Top Twenty Heavyweights

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I'm working on creating a list of the top 20 heavyweight boxers from the last twenty years. I'm using twenty years because that starts off with Mike Tyson and it's a pretty good starting point to work with. I was going to create the list and throw it open, but rather than do that right away, I'm going to throw this open to discussion first. Here's your shot to influence my opinion.

 

Here's a starting list of boxers under consideration, in alphabetical order. This is not a list of everyone who is going to be on the final list. Just boxers who (perhaps) deserve a second look. I worry I may miss a journeyman in the 11-20 range, so any suggestions on others are much appreciated. Francois Botha, Riddick Bowe, Shannon Briggs, Frank Bruno, Chris Byrd, Bert Cooper, Michael Dokes, James "Buster" Douglas, George Foreman, Andrew Golota, Michael Grant, Larry Holmes, Evander Holyfield, Ike Ibeabuchi, Vitali Klitschko, Wladimir Klitschko, Lennox Lewis, Oliver McCall, Ray Mercer, Michael Moorer, Tommy Morrison, Hasim Rahman, Donovan "Razor" Ruddock, John Ruiz, Axel Schulz, Bruce Seldon, David Tua, Tony Tucker, Mike Tyson.

[UZI Suicide 0]

There been so much mediocrity in the heavyweight division in the last 20 years that it's hard to put together a list like this, I'd definitely put Lennox Lewis and Evander Holyfield as the top two. I think those are the only two from this time frame that really rank with the all-time greats.

 

Ike Ibeabuchi is a guy who I thought could have gone down as one of the best ever if he didn't go insane.

 

I guess Tyson belongs somewhere in the top 5, although I think he is very overrated. Mostly because I can't ever remember him beating a quality opponent, which isn't really his fault, because he did beat everyone that was put in front of him, but there just wasn't much talent out there for him to fight. Although, he did duck Lennox Lewis for a number of years in the 90s, so I can't really feel too much pity for his lack of quality opponents.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

There been so much mediocrity in the heavyweight division in the last 20 years that it's hard to put together a list like this, I'd definitely put Lennox Lewis and Evander Holyfield as the top two. I think those are the only two from this time frame that really rank with the all-time greats.

 

That's the thing. The heavyweight division in the '90s was as competitive as any decade in history, save the 1970s. The top fighters may not match Ali, Louis or Marciano, but the second tier contenders were better than in other eras. The last 3-5 years however have been legitimately awful.

 

I guess Tyson belongs somewhere in the top 5, although I think he is very overrated. Mostly because I can't ever remember him beating a quality opponent, which isn't really his fault, because he did beat everyone that was put in front of him, but there just wasn't much talent out there for him to fight. Although, he did duck Lennox Lewis for a number of years in the 90s, so I can't really feel too much pity for his lack of quality opponents.

 

Preliminarily, I think Tyson's top four along with Lewis, Bowe and Holyfield. After that top tier, there's some drop off. Foreman would usually rate among them, but this list ignores the first half of his career.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

How about Henry Akinwande?

 

Boring as shit, but he dominated McCall for the majority of their fight, and gave Lewis trouble in the most boring fight ever before being DQ'ed for clinching.

 

He's certainly better than Axel Shultz, anyway.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I'd also object to "The Gatekeeper" Smokin' Bert Cooper being a top 20 heavyweight. The guy was a professional stepping stone.

[snuffbox 0]

I think "terrible' Tim Witherspoon can be considered a top20 heavy of the last 20 years. His WBC title reign was more than 20 years ago but he did win the WBA version in Jan '86 (W15 Tony Tubbs) and defended against Frank Bruno (tko 11) before being Bonecrushed. Spoony spent the next 10 years with a prolonged comeback of 19 fights (18-1) before beating Al Cole and Jorge Luis Gonzalez at Msg in '96. After that he was beaten by Ray Mercer and lost most of his important fights from then on. He deserved one more title shot in the mid 90's (Holmes and Foreman had about a half dozen chances) but never got one.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Ok, I'm ready to take the heat for this.

