Top 90's heavyweight boxers vs top 70's heavyweight boxers?

RiseToTheTop

gene_tunney, you underrate Norton a lot IMO.

He went the distance 3 times with Ali, won 1 match but many feel he won more, all the decisions were very tight. He also had a split (split!) decision with a prime Larry Holmes, which he lost by 1 point.

He lost to Foreman in 2 rounds, but so did Frazier. Plus you can be your money that before the Rumble In The Jungle almost every critic thought the same would have happened to Ali. When he lost to Shavers and Cooney late in his career he wasn't the same fighter as before.

megadodge

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Missed the whole debate but reading through it nobody's ventured to give an answer? I think in a lot of cases people simply write of the fighters of yesteryear as its easy. Much harder to spend some time to watch the reels of tape or read the countless articles and reports of fights gone by.

I agree that fighters are getting bigger and have access to better nutrition and training facilities but to my eyes it hasn't improved skill levels to any obvious degree.

You were referring to Walshb's question of who would beat Eder Jofre. The problem with this is - there is no known tape of the great Brazilian, therefore we can't watch and make our own minds up!

Therefore the old-timers can wax lyrical about how great he was, even though none of them saw him either (unless live and I don't think there are too many of them on message boards). He's the 1960's version of Harry Greb in the ratings game.

As for articles and fight reports, before the advent of video collectors and recently Youtube, that was all I had to rely on and boy were my eyes opened when I finally got to see what I had been reading about - and not in a good way either!

Obviously there were great fighters who I really admired, but for every Joe Louis, Sugar Ray Robinson and Jimmy Wilde (three superb fighters) there was a Henry Armstrong, Carlos Monzon and Rocky Marciano (fighters I read so much about but was massively unimpressed with when I finally saw them).

gene_tunney

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

gene_tunney, you underrate Norton a lot IMO.

He went the distance 3 times with Ali, won 1 match but many feel he won more, all the decisions were very tight. He also had a split (split!) decision with a prime Larry Holmes, which he lost by 1 point.

He lost to Foreman in 2 rounds, but so did Frazier. Plus you can be your money that before the Rumble In The Jungle almost every critic thought the same would have happened to Ali. When he lost to Shavers and Cooney late in his career he wasn't the same fighter as before.

Yes I know, but it irks me that people think Norton is some great boxer just because he gave Ali trouble. Sandy Saddler beat Pep 3/4 times but Pep was twice the fighter he was. Some people just have the style to trouble a far superior boxer. This was the case with Ali and Frazier; Frazier is overrated because of his trilogy with Ali. Frazier is almost as overrated as Marciano. Also, Holmes was exactly the same style as Ali so it makes sense that Norton troubled him. Capiche?

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

You were referring to Walshb's question of who would beat Eder Jofre. The problem with this is - there is no known tape of the great Brazilian, therefore we can't watch and make our own minds up!
).

No known tape? Not ready to commit myself, but can't one watch clips, good clips too of Eder Jofre on youtube?

cowzerp

Ali vs Holyfield

Ali vs Lewis

Ali vs Tyson

Ali vs Bowe

Foreman vs Holyfield

Foreman vs Bowe

Foreman vs Lewis

Foreman vs Tyson

Frazier vs Holyfield

Frazier vs Bowe

Frazier vs Lewis

Frazier vs Tyson

Norton vs Holyfield

Norton vs Lewis

Norton vs Bowe

Norton vs Tyson


I have it fairly even with the slight advantage to the 90's-I gave it to Holyfield over Ali-stylistically I think Holyfield is all wrong for Ali and could ruin Ali's game, in saying that Ali is Ali so I'm not 100% on this.

Foreman goes through all the 90's men in my opinion-better chin and more power or even at least with Bowe, again i'd give Holyfield the biggest chance here due to his in your face style.

Frazier and Norton are well behind the 90's counterparts I'm afraid-Norton was a tough dude and deserves respect but he's not elite in my opinion, Frazier as already said i feel is over rated due to the Ali fights-if he fought a big puncher like that he'd suffer as he did v Foreman.

cowzerp

megadodge wrote: »

You were referring to Walshb's question of who would beat Eder Jofre. The problem with this is - there is no known tape of the great Brazilian, therefore we can't watch and make our own minds up!

