Top 10 heavyweights on a who beats who basis.

First topic message reminder :

This is not based on legacy, but who beats who. Size is a major issue in compiling my list,
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Lennox Lewis
George Foreman
Joe Louis
Joe Frasier
Riddick Bowe
Evander Holyfield
Mike Tyson
Vitali Klitshcko

Obviously some big names missing that would always make my top 10 all time heavy greats, i.e. Johnson, Tunney, Marciano and Dempsey, but I believe all 10 of the above would have beaten them.

coxy0001 wrote:

Tyson proved many times in his career he had a chin

Apart from getting wobbled by Bruno, knocked out by a journeyman, knocked out by a supposedly shot Holyfield.... lets not mention the rest shall we.

Funny how they didn't want any part of Lewis until he needed the money eh?

It's not like Bruno couldn't punch though coxy, and there's a world of difference between being wobbled and pulling a Paul Williams nose-dive into the canvas.

Don't see Holyfield standing up to Foreman for long, great his chin is as shown by Chuvalo, Foreman had the power to put you into a shell, he gets a bad press for the Ali fight but no other heavyweight in history could have done what he did that night. You can't stop Foreman in his tracks so you need to be special enough to avoid him which a smaller heavyweight wouldn't be able to do.

Ali got decked by Henry Cooper did he not have a chin...No shame in getting stopped by a great in Holyfield

If you cant see that Tyson did not have a chin then I feel very sorry for you.

Just being silly now as Ali stood there with fearsome punchers and came out of it victorious, which is the difference here. I may have overexaggerated with the chinless part, but he didn't have what you could even label a good chin, somewhere near average and you have to wonder - where are the bangers on his record? Lewis, Bowe et co were wanted no part of and instead they went for a supposedly shot Holyfield, who many thought would be in serious physical danger. Not exactly a renowned puncher either was he?

But at least you admit he shipped punishment, quite how he withstands that from a hellacious brawler puncher like Marciano is beyond me.

Anyway, laters until tomorrow

coxy0001 wrote:

Ali got decked by Henry Cooper did he not have a chin...No shame in getting stopped by a great in Holyfield

If you cant see that Tyson did not have a chin then I feel very sorry for you.

Just being silly now as Ali stood there with fearsome punchers and came out of it victorious, which is the difference here. I may have overexaggerated with the chinless part, but he didn't have what you could even label a good chin, somewhere near average and you have to wonder - where are the bangers on his record? Lewis, Bowe et co were wanted no part of and instead they went for a supposedly shot Holyfield, who many thought would be in serious physical danger. Not exactly a renowned puncher either was he?

But at least you admit he shipped punishment, quite how he withstands that from a hellacious brawler puncher like Marciano is beyond me.

Anyway, laters until tomorrow

hellacious against under 13 stone men.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Don't see Holyfield standing up to Foreman for long, great his chin is as shown by Chuvalo, Foreman had the power to put you into a shell, he gets a bad press for the Ali fight but no other heavyweight in history could have done what he did that night. You can't stop Foreman in his tracks so you need to be special enough to avoid him which a smaller heavyweight wouldn't be able to do.

Your probably right, due to Holys size. Foreman was a monster!

I'd take out Frazier for Marciano - Looping left vs straight as an arrow right, Marciano finds his chin to easy with the suzie Q.

I'd take out Holyfield for Dempsey - They were both tough as nails but Dempsey could go 15 no problem and had massive power to go with his speed and movement. Holyfield had the speed and movement, and although a correct puncher, not anywhere near as powerful as Dempsey.

I'd take out Vitali for Liston - Liston's power ranks with the very best in heavyweight history. Along with underrated head movement, a pulverising jab and reach advantage. Vitali can't stand and trade for long and can't outbox Sonny.

You can dismiss Marciano as a skilled fighter but anyone can break bones with his fists but carry fairly impressive power

To suggest that Marciano walks through Tyson is, quite simply, a joke. I am firmly in the 'oldies' camp. i.e. I cannot agree that fighters from the modern era are inherently better than those from bygone era's solely due to the fact they were born in the 80's.. However, there are limits.

