier is like saying Lewis beat a prime Holyfield, or Holyfield beat a prime Tyson.

 

Anyone not having Marciano in their top 10 is a fuckin idiot.
I don't care if you don't have him #1 or top 5, but he deserves to be in the top 10 for sure...
my God people....

 

Based on accomplishement, ...absolutely.


Based on head to head......I can't see Marciano beating Ali, Louis, Tyson, Frazier, Foreman, Johnson, Holmes, Lewis, Bowe, and a host of others.

Marciano was a cruiserweight.

 

I guess you don't have Youtube, then. :laughing: :laughing: :doh: :dunno:

 

Beating a 38 year old "hasbeen" isn't exactly beating that fighter.

Hell, Trevor Berbick, GRHS, beat Ali.....does that mean he should be mentioned too?

Dumbass.

 

:laughing: :laughing: :doh: :dunno:

You mean, Louis won that fight?

 

OK, since you like being "technical", and posting smilies.....let me see how smart a boxing afficieanado you are.

Do you think that a prime Marciano would have beaten the Joe Louis that ruled the division in his prime?

 

Holyfield was only two years removed from arguably his best year when he fought Lewis, and frankly, the Lewis fight should have been made a year earlier in 1998 (a year Holyfield wasted by only fighting once against Vaughn Bean).

Lewis was an avoided fighter, something that should be taken into consideration when people argue he beat "older" versions of Tyson and Holyfield (or why he never fought Bowe as a pro).

 

Let us get something straight right now.

I love Holyfield, and I appreciate his accomplishments...but he is NOT one of the ten best heavyweights of all time.

Great fighter, and the best CRUISERWEIGHT of all time,...but not a top ten alltime heavy.