Having watched clips of Jofre on You tube i thought he was alright-Cant say he was amazing in todays context-i think this is where the difference lies, back then he was so much better but today he'd just be another contender

megadodge wrote: »

Obviously there were great fighters who I really admired, but for every Joe Louis, Sugar Ray Robinson and Jimmy Wilde (three superb fighters) there was a Henry Armstrong, Carlos Monzon and Rocky Marciano (fighters I read so much about but was massively unimpressed with when I finally saw them).

,

Same here, I believed Rocky was amazing without ever seen him Box, when i seen videos of his fights i was shocked at how poor the fights where, Same with Monzon, no doubt great for his time but not special compared to what followed him.

Haven't seen enough about Armstrong to give fair comment.

RiseToTheTop

Why IYO isn't Ali overrated? He bought a Sonny Liston who'd have no chance against Wladimir Klitschko. Beat a puncher in Foreman, who relied mainly on strength. Foreman lost against a total tomato can in Jimmy Young. This is prime Foreman BTW, 28 years old, not the old man.

Ali struggled against Frazier, losing the first fight, winning the 2nd because he held all night and wasn't warned and barely won the Thrilla In Manila.

So basically, his biggest fight out and out from 1960-67 was Liston, and from 70-81 nothing special. (losing 3 of his last 4.)

Maravilla33

megadodge wrote: »

You were referring to Walshb's question of who would beat Eder Jofre. The problem with this is - there is no known tape of the great Brazilian, therefore we can't watch and make our own minds up!

Therefore the old-timers can wax lyrical about how great he was, even though none of them saw him either (unless live and I don't think there are too many of them on message boards). He's the 1960's version of Harry Greb in the ratings game.

As for articles and fight reports, before the advent of video collectors and recently Youtube, that was all I had to rely on and boy were my eyes opened when I finally got to see what I had been reading about - and not in a good way either!

Obviously there were great fighters who I really admired, but for every Joe Louis, Sugar Ray Robinson and Jimmy Wilde (three superb fighters) there was a Henry Armstrong, Carlos Monzon and Rocky Marciano (fighters I read so much about but was massively unimpressed with when I finally saw them).

What? There is plenty of footage of Jofre. At least there was last time I looked. He was still boxing in the 70s so its not like he was around 100 years ago. I can understand someone being underwhelmed by Marciano. He's not the easiest on the eye at the best of times but gotta admire how he always got the job done. Monzon was one of the most dominant fighters ever. He made things look easier than they were and sometimes could give the impression he wasn't exerting himself. Theres a few fighters vying for the greatest middleweight ever spot and hes certainly one of them.

cowzerp

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

Why IYO isn't Ali overrated? He bought a Sonny Liston who'd have no chance against Wladimir Klitschko. Beat a puncher in Foreman, who relied mainly on strength. Foreman lost against a total tomato can in Jimmy Young. This is prime Foreman BTW, 28 years old, not the old man.

Ali struggled against Frazier, losing the first fight, winning the 2nd because he held all night and wasn't warned and barely won the Thrilla In Manila.

So basically, his biggest fight out and out from 1960-67 was Liston, and from 70-81 nothing special. (losing 3 of his last 4.)

Ali can be over rated-But he is the biggest legend in the sporting world-he fought and beat Patterson, Liston who he blew away twice so don't know why you mention him, Frazier, Norton, and Foreman-Against Foreman people feared for his life and he found a way.

You put Tyson back then instead of Ali and he beats all imo, except George but that would not make him the greatest.

it is fair to say that physically for a man with Ali's power at heavyweight which was quite average in reality to do so well was amazing, the beatings he took and the flair and tactics he fought with all make him The Greatest.

I genuinely believe Vitali beats Ali in a 1 off fight-but that does not change the fact that Ali was and always will be The Greatest.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

I genuinely believe Vitali beats Ali in a 1 off fight-but that does not change the fact that Ali was and always will be The Greatest.

Question: Who does beat Vitali in a one off fight?

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

I genuinely believe Vitali beats Ali in a 1 off fight-but that does not change the fact that Ali was and always will be The Greatest.

I think it does change the fact. Clay/Ali to me was the best HW ever, and would beat all others in a one off fight.

I also don't see how he can be in any way overrated. He proved his greatness.