Tyson, IMO at least, absolutely demolishes Marciano. He is there to be hit by a guy who outweighed him by 25lb and who is demonstrably faster then him.

You do not come across as knowledgeable by simply stating Tyson was all hype with no chin who would've been smashed by anyone who wasn't scared of him blah blah blah.

As for the list, i think it's ok. Certainly tunney is a p4p great (he makes my all time top 10) however, I'd struggle to pick him over either Klit due to size. Dempsey, I agree with Windy, is undersold in this department. I think he could hold his own with almost any heavy depsite size ...

I'd take Bowe out of that list unless you mean precisely the Bowe that beat Holyfield in the first fight, because he never really performed like that before or after. I think the Douglas that beat Tyson would have been a handful for anyone on that night - if we are talking about career best form. Same with the Witherspoon who fought Holmes: great fighters - for about an hour.

Also I'd make room for Dempsey - he was not that small and would be 200 - 210 these days - I think he'd beat Holyfield and Frazier and would have a chance against Louis and Lewis early and very good chance against Tyson late.

Must admit I'm not a great believer in Marciano's potential on a H2H basis either. Great fighter and top 10 for legacy, but stick him in with Vitali and I am really struggling to see him being effective.

I also think Foreman is overrated - I think any world class heavyweight that could move, box and tie him up has a great chance. He's flattered by battering a tailor made Frazier, a chinny Norton and a fairytale second career.

Maybe add Liston ?

Oh yes and I'd move Tyson up.

fearlessBamber wrote:I'd take Bowe out of that list unless you mean precisely the Bowe that beat Holyfield in the first fight, because he never really performed like that before or after. I think the Douglas that beat Tyson would have been a handful for anyone on that night - if we are talking about career best form. Same with the Witherspoon who fought Holmes: great fighters - for about an hour.

Also I'd make room for Dempsey - he was not that small and would be 200 - 210 these days - I think he'd beat Holyfield and Frazier and would have a chance against Louis and Lewis early and very good chance against Tyson late.

Must admit I'm not a great believer in Marciano's potential on a H2H basis either. Great fighter and top 10 for legacy, but stick him in with Vitali and I am really struggling to see him being effective.

I also think Foreman is overrated - I think any world class heavyweight that could move, box and tie him up has a great chance. He's flattered by battering a tailor made Frazier, a chinny Norton and a fairytale second career.

Maybe add Liston ?

Great shout on Buster. I too believe he would be a massive handful for any fighter on his night. The Douglas that battered Tyson would have given many of these guys a good match up. I also agree on Liston, at his best he could really fight.

coxy0001 wrote:But at least you admit he shipped punishment, quite how he withstands that from a hellacious brawler puncher like Marciano is beyond me.

Anyway, laters until tomorrow

To be honest, I think there's a real chance Marciano would not land a single blow before being stopped. He was floored twice early in fights. Tyson would be all over him and if he lands flush in the first minute Rocky would have been in big big trouble.

Can't agree with taking out Foreman. It's ok saying Frazier is tailor madebut by that logic he'd also slaughter Marciano, Tyson and Dempsey in about two rounds apiece, as well as being able to end a fight at any time. If that isn't what makes a head2head legend then I don't know what does.

Gentleman01 wrote:...

Great shout on Buster. I too believe he would be a massive handful for any fighter on his night. The Douglas that battered Tyson would have given many of these guys a good match up. I also agree on Liston, at his best he could really fight.

cheers

i'd put marciano and dempsey in aswell, i think of the bottom 6 fighters they have got a good chance against all, although probably not so much vs tyson

i would definitely take holyfield out as although has the chin to go 15 rounds vs anyone, he never really demonstrated great punching power at heavy


And i'm not sure if the list is in order of who would come out in a head to head but holmes 1st ali 2nd for me.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Can't agree with taking out Foreman. It's ok saying Frazier is tailor madebut by that logic he'd also slaughter Marciano, Tyson and Dempsey in about two rounds apiece, as well as being able to end a fight at any time. If that isn't what makes a head2head legend then I don't know what does.

