The greatest heavyweight.....

...since Ali?

I think most would have Ali as the number 1 greatest heavyweight ever but who has been the best heavyweight since?

Discuss!

1. Larry Holmes

You're opening up a can of worms here sunshine

I've got to distract you all from David Haye for a little while!!

oh.....

In order:-

Tyson
Holmes
Holifield
Lewis
W Klitchko
Bowe
V Klitchko

rodders wrote:In order:-

Tyson
Holmes
Holifield
Lewis
W Klitchko
Bowe
V Klitchko

Only taken 3 comments... Tyson above Holmes?

Weaver, Shavers, Norton, Cobb, Ali (joking!), Spinks and a dominant force in general for more than a couple of years in which Tyson "ruled". Better resume than Tyson has in my eyes.

Cobb? I assume you were joking about him also? Hardly resume enhancing.

Coxy001 wrote:

rodders wrote:In order:-

Tyson
Holmes
Holifield
Lewis
W Klitchko
Bowe
V Klitchko

Only taken 3 comments... Tyson above Holmes?

Weaver, Shavers, Norton, Cobb, Ali (joking!), Spinks and a dominant force in general for more than a couple of years in which Tyson "ruled". Better resume than Tyson has in my eyes.

I think what Tyson achieved at the beginning of his career still eclipses the others, in terms of dominance, albeit for a short period - I suppose its conjecture whether he went off the rails or was just found out as a limited fighter later on - probably both. He did flatten a past his prime Holmes, which if you accept the pastings he got by Lewis and Holyfield is an equally valid box tick for Tyson in my opinion.

It's a pity more of these guys didn't meet in in their primes.

In answer to the original question it's Holmes. Can then take your pick between Tyson and Lewis for second place. Tyson probably edges it due to his dominance pre-Douglas.

Probably on the same sort of par as a Bruno/Tubbs! Superfly, I have little to no time for including Tyson in the top 15 HWs of all time due to his period of dominance being exceptionally short and the lack of sparkle on his resume.

If he'd gone through Bowe/Holy/not lost to Berbick then am pretty sure my thinking would be different. As it stands we have a guy who was at the top of his game for much less than a handful of years and it drives me to the point of anger that he gets ranked so highly. You look at the ATGs in other sports - Woods, Nicklaus, Federer, Nadal, Ainslee, Wilkinson, Ronaldo, Redgrave etc etc and they are all legit ATGs because of their longevity and as a result of longevity were/are able to build a resume that simply beggars belief.

But moving on!

David Haye, the one and only PPV heavyweight

hampo171 wrote:David Haye, the one and only PPV heavyweight

Hampo... please, no more. Even Captain got wound up by the moron, first time I've even seen him get remotely near being ruffled.

1. Holmes
2. Lewis
3. Tyson
4. Holyfield
5. Wlad
6. Vitali
7. Bowe

Hammersmith harrier wrote:1. Holmes
2. Lewis
3. Tyson
4. Holyfield
5. Wlad
6. Vitali
7. Bowe

Can't disagree with that.

Cheers, Rodders.

Will add that Bowe on his night would be at number four but his record is far too thin on the ground and also the reason i've omitted Ibeabuchi.

Coxy001 wrote:Probably on the same sort of par as a Bruno/Tubbs! Superfly, I have little to no time for including Tyson in the top 15 HWs of all time due to his period of dominance being exceptionally short and the lack of sparkle on his resume.

If he'd gone through Bowe/Holy/not lost to Berbick then am pretty sure my thinking would be different. As it stands we have a guy who was at the top of his game for much less than a handful of years and it drives me to the point of anger that he gets ranked so highly. You look at the ATGs in other sports - Woods, Nicklaus, Federer, Nadal, Ainslee, Wilkinson, Ronaldo, Redgrave etc etc and they are all legit ATGs because of their longevity and as a result of longevity were/are able to build a resume that simply beggars belief.

But moving on!

I think you would struggle to name 15 who should be ahead of him. He's debatable top 10, but it gets pretty thin on the ground thereafter.

Coxy, we're also not comparing Tyson to the absolute very best which everyone you mentioned is in their particular sport. Also none of them got punched in the head for a living so an unfair comparison.

1 Audley
2 Dominic Negus
3 Big Rogie
4 Butterbean
5 David Haye

1. Holmes
2. Tyson
3. Holyfield
4. Lewis

Those are the only heavyweights who could be termed great since Ali.

hazharrison wrote:1. Holmes
2. Tyson
3. Holyfield
4. Lewis

Those are the only heavyweights who could be termed great since Ali.