 

1. Lennox Lewis

 

Knockout wins against Vitali Klitschko, Mike Tyson, Hasim Rahman, Frans Botha, Michael Grant, Shannon Briggs, Andrew Golota, Oliver McCall, Tony Tucker, Frank Bruno, Tommy Morrison, Razor Ruddock, and Mike Weaver. Lewis also won decision victories over Evander Holyfield and David Tua. Lewis lost twice, avenging both losses via knockout. Lewis beat numbers two and three on this list, and might have beaten Riddick Bowe had Bowe fought him. Lewis did beat Bowe to win a gold medal at the 1988 Olympics.

 

2. Evander Holyfield

 

Holyfield fought too long and lost many fights at the end of his career. That should not diminish his prime accomplishments. Holyfield beat Mike Tyson (twice), Buster Douglas, Riddick Bowe, George Foreman, Michael Moorer, Larry Holmes, Dwight Muhammad Qawi, and Ray Mercer. Before the Lennox Lewis fight, Holyfield had beaten both fighters (Moorer and Bowe) he lost to. What's impressive about Holyfield is that he rose up from cruiserweight. Quite a few observers didn't think he was big enough to compete at heavyweight.

 

3. Mike Tyson

 

Tyson cleaned out the heavyweight division from 1985-89. Tyson does not have many top flight fighters on his victory list, but several second tier fighters. Until the Douglas fight, Tyson looked invincible. The last several years have diminished Tyson's reputation, but they do not represent Tyson's prime ability, in my opinion.

 

4. Riddick Bowe

 

Ranking Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson is easy. Riddick Bowe presented a challenge as to whether to slot him here, or second ahead of Holyfield. Bowe defeated Holyfield in two of their three fights, once by knockout. Holyfield is still the only fighter to defeat Bowe. The problem is that Bowe's quality of opposition is probably worse than Tyson's. Besides Holyfield, the best fighter Bowe beat is Andrew Golota, and those were hardly emphatic victories. Since Bowe dropped the WBC title rather than fight Lewis, I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

5. Ike Ibeabuchi

 

Here the ratings become difficult. Ibeabuchi is incarcerated for rape and his boxing career is over. Ike compiled a 20-0 record with 15 KOs. Ibeabuchi won a unanimous decision over David Tua, and a fifth round KO of Chris Byrd. Ibeabuchi is still the only fighter to knock out the elusive Byrd. Perhaps he would have lost his next fight to some journeyman. We'll never know.

 

6. Chris Byrd

 

Byrd's last four fights have been very unimpressive, although he hasn't lost. I am inclined to say he lost a step at this age. Byrd was perhaps the best pure boxer of the division the last 20 years. Byrd owns wins over Evander Holyfield, Vitali Klitschko and David Tua. The only fighters to beat Byrd are Klitschko and Ibeabuchi, both ranked on this list.

 

7. Michael Moorer

 

Like Holyfield, few remember that Moorer began his career as a light heavyweight. Moorer knocked out his first 26 opponents and knocked down #27 three times before winning a unanimous decision. Moorer was 35-0 after he beat Holyfield for the title. He led on points before George Foreman knocked him out. He rebounded with wins over Axel Schulz, Frans Botha and Vaughn Bean before the losing the second Holyfield fight. Some time around the first Holyfield fight, Moorer lost his killer instinct. He was a hell of a fighter.

 

8. Tony Tucker

 

At one point in his career, Tucker's record stood at 49-0 with 40 knockouts. Tucker won a decision over Oliver McCall and knocked out Buster Douglas. Before losing to Bruce Seldon, Tucker had only lost to Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis. Tucker hung on too long and lost several fights.

 

9. David Tua

 

Our generation's most potent puncher. Tua knocked out Michael Moorer, Fres Oquendo, Danell Nicholson, Obed Sullivan, Hasim Rahman, Oleg Maskaev, David Izon, and Johnny Ruiz. All three of Tua's losses came to fighters higher on this list.

 

10. George Foreman

 

Foreman is ranked low because this list only considers his comeback. The problem with Foreman is that other than Michael Moorer, he didn't really defeat any impressive fighters. Foreman lost to Shannon Briggs, Evander Holyfield and Tommy Morrison.

 

11. Wladimir Klitschko

 

Wladimir is rated higher than brother Vitali because he defeated more impressive boxers. Before the Lewis-Vitali fight, Wladimir was considered the superior fighter. Wladimir knocked out Frans Botha, Jameel McCline and Ray Mercer in three successive fights. Klitschko is also one of the only fighters to defeat Chris Byrd. The problem with Wladimir is those three KO losses to subpar fighters. It seems like some bad stretches. At this point, there aren't too many fighters who don't have embarrassing losses of some sort.