Oh I wouldn't take him out - just move him down. I think Tyson and Dempsey would be live underdogs against Foreman, but you're right he'd start a big favourite.

However I think Tyson and Dempsey are better equipped to take on Holmes, Ali and Johnson with their swarming styles and superior stamina (relative to Foreman).

I can agree with that, Dempsey in particular as he could circle in and out and draw leads as well as rush forwards. I'm not sure Tyson's stamina is any better than Foreman's though. In his second coming he showed that with pace in mind he could easy go 12.

I couldn't have Bowe in my list. Didnt prove consistently that he could mix it with the best. Sure he had all of the physical attributes but not sure he had the heart or the bottle for some of the match ups he'd be getting himself into.

Also not sure about Klitschko. Again all of the physical attributes but think he'd be outboxed by any one else on your lists with decent skills, movement and a good chin.

As has been said I think Liston is the main ommission and at his best would give anyone a fight.

Some myths are being propagated here.

1. Roland LaStarza
Rocky was by no means the finished article when he fought La Starza the first time and won by the narrowest of margins. However - critics forget they fought a second time as well. The second time Rocky administered one of the worst beatings in any HW title fight, breaking both La Starza's arms in the process of knocking him out.

2. No-one at the time thought Rocky was that good
Rocky was quite lowly rated in the late 50s and early 60s - around top 5/6. By 1965-70 - he was rated as the best who ever lived. Why? Had his skills evolved in those 5 years? Truth is, the people who rated him before were rating the fighters of their youths above him - Tunneys and Dempseys etc. The people who were rating fighters in the 70s had grown up watching Marciano. Nostalgia propelled him both ways in the all time rankings as nostalgia always does - Dempsey at number 1 (as he was in 1962 I believe) is ludicrously high.

3.Tyson against Marciano

Not an easy fight for Rocky by any means - Tyson all wrong for him. If Rocky lasts beyond 6/7 rounds - its his fight. Tyson did not like being forced onto the back foot and that is one thing Marciano would do. Tyson didn't really punch off the back foot particularly well - but if he could set himself going forward - he would provide great trouble for Marciano. Of the "2 things" one supposedly needs against Tyson - a chin and a jab - Rocky was excellent in terms of the chin - but less competent with the jab.

4. Liston lost to the first giant HW he faced

A manure-smelling myth this is. Liston beat the giant Cleveland Williams in a relatively impressive performance (great fights btw). Ali when he beat Liston was by no means a giant.

i have foreman at two when it purely comes to who beats who. the only heavy who could of beat him imo is the one he faced. if ali wasnt born i could have seen big george blasting quite a few more away instead of bashing bibles and would have been up there top challege louis. obviously ali was around so number two for me

i also have vitali giving alot of the smaller heavy's nightmares, theres the small heavies around 5,10/5,11 (tyson, dempsey etc) bigger heavies 6,2/6,3 (ali, holmes) then there are the giant heavies like lewis and vitali. for this reason alone they do very well in these match up lists for me

5,11 v 6,8 isnt fair in anybody books, just dont see the smaller heavies being able to beat them, its like saying paco (5,6) can beat a calzaghe (5,11) the weight he would be giving away would probably be less

compelling and rich wrote:
5,11 v 6,8 isnt fair in anybody books, just dont see the smaller heavies being able to beat them, its like saying paco (5,6) can beat a calzaghe (5,11) the weight he would be giving away would probably be less

I guess you must think Valuev would make mincemeat of Tyson - or indeed any former champ. He is, after all, rather tall.