I would switch 3 and four but a good list.

Also I think both brothers are great, they can only beat what is put in front of them like previous dominant heavyweights

Yes, Lewis does tend to be more highly rated, however, Holyfield scored the better wins (Bowe, Foreman, Moorer, Tyson).

hazharrison wrote:Yes, Lewis does tend to be more highly rated, however, Holyfield scored the better wins (Bowe, Foreman, Moorer, Tyson).

Holyfield has better wins but Lewis was more dominant.

AdamT wrote:Also I think both brothers are great, they can only beat what is put in front of them like previous dominant heavyweights

Neither was a dominant heavyweight. Wlad is beginning to dominate the division and so has time yet to be considered.

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:Also I think both brothers are great, they can only beat what is put in front of them like previous dominant heavyweights

Neither was a dominant heavyweight. Wlad is beginning to dominate the division and so has time yet to be considered.

Fair enough.

anyway it is very hard to choose between Tyson,Holy and Lewis. So many variables

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Yes, Lewis does tend to be more highly rated, however, Holyfield scored the better wins (Bowe, Foreman, Moorer, Tyson).

Holyfield has better wins but Lewis was more dominant.

Even during his title reign, though, he managed to balls up against Rahman (contrast that with Holyfield's recovery against Cooper in a similar scenario). Holyfield ran into a prime Bowe and then Moorer - who were better fighters.

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:Also I think both brothers are great, they can only beat what is put in front of them like previous dominant heavyweights

Neither was a dominant heavyweight. Wlad is beginning to dominate the division and so has time yet to be considered.

Fair enough.

anyway it is very hard to choose between Tyson,Holy and Lewis. So many variables

Well if you're looking at dominance (as you have suggested) then Tyson's your man.

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Yes, Lewis does tend to be more highly rated, however, Holyfield scored the better wins (Bowe, Foreman, Moorer, Tyson).

Holyfield has better wins but Lewis was more dominant.

Even during his title reign, though, he managed to balls up against Rahman (contrast that with Holyfield's recovery against Cooper in a similar scenario). Holyfield ran into a prime Bowe and then Moorer - who were better fighters.

Plus Holyfield has been in more exciting fights. Still i rate Tyson higher. He might not have the longevity but he was a fierce machine in his early career. He mixed great offense with great defense and really mastered that peek a bo style.

Since Ali:

1. Lennox Lewis
2. Larry Holmes
3. Evander Holyfield
4. Mike Tyson

Then the rest.

It seems most people will have the same top 4 but just deifferent order

Holmes for me as well, his record being made all the more impressive by the fact that he didn't have the same outstanding natural gifts of special effects as the likes of Lewis and Tyson.

Not particularly big for a Heavy, nor a huge puncher, speed decent rather than great, quite hittable at times but consistent enough to avoid the embarrassing mishaps that befell the other two in their peak years (McCall and Rahman for Lewis, Douglas for Tyson). Diced with danger against the likes of Shavers and Snipes, sure, but found a way through each crisis. Appreciate that a lot of Holmes' best wins don't set the pulse racing, but this is the Heavyweights we're talking about here and Larry's victims are at least comparable to or in the same kind of bracket as anyone's outside of Ali.

Clearly passing his peak, he out-games a young, talented future two-time champion in Witherspoon in a show of great heart after being hurt so badly in the ninth (I still maintain that this fight was no robbery at all) and is arguably unlucky not to regain his title from Spinks in their return, albeit you could argue that this evens things out from the Williams fight where many, me included, felt that Holmes got edged out.

As he hits his dotage, there are none of the humiliating and embarrassing capitulations like the ones Tyson had against a post-prime Holyfield (I think we can forgive Larry, at that point, being overwhelmed by an absolute peak, snarling Mike and agree that it's little cause for shame); aged forty-two, he produces a brilliant display of ring smarts and right hands off the ropes to outscore an unbeaten Mercer (the same Mercer who, while fighting well over his best weight, was arguably unlucky not to get at least a share of the spoils against Lewis a few years later) and at forty-five he loses to McCall by one single, solitary point on my card.

Outside of Ali and Louis you can make a claim for a few different guys to get the bronze medal but Holmes has been my primary choice in that respect for a while now. Consistency over a long period, efficiency and the ability to grind out unlikely wins over time takes it from the more up and down careers of Lewis and Tyson, who you could argue hit higher peaks than Larry but also dived in to lower troughs.

Oh and Coxy - Tyson not inside the top fifteen? You're a funny guy, but not funny enough to get away with that.

Hammersmith's list looks about right to me. Not much to choose between 2 and 4.