 

12. Buster Douglas

 

Douglas pulled the greatest upset of all time when he knocked out Mike Tyson. That's an indication of Douglas at his best. Then Douglas added 15 pounds and lost an embarassing fight to Evander Holyfield. Douglas defeated Oliver McCall right before the Tyson fight.

 

13. Oliver McCall

 

McCall mixed some quality wins with tough losses in his prime. McCall defeated Francesco Daimani, Larry Holmes and Lennox Lewis at his peak. He also lost to Orlin Norris, Tony Tucker, Lewis, Frank Bruno, and Davarryl Williamson. The Lewis loss was one of several embarrasing boxing moments in the 1990s.

 

14. Johnny Ruiz

 

I loate Ruiz more than any other fighter today. Ruiz has lost four title fights and yet somehow keeps finding himself rated #1 by the WBA. Unfortunately, Ruiz has beaten Evander Holyfield, Kirk Johnson, Hasim Rahman, Fres Oquendo and Andrew Golota. Before long, you can't justify ranking more fighters ahead of him.

 

15. Ray Mercer

 

The epitome of blown opportunities. Mercer was on his way to a heavyweight title shot against Evander Holyfield before dropping a decision to Larry Holmes. Mercer worked his way back up, and lost another title shot to Jesse Ferguson. Mercer later dropped consecutive fights to Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis. Mercer never did receive a title shot. He did however defeat Tim Witherspoon, Tommy Morrison and Francesco Daimani. Charges that he attempted to bribe Ferguson into dropping the fight dogged him for a time.

 

16. Tommy Morrison

 

How much of Morrison was ability and how much hype? Morrison was KO'ed by Ray Mercer, the first fighter he faced with a great record. Morrison's win over George Foreman won him some points, as did his KO victory over Razor Ruddock. I originally ranked Morrison higher, but I couldn't justify placing him above Mercer.

 

17. Vitali Klitschko

 

Vitali lacks big names on his resume. Klitschko did however take the measure of Lennox Lewis before dropping the fight on cuts. From Lewis's retirement to his own, Vitali was the best fighter in the division.

 

18. Hasim Rahman

 

Rahman lost a surprising number of big fights. However, Rahman was highly regarded for a time, and he once held the undisputed championship thanks to his stunning knockout of Lennox Lewis.

 

19. Andrew Golota

 

Golota made his reputation on two terrific performances against Riddick Bowe, although he was disqualified in both fights. Golota won a decision against Tim Witherspoon as well. Golota lost most of his big fights, and this rating is more indicative of his ability than his results.

 

20. Tim Witherspoon

 

Witherspoon's record would look much better had he the good sense to retire after the Mercer loss. Witherspoon nearly beat Larry Holmes (yeah, it was '83) and beat Frank Bruno. As Snuffbox noted, he was a good fighter for a long time.

[snuffbox 0]

I think the judges were the only people on Earth that saw Briggs beat George Foreman. That fight was his best on the second career, imo. I also think that Foreman would beat Holyfield 6 out of ten times. Big George is the 5th best heavy of the last 20 years.

 

I think that Larry Holmes has to be ahead of Ray Mercer...Larry totally schooled him.

 

Al, how do you think the upcoming Rahman-Toney fight could effect a top20 list?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I think the judges were the only people on Earth that saw Briggs beat George Foreman. That fight was his best on the second career, imo. I also think that Foreman would beat Holyfield 6 out of ten times. Big George is the 5th best heavy of the last 20 years.

 

The fact is though that Holyfield beat Foreman, and Foreman never beat a fighter of Holyfield's quality during his comeback. After Foreman pulled off the Moorer upset, he picked his opponents VERY carefully.

 

I think that Larry Holmes has to be ahead of Ray Mercer...Larry totally schooled him.

 

It's tricky to measure fighters, because each fighter has a loss or two that can be held against him. Holmes was on the cusp, but he didn't really beat an impressive opponent besides Mercer. He lost to Michael Spinks, Mike Tyson, Brian Nielsen and Oliver McCall.

 

Al, how do you think the upcoming Rahman-Toney fight could effect a top20 list?

 

Not at all, besides building a possible future case for James Toney.