BTW, I think RiseToTheTop may have been messing with his post about Ali being overrated.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Question: Who does beat Vitali in a one off fight?

I would favour Vitali over any that has been, I consider him the best Heavyweight fighter in 1 on 1 situations, Ali has more skill, Foreman has possibly more power but as man with great skill, power, chin and height and weight advantages over most I just think he is a step too far for most.

Tyson at very peak has a chance, Ali has a chance, Foreman also has a chance, Lewis I feel is a lesser version of him but has a chance, and Holyfield can find a way at peak so has a chance, outside of that the likes of Norton, Frazier, Marciano, Patterson don't have any chance with Vitali.

Maravilla33

Wow we must be watching different Vitalis. While he has size advantages over most and a great chin I wouldn't say he has great skill. He uses his size very well and is awkward to fight because of this. He paws with his jab and its nowhere near as authoritative as his brothers. Hes not as big a puncher as his KO record would suggest either. A lot of his stoppages are from an accumulation of damage which is reflected by the amount of TKOs he has. He overwhelms his opponents over the course of a fight but rarely sparks anyone clean out. He uses his size to control range very well but in truth hes a bit one dimensional. He's pretty slow aswell. The one time he was in with a skilled fighter roughly his size he was beat.

Its clear you over rate him and this will probably fall on deaf ears but no way is he a highly skilled boxer. He matches up well head to head because of his size and durability but hes very beatable especially if we're matching him with elite fighters and not what he has had to fight thus far.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

. He overwhelms his opponents over the course of a fight but rarely sparks anyone clean out. He uses his size to control range very well but in truth hes a bit one dimensional. He's pretty slow aswell. The one time he was in with a skilled fighter roughly his size he was beat.

Its clear you over rate him and this will probably fall on deaf ears but no way is he a highly skilled boxer. He matches up well head to head because of his size and durability but hes very beatable especially if we're matching him with elite fighters and not what he has had to fight thus far.

Your under rating him, to say he is slow is ridiculous-his jab is very hard and stiff, you keep going on about how he was beat but that's a technicality-he was clearly winning that fight-this does not diminish his ability so stop trying to make it sound so.

If you don't think he is a highly skilled boxer then your clueless, he uses his advantages better than anyone and that takes skill-he is far from 1 dimensional and showed that v Lewis.

So now it's good to know that you just see Vitali as a big boxer lacking skill-good to know where you stand.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

Your under rating him, to say he is slow is ridiculous-his jab is very hard and stiff, you keep going on about how he was beat but that's a technicality-he was clearly winning that fight-this does not diminish his ability so stop trying to make it sound so.

If you don't think he is a highly skilled boxer then your clueless, he uses his advantages better than anyone and that takes skill-he is far from 1 dimensional and showed that v Lewis.

So now it's good to know that you just see Vitali as a big boxer lacking skill-good to know where you stand.

Wlad uses his advantages better for one. I didnt say he had no skill. But hes not the dynamic, highly skilled boxer you make him out to be. Hes very good at what he does. I find it hard to believe you don't think hes deteriorated in his last few fights either or that he would be favourite to beat anyone ever. Call me clueless all you want but its my opinion having watched a lot of him.

walshb

Regarding Wlad and Vitali. I think it's plain to see that Wlad is the more balanced and skilled boxer, and he would be the more tricky assignamnet for a Holmes or Ali type fighter. Vitali is skilled, but a 6/10. Wlad is an 8-9.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Regarding Wlad and Vitali. I think it's plain to see that Wlad is the more balanced and skilled boxer, and he would be the more tricky assignamnet for a Holms or Ali type fighter. Vitali is skilled, but a 6/10. Wlad is an 8-9.

Seriously that is horse manure-Wlad simply uses defensive Boxing more because he has too, I watched an interview on them both and Wlad said straight out Vitali was the better of the 2.

Wlad paws his jab much more and Vitali throws it much more aggressive and meaninful, Wlad is more jab jab, hook step back.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Seriously that is horse manure-Wlad simply uses defensive Boxing more because he has too, I watched an interview on them both and Wlad said straight out Vitali was the better of the 2.

Wlad paws his jab much more and Vitali throws it much more aggressive and meaninful, Wlad is more jab jab, hook step back.

Poll?;)

Maravilla33

I've often heard Wlad say Vitali is the better fighter or the