Who was the idiot who wrote Cobb was on the same level as Tubbs...

Tubbs was an Amateur star.....Who won the title against Page who Holmes bottled, beat future champ Bonecrusher...lost a split to Tim and outboxed a title bound Bowe!...and should have won !!!

Try watching Cobb fight before being a silly billy...

Wlad will be a great Haz...Whether we like it or not.

Holmes
Tyson
Holy
Lewis

As far as Holyfield and his best wins go I don't give him much credit for an ancient Foreman and a Moorer who managed to lose to that ancient Heavyweight, he gets away with losing to Moorer in the first place anyway. No qualms about the Tyson wins, superb and completely against the form book but again his win over Bowe gets mentioned which was as much down to fan man as anything else but the two clear loses get ignored.

In comparison to Holyfield beating Tyson and Moorer, I don't think Lewis gets enough credit for then beating him, past his best he was but so too were Tyson and Moorer, seems a bit odd to me.

In his biggest fights at the weight he was 4-4-1 which is a little bit generous to him and isn't enough to trump the more solid record of Lewis.

Rodney wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:1. Holmes
2. Lewis
3. Tyson
4. Holyfield
5. Wlad
6. Vitali
7. Bowe

Can't disagree with that.

Cheers, Rodders.

Rodders already has disagreed with it !!

In Rodders defence.......................I'd certainly pick 87 Mike to destroy Holmes every day of the week..............

He scraped past a knocking-on Norton on a split............Shavers 1 was a good win...........His best win Witherspoon was controversial and he was wobbled and decked of Mr Snipes types.....Cooney was the only decent fight he was punch perfect...Yes he beat a perennial loser-back then Weaver but still got knocked into queer street doing it..

Plus he cherry picked worse than Floyd in his latter years...........and lost to a light heavy with movement issues due to a chronic knee injury at the age of 35 !!.............Which seems to be near-prime Heavy age these days..

Also pick Lewis to beat Larry...........Bowe to beat Larry..............Holy pickem......

BUT.....There is enough for Larry to top the list with longevity...........But he shouldn't be deified..

A great champion though..

Certainly no perfect record..

You've changed your tune.

Strongback wrote:You've changed your tune.

Have I ??

Where's Evans Fields featuring in most people's lists......??

It's Lewis for me but my reasons can be shot down in flames. I'm a glass half full guy with Lewis and tend to give him a lot of the old patriotic benefit of the doubt. If I didn't he's probably be 3/4 behind Holmes and Tyson. In my head he smashes them but a lot of strange thoughts go around in my head.

Lewis fought better against top opposition............So I'd give him a shot at beating any heavyweight in history...........

A shot that is..

Just wish Lewis had got (and won) that Bowe fight.......!!

DuransHorse wrote:It's Lewis for me but my reasons can be shot down in flames.  I'm a glass half full guy with Lewis and tend to give him a lot of the old patriotic benefit of the doubt.  If I didn't he's probably be 3/4 behind Holmes and Tyson.  In my head he smashes them but a lot of strange thoughts go around in my head.

Didn't realise you were Canadian.

I can't understand how people have Lewis ahead of Holmes and Tyson in their ATG Top 10.

I've been reading a current trend around the net of placing Lennox at No.3 as an ATG HW. Seems madness to me.

The expert that is Mcgrain had him at number 4 so surely it isn't that absurd for you and Haz but then he had Marciano at 3 so made the whole list pretty redundant in my opinion.

My favorite expert is the guy who said Leonard took a beating.........When he was dancing like Michael Jackson, Performing Ali shuffles and throwing bolo punches in the last round !!.

He is the expert of all experts !!

That's quiet beatings for you truss. They're so quiet, even the recipient of them doesn't know its happened.

Didn't McIlvanney also have Leonard ahead on points against Hearns (first fight) going in to the fourteenth, arguing that the judges (and absolutely everyone else observing the fight, predictably enough) had been "missing the point" of what Leonard had been doing, or something? Could be wrong on that one, but pretty sure that was another of his gems.

Fantastic writer but perhaps a bit stubborn and proud with it.

McIlvanney's an excellent writer. Maybe he just needs to be educated by famed scholars like Truss and Milkyboy.

Was it McIlvanney who put forward the theory that Leonard looked so good because people expected him to look so bad and, as a result, thought he was doing better than he actually was?

DAVE667 wrote:Was it McIlvanney who put forward the theory that Leonard looked so good because people expected him to look so bad and, as a result, thought he was doing better than he actually was?

Budd Schulberg - McIlvanney used it though in a fantastic write-up. He was bang on the money (as usual).