[snuffbox 0]

If your going to put Tony Tucker at #8 than you have to include Larry Holmes.

 

Holmes (since 1-1-86) 21-5

Wins - Ray Mercer, Jesse Ferguson, some decent journeyman, and fellow oldtimers Mike Weaver and Bonecrusher Smith down the stretch before beating Butterbean. I wont count his 'win' over Mo Harris (a very good quick fighter with a very deceptive record).

Losses - Spinks (really close call), Tyson (two year layoff vs. a monster), Holyfield (good fight that made Holmes look he could take it at times), Oliver McCall (pretty bad decision here), and sadly Brian Nielsen.

 

Tony Tucker (since 1-1-86) 27-7

Wins - Buster Douglas (big ko), Orlin Norris, Oliver McCall, Frankie Swindell and alot of tomato cans.

Losses - Tyson, Lewis, Bruce Seldon, Henry Akinwande, Orlin Norris, Herbie Hide,John Ruiz

 

Brian Nielsen was almost 49-0 himself...

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

If your going to put Tony Tucker at #8 than you have to include Larry Holmes.

 

Holmes (since 1-1-86) 21-5

Wins - Ray Mercer, Jesse Ferguson, some decent journeyman, and fellow oldtimers Mike Weaver and Bonecrusher Smith down the stretch before beating Butterbean. I wont count his 'win' over Mo Harris (a very good quick fighter with a very deceptive record).

Losses - Spinks (really close call), Tyson (two year layoff vs. a monster), Holyfield (good fight that made Holmes look he could take it at times), Oliver McCall (pretty bad decision here), and sadly Brian Nielsen.

 

Tony Tucker (since 1-1-86) 27-7

Wins - Buster Douglas (big ko), Orlin Norris, Oliver McCall, Frankie Swindell and alot of tomato cans.

Losses - Tyson, Lewis, Bruce Seldon, Henry Akinwande, Orlin Norris, Herbie Hide,John Ruiz

 

Brian Nielsen was almost 49-0 himself...

None of Holmes' wins was really impressive outside of Mercer. Ferguson was essentially a professional opponent, and Weaver and Smith were beyond washed up. And most of Tucker's losses came because he fought too far past his prime.

 

As for Brian Nielsen, he was 49-0 as I recall. He lost his next fight to a tomato can. Nielsen hardly fought anyone capable as he reached Marciano's mark in fear of losing it. Heck, victim #47 was Peter McNeely.

[Lt. Al Giardello 0]

Michael Spinks and Roy Jones Jr should crack that list just based on historic value, moving from Lightheavyweight to Heavyweight and beating a World Champion is one of the toughest things you can do in not just boxing, but sports period. Although they didn't beat anyone else, I would still put them on there just for accomplishment.

 

I would put Holyfield #1 problay, and I rank Tyson over Lewis to, but really it doesn't matter what order you put them in because you could make an arguement either way.

 

But looking at that list it just shows you how sad the heavyweight divison in the modern era was. Just plain pathetic, do a list from 1965-1985 and the top 10 would be filled with hall of fame fighters... just for fun I'd thought I will do a top 10.

 

1. Muhammad Ali/Cassius Clay

2. Larry Holmes

3. George Foreman

4. Joe Frazier

5. Ken Norton

6. Jimmy Young

7. Sonny Liston

8. Jimmy Elis

9. Floyd Patterson

10. Jerry Quarry

 

Honorable Mention: Gerry Cooney, George Chuvalo, Buster Mathis, Ron Lyle, Earnie Shavers, Carl Williams, Tim Witherspoon, Oscar Bonavena

 

Most of those fighters are in the hall of fame

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Michael Spinks and Roy Jones Jr should crack that list just based on historic value, moving from Lightheavyweight to Heavyweight and beating a World Champion is one of the toughest things you can do in not just boxing, but sports period. Although they didn't beat anyone else, I would still put them on there just for accomplishment.

 

If beating John Ruiz merited a ranking, I'd have to put ten more slots on the list.

 

I would put Holyfield #1 problay, and I rank Tyson over Lewis to, but really it doesn't matter what order you put them in because you could make an arguement either way.

 

What is the argument for Holyfield over Lennox Lewis, or Tyson for that matter? Honestly, ranking Lewis at #1 was the easiest move of the list.