I can just see it now - a 22 year old Tyson circling nervously against the mighty Valuev, the crowd on the edge of their seats waiting for Tyson's inevitable destruction.

compelling and rich wrote:

5,11 v 6,8 isnt fair in anybody books, just dont see the smaller heavies being able to beat them, its like saying paco (5,6) can beat a calzaghe (5,11) the weight he would be giving away would probably be less

Its a bit different for heavys though. A 5"11 heavy although small is still used to campaigning as a heavy. They will have no doubt fought and sparred against men bigger than them. Pacquaio has no experience of fighting super middles.

fearlessBamber wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:
5,11 v 6,8 isnt fair in anybody books, just dont see the smaller heavies being able to beat them, its like saying paco (5,6) can beat a calzaghe (5,11) the weight he would be giving away would probably be less

I guess you must think Valuev would make mincemeat of Tyson - or indeed any former champ. He is, after all, rather tall.

I can just see it now - a 22 year old Tyson circling nervously against the mighty Valuev, the crowd on the edge of their seats waiting for Tyson's inevitable destruction.

valuev is a pile of c rap!! its like saying i would beat up paco which i certainly wouldnt depsite my 7 stone weight advanatge. a big good un beat a little un and fighters like lewis and vitali werent all about size. look at wlad v haye and tell me who was the better boxer?

paperbag_puncher wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:

5,11 v 6,8 isnt fair in anybody books, just dont see the smaller heavies being able to beat them, its like saying paco (5,6) can beat a calzaghe (5,11) the weight he would be giving away would probably be less

Its a bit different for heavys though. A 5"11 heavy although small is still used to campaigning as a heavy. They will have no doubt fought and sparred against men bigger than them. Pacquaio has no experience of fighting super middles.

true and tyson wasnt one of the best examples i used because despite his height he still was easily around 15 stone, marciano was around 13 and would be giving nearly 5 stone away against vitali

Yeah when I think of these match ups Rockys always the one i think of who may struggle the most. A mixture of his size, style and tendency to cut always makes me fear the worst for him against the good big boys. While he has a chance against some I dont think id make him favourite against any of the fighters in the OP.

me neither, the reason why vitali and not wlad is simply his chin, rocks always got a chance of kncking some one out but when you put the chin of vitali in there it makes its alot harder, style wise you could argue he had a better chance of knocking out lewis as its been done before but just cant see him get past lewis one two and not getting knocked out before he gets close

I think a lot of people are forgetting how good Riddick Bowe was in the very early 90's. He had a very short peak due to his eating habits, and general refusal to train once he had become world champion, but had pretty much every tool a heavyweight needs. He could fight on the inside, outside, could take a shot, had power in either hand. 1992 Riddick Bowe would have given any heavyweight in history a nightmare evening in my opinion.

GaryMabbuttYidLegend wrote:I think a lot of people are forgetting how good Riddick Bowe was in the very early 90's. He had a very short peak due to his eating habits, and general refusal to train once he had become world champion, but had pretty much every tool a heavyweight needs. He could fight on the inside, outside, could take a shot, had power in either hand. 1992 Riddick Bowe would have given any heavyweight in history a nightmare evening in my opinion.

Yes, but 1991 he needed a dodgy decision to get past an ancient post Tyson Tubbs and in 1993 lost his title to Holyfield.

People take the mick, talking about a 'Peak Tyson', but Bowe's peak was literally 10 months.

Like I said, the Witherspoon from the Holmes fight and the Douglas from the Tyson fight merit consideration by that criteria.

fearlessBamber wrote:

GaryMabbuttYidLegend wrote:I think a lot of people are forgetting how good Riddick Bowe was in the very early 90's. He had a very short peak due to his eating habits, and general refusal to train once he had become world champion, but had pretty much every tool a heavyweight needs. He could fight on the inside, outside, could take a shot, had power in either hand. 1992 Riddick Bowe would have given any heavyweight in history a nightmare evening in my opinion.

Yes, but 1991 he needed a dodgy decision to get past an ancient post Tyson Tubbs and in 1993 lost his title to Holyfield.

People take the mick, talking about a 'Peak Tyson', but Bowe's peak was literally 10 months.

Like I said, the Witherspoon from the Holmes fight and the Douglas from the Tyson fight merit consideration by that criteria.