 

But looking at that list it just shows you how sad the heavyweight divison in the modern era was. Just plain pathetic, do a list from 1965-1985 and the top 10 would be filled with hall of fame fighters... just for fun I'd thought I will do a top 10.

 

1. Muhammad Ali/Cassius Clay

2. Larry Holmes

3. George Foreman

4. Joe Frazier

5. Ken Norton

6. Jimmy Young

7. Sonny Liston

8. Jimmy Elis

9. Floyd Patterson

10. Jerry Quarry

 

Honorable Mention: Gerry Cooney, George Chuvalo, Buster Mathis, Ron Lyle, Earnie Shavers, Carl Williams, Tim Witherspoon, Oscar Bonavena

 

Most of those fighters are in the hall of fame

 

Floyd Patterson's record in that time frame is fairly mediocre. Of course, if you compare any decade's heavyweights to the '70s, you're going to draw the same conclusion. You would draw a much less favorable comparison if you did say, 1910-30.

 

That's what's amazing about this period. For what's a supposively weak group of heavyweights, we had some great fights. Douglas-Tyson, Holyfield-Foreman, Bowe-Holyfield I, Holyfield-Bowe II, Foreman-Moorer, Holyfield-Tyson I, Tyson-Ruddock II, etc.

[snuffbox 0]

Al - Where are you getting this Tony Tucker love from anyway? He started his career 34-0-1 before beating Buster Douglas...the no-contest came due to a freak knee injury. Most of these fights were against tomato cans with losing records or, at best, lesser journeyman than Jesse Ferguson (who whipped Mercer and Obed Sullivan, and gave Rahman all he could handle in a loss). All but five of Tuckers fights before losing to Tyson took place before 1986...and if youre counting 81-86 than your omission of Holmes is even more bizarre.

 

I mentions Nielsen as an example of how many fighters (heavies especially) are built up with big padded records against poor competition. Tucker is another example of that.

 

Why are an old Holmes wins over equally old Weaver and Bonecrusher (and fat Bean) not counted...but Tucker's losses to guys like Seldon, Akinwande, and an aging Norris (all of which were before Tucker turned 40) excusabel.

 

And you have to take the actual fights into consideration. You cant just brush off Holmes as having 'only beaten Mercer' when he nearly beat Holy, clearly should have gotten the decision against world champ McCall, and got a gift against the very good Mo Harris. Would you say Pernell Whitaker was a lesser fighter due to his 'loss' against Ramirez and 'draw' vs Chavez?

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

The only rankings I really take exception with are

 

Chris Byrd. His win over Holyfield was target practice on the geriatric, and his win over Klitschko was where Vitaly's arm fell off. I didn't see the Tua fight. The guy showed in his other fights that he can't take a hard punch, so he ducks like a turtle in his fights and scrapes by on points, nor does he have power in both hands. He should be lower despite decent skill and a good record.

 

Tyson over Holyfield. Yeah, it's obvious Holyfield beat him, but this was post-prison nutjob Iron Mike. In Tyson's prime, he would've murdered Evander. He hit harder, was MUCH more crisp and accurate, and he had Cus. Evander's tough as nails, but no one would stay standing after a prime Tyson unloaded on them. Exception being Buster Douglas, who had everything going for him in that fight, hindsight being 20/20.

 

I've watched and studied that fight plenty of times, since it's the biggest upset in any sport in my lifetime. Buster was a 40-1 underdog, and blindsided a distracted and vulnerable Tyson, who completely overlooked Douglas. Not to mention Douglas was in the shape of his career, and kept it simple, without being visibly afraid, and having the grace of God on his side.

 

Before that, no one even came close to beating Tyson. He just mugged every terrified bastard that had the misfortune to fight him.

 

"Yeah, but who did he beat?"

 

Every professional fighter he fought between 1985 and 1990.

 

Plus he won a heavyweight title before he was legally allowed to BUY BEER.

[snuffbox 0]

Tyosn beat the 'legendary' TNT Tucker...

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Al - Where are you getting this Tony Tucker love from anyway? He started his career 34-0-1 before beating Buster Douglas...the no-contest came due to a freak knee injury. Most of these fights were against tomato cans with losing records or, at best, lesser journeyman than Jesse Ferguson (who whipped Mercer and Obed Sullivan, and gave Rahman all he could handle in a loss). All but five of Tuckers fights before losing to Tyson took place before 1986...and if youre counting 81-86 than your omission of Holmes is even more bizarre.

 

I am giving the 49-1 mark as an indication of where Tucker stood as far as reputation at one point in his career. The problem is that most of Tucker's good years occured before many of us can remember. Honestly, how many Tucker fights have we seen from his prime? One resource I wish I had were Ring Magazine's Top Ten lists. In the absense of those, I'm guessing Tucker was the second best heavyweight in boxing from 1986-89.

 

As for Holmes, both he and Tucker fought Mike Tyson. Tucker went the distance, Holmes was turfed in the fourth round. I don't think that's an unreasonable assessment of their respective abilities.

 

I mentions Nielsen as an example of how many fighters (heavies especially) are built up with big padded records against poor competition. Tucker is another example of that.

 

Every fighter is an example of that, except perhaps Louis Monaco (he's got a real fun career). Nielsen was blatant once the 49-0 mark was in sight.

 

Why are an old Holmes wins over equally old Weaver and Bonecrusher (and fat Bean) not counted...but Tucker's losses to guys like Seldon, Akinwande, and an aging Norris (all of which were before Tucker turned 40) excusabel.

 

Because it seems to me that otherwise, a fighter gets extra credit for retiring. Many fighters would have lost more fights had they kept fighting at age 36 and beyond. It doesn't make Tucker less of a fighter in his prime. And Bruce Seldon and Akinwande were at least paper champions near that time. Mike Weaver was 48, Bonecrusher Smith was 46, and both had 16 losses on their record at that point. Tons of journeymen could beat those two. It doesn't make them top fighters.

 

And you have to take the actual fights into consideration. You cant just brush off Holmes as having 'only beaten Mercer' when he nearly beat Holy, clearly should have gotten the decision against world champ McCall, and got a gift against the very good Mo Harris. Would you say Pernell Whitaker was a lesser fighter due to his 'loss' against Ramirez and 'draw' vs Chavez?

 

Every judge gave Holyfield at least eight rounds in that fight. The McCall fight is a point in Holmes' favor, but since Tucker did beat McCall, I can hardly use that as justification to rank Holmes higher. And I saw the Maurice Harris fight. Holmes was schooled by a fighter with a 9-8 record. That is not something to point to.

 

As far as the Whitaker analogy, Julio Cesar Chavez is hardly Oliver McCall. Taking Chavez to a draw is an accomplishment in itself, let alone it being a bad decision.

 

Had I taken the list further, Holmes would probably slot around 21-23. It was a struggle to choose the last few guys, and Holmes just missed the cut, in my view.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

The only rankings I really take exception with are

 

Chris Byrd. His win over Holyfield was target practice on the geriatric, and his win over Klitschko was where Vitaly's arm fell off. I didn't see the Tua fight. The guy showed in his other fights that he can't take a hard punch, so he ducks like a turtle in his fights and scrapes by on points, nor does he have power in both hands. He should be lower despite decent skill and a good record.

 

I'm not enthusiastic about Byrd, but I just can't argue with results. Maybe he can't take a punch, but he's only been knocked out once. The Vitali fight was a stroke of luck, but he did win. And beating Tua is no small feat. There just isn't a lower boxer who can produce a comparable resume.

 

Tyson over Holyfield. Yeah, it's obvious Holyfield beat him, but this was post-prison nutjob Iron Mike. In Tyson's prime, he would've murdered Evander. He hit harder, was MUCH more crisp and accurate, and he had Cus. Evander's tough as nails, but no one would stay standing after a prime Tyson unloaded on them. Exception being Buster Douglas, who had everything going for him in that fight, hindsight being 20/20.

 

I'm more of a Tyson apologist than most people. I think Tyson was a hell of a fighter. He may very well have been better than Holyfield, especially in his prime. But I can't justify placing Tyson ahead when the in ring results are contradictory. The vast majority of analysts thought Tyson would slaughter Holyfield in that first fight. He may of been washed up, but that's only apparent in hindsight. You can rank them the other way though, and you may be right.

[snuffbox 0]

Holmes hadnt fought in nearly two years when he was beaten by Tyson. His wins after 35 count against him aparently, and Tucker's losses at that age are a plus for him....oook. Mo Harris had the most deceptive record of any heavyweight in the last 30 years, and only Emmanuel Augustus has a more deceptive record in all of boxing in the recent decades. And during that fight Holmes was around 45...but again, Tucker loses repeatedly before his 40th birthday and it doesnt matter.