Taking it to extremes we can talk about the Audley from the split-second when he landed that hail Mary punch on Sprott...

fearlessBamber wrote:

GaryMabbuttYidLegend wrote:I think a lot of people are forgetting how good Riddick Bowe was in the very early 90's. He had a very short peak due to his eating habits, and general refusal to train once he had become world champion, but had pretty much every tool a heavyweight needs. He could fight on the inside, outside, could take a shot, had power in either hand. 1992 Riddick Bowe would have given any heavyweight in history a nightmare evening in my opinion.

Yes, but 1991 he needed a dodgy decision to get past an ancient post Tyson Tubbs and in 1993 lost his title to Holyfield.

People take the mick, talking about a 'Peak Tyson', but Bowe's peak was literally 10 months.

Like I said, the Witherspoon from the Holmes fight and the Douglas from the Tyson fight merit consideration by that criteria.

Would you not say that Douglas performance looked a lot better due to Tyson failure to perform?
Tim Witherspoon was a damn good fighter when he showed up, and wasn't busy being ripped off by Don King. I thought he clearly beat Holmes that night. But I do think Holmes underestimated him somewhat.

GaryMabbuttYidLegend wrote:Would you not say that Douglas performance looked a lot better due to Tyson failure to perform?
Tim Witherspoon was a damn good fighter when he showed up, and wasn't busy being ripped off by Don King. I thought he clearly beat Holmes that night. But I do think Holmes underestimated him somewhat.

Sorry to butt in, but personally I'd say that Tyson's apparent 'failure to perform' against Douglas is massively overblown. Douglas didn't let him perform, because he himself was in absolutely wonderful form that night.

People say that Tyson's head movement wasn't there, but if you look, early on, he came out with his usual lateral movement, but Douglas was timing his jab so well that he just took Tyson's head movement away. I don't see why so many people seem to find it impossible that Tyson, heaven forbid, could have trouble with a jab and great movement unless he was removed from his fabled 'prime.' The truth is, at some stage, a 5'10" Heavyweight with an average reach such as Tyson was always going to have a hard night against a tall, rangy fighter who could jab and move consistently. The Tillis fight was an early sign of this, and Tucker gave him a good argument for the first half of their bout, too.

Witherspoon-Holmes is a tough one to this day, but for me Witherspoon didn't quite do enough in the second half of the fight, and let it get away from him. He was certainly ahead after six or seven rounds, but his output dropped alarmingly after that, he fought in spurts too much and Holmes, although he never really found his timing that night, secured a lot of rounds through pressure alone. 116-113 to Holmes, for me, though I can understand how someone could see it differently.

Don't know if I fully agree there Chris. Tyson had a bad night and I think that was well documented at the time. He lacked his usual aggession, speed and foot movement and just, well I dunno didn't look right that night....

I heard in his fight preparations he did some nonsesne Japanese meditation techniques or something rather than his usual prep. His body language in the press conference before was uunusal he was laughing and lacked his usual intesity somehow. It was all bad signs.

Still a damn good showing by Douglas though.

Each to their own I suppose, Super D. I just think there is too much retrospect when people try to make excuses for Tyson's defeat to Douglas. As I said, Tyson wasn't superman, and the Tillis and Tucker fights showed that, eventually, a short Heavyweight such as himself would struggle if someone put together a gameplan and performance as good as Douglas' that night. It's got to the point where hardly anybody actually gives Douglas the full credit he deserves for his performance, so ridiculous is this bubble that's built up around the supposedly 'prime' Mike Tyson. Even at their peak, all fighters have nights where they don't touch perfection. Does't take away from the victory if someone beats them, though.

Also Chris you forgot about the long count which means Tyson actually beat Douglas. Do I have to put fact on the end in really big letters with lots of exclamation marks to remind you

It was after the fight all these excuses came out and if anything Douglas had a harder time preparing for the fight because of things that were actually out of his control, this gets bypassed in favour of saying Tyson was ill prepared which was his own fault.

rowley wrote:Also Chris you forgot about the long count which means Tyson actually beat Douglas. Do I have to put fact on the end in really big letters with lots of exclamation marks to remind you

I think if you also add a line such as 'a PRIME Tyson would have killed Douglas in the first round', then even I might start to get the message in to my thick head, Rowley.