 

You're probably the only person Ive ever heard that considers Tucker to be second behind Tyson for that timeframe. Theres obviously no changing your mind on TNT so Ill leave you alone with him.

[naiwf 0]

I'm not really going to argue but I don't see how Bowe rates below Tyson when Bowe beat Holyfield twice and Tyson lost to Holyfield twice. How can you go on Tyson's prime opposition but ignore the one common opponent that ranks above both men when determining their respective slots? Even if Bowe ducked Lewis, Tyson got beat down in spectacular fashion by Lennox so at worst that's a push. After the top 4 it's all a bit messy for me, so that was really my only major complaint. A lot of people thought that this year's USC team was the greatest of all time until Texas beat them so why not rely on the facts and not the expectations that Tyson would've eaten Bowe's lunch had they fought in each man's prime?

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Re: Tyson/Holyfield.

 

If you look at it from the perspective of comparing each man's downward slides, it's still a pick'em. Tyson got himself embarassed three times in a row and quit, it being painfully obvious that he can't fight at a professional level.

 

Holyfield stood in front of Chris Byrd like a heavy bag while Byrd teed off on him (and still couldn't hurt him, because Byrd's a fairy). Add in a TKO by Toney, A Loss, win, and draw agaist friggin' Ruiz, and a 12 round loss to Larry Donald, and it finally took the New York Athletic commission suspending Holyfield's license so he doesn't go out there and get killed.

 

Tyson didn't take nearly the punishment Holyfield took in his last few fights.

[Guest Brian]

I'd put Bowe on top of Tyson, because when he won the title in 1992 he had beaten many of the same cans and fighter Tyson did, with the added bonus of holding a win over Holyfield.

 

Tyson dodged Tim Witherspoon, as King wanted nothing to do with that. And Greg Page. He beat Spinks, who never had a major win at heavyweight. Same with Tillis. Beat a 39-year old Holmes coming out of retirement. He fought in a weak division, winning the title from Trevor Berbick. And then he went 0-3 against the elite heavyweight contender of his era.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I'm not really going to argue but I don't see how Bowe rates below Tyson when Bowe beat Holyfield twice and Tyson lost to Holyfield twice. How can you go on Tyson's prime opposition but ignore the one common opponent that ranks above both men when determining their respective slots? Even if Bowe ducked Lewis, Tyson got beat down in spectacular fashion by Lennox so at worst that's a push. After the top 4 it's all a bit messy for me, so that was really my only major complaint. A lot of people thought that this year's USC team was the greatest of all time until Texas beat them so why not rely on the facts and not the expectations that Tyson would've eaten Bowe's lunch had they fought in each man's prime?

 

 

I'd put Bowe on top of Tyson, because when he won the title in 1992 he had beaten many of the same cans and fighter Tyson did, with the added bonus of holding a win over Holyfield.

 

Tyson dodged Tim Witherspoon, as King wanted nothing to do with that. And Greg Page. He beat Spinks, who never had a major win at heavyweight. Same with Tillis. Beat a 39-year old Holmes coming out of retirement. He fought in a weak division, winning the title from Trevor Berbick. And then he went 0-3 against the elite heavyweight contender of his era.

 

Bowe and Tyson is an interesting comparison. I hesitate to use Holyfield as the sole measure of comparison because styles make fights. In 1973, George Foreman beat Joe Frazier, who had beaten Muhammad Ali. Did that mean Foreman could whup Ali? Of course not.

 

I drew up a list of common opponents. There's a big one besides Holyfield, and that's Andrew Golota. Riddick Bowe was outclassed by Golota in two fights while walking away with DQ victories. Mike Tyson knocked out Golota, but that was changed to a No Contest when Tyson tested positive for marajuana. That comparison favors Tyson. After Golota and Holyfield, you have nine other fighters with the main difference being what round they tasted the canvas. Bowe's no contest against Buster Mathis might be a concern, as Tyson defeated Mathis cleanly.

 

Ultimately, it's up to the reader. I was unsure of where to place Bowe, and I made a gut call. I think Bowe's record of victories is unimpressive. Tyson's late '90s comeback wins against Frans Botha and the like put him over the top.