88Chris05 wrote:

rowley wrote:Also Chris you forgot about the long count which means Tyson actually beat Douglas. Do I have to put fact on the end in really big letters with lots of exclamation marks to remind you

I think if you also add a line such as 'a PRIME Tyson would have killed Douglas in the first round', then even I might start to get the message in to my thick head, Rowley.

Prime Wladimir vs Prime Tyson

Who wins Chris?

rowley wrote:Also Chris you forgot about the long count which means Tyson actually beat Douglas. Do I have to put fact on the end in really big letters with lots of exclamation marks to remind you

Beleive it or not, Don King tried to sell this to the WBC who were actually gonna buy it hook line and sinker and declare the fight a no-contest! It was only because the WBA and IBF recognised that Douglas was the champ fair and square and refuse to take the same stance that the WBC relented.

And they say the WBC is the best!

Johnson, Dempsey, Louis and Ali all had out - of - ring issues to deal with, but each had the mental resolve to stick to business on fight night.

HumanWindmill wrote:Johnson, Dempsey, Louis and Ali all had out - of - ring issues to deal with, but each had the mental resolve to stick to business on fight night.

It inspired Douglas to knock the stuffing out of Tyson

Anyone who would dream of putting forward being ripped off by King as an excuse would do well to read Larry Holmes autobiography, he had to put up with easily as much nonsense as Tyson but still got it done when it mattered.

Jonhnson???

Hes probably come up with more excuses than every other heavyweight combined for his poor performances and losses.

Granted the circumstances of his era were more challenging but he was no stranger to pointing the finger.

manos de piedra wrote:Jonhnson???

Hes probably come up with more excuses than every other heavyweight combined for his poor performances and losses.

Granted the circumstances of his era were more challenging but he was no stranger to pointing the finger.

Don't recall saying he was.

The point is, Tyson had the world at his feet, whereas Johnson was persecuted.

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Jonhnson???

Hes probably come up with more excuses than every other heavyweight combined for his poor performances and losses.

Granted the circumstances of his era were more challenging but he was no stranger to pointing the finger.

Don't recall saying he was.

The point is, Tyson had the world at his feet, whereas Johnson was persecuted.

Brought a lot of that on himself though didn't he?

Super D Boon wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Jonhnson???

Hes probably come up with more excuses than every other heavyweight combined for his poor performances and losses.

Granted the circumstances of his era were more challenging but he was no stranger to pointing the finger.

Don't recall saying he was.

The point is, Tyson had the world at his feet, whereas Johnson was persecuted.

Brought a lot of that on himself though didn't he?

Why so ?

Because he wouldn't cow down and accept that he was inferior ? John L Sullivan was every bit as much a rabble rouser as Johnson. He was also a drunk, allegedly a woman beater, and a racist, ( although, ironically, he was generous in his praise of Johnson, ) yet he was a national hero.

Besides, to save going off down a side alley, my original point is perfectly well supported if we drop Johnson and only cite Dempsey, Louis and Ali.

And Johnson was legitimate Windy, never forget that.

rowley wrote:And Johnson was legitimate Windy, never forget that.

Haha !

How could I forget, jeff ? Burns wasn't, of course, as I recall, though the dear chap ( adybrady, ) who went off on that one never did offer a logical explanation for it.

Have to say Windy it was one of the more enjoyable debates/arguments I ever had on the forum. Went on for much of the day and to this day I am still not sure what the point was he was trying to make. From what I remember everyone before Johnson and after until Louis wasn't legitimate.

This reminds me of something that Az said on here that the reigns of Tunney, Dempsey etc. should be wiped from the record books

That was about the size of it, jeff. The guy's argument had more holes than a colander but it didn't prevent him from launching a vitriolic broadside at ( if I remember correctly, ) every single contributor to the discussion.

Fond memories, but I doubt I possess the stamina for a re run. Mercifully, he hasn't yet joined us here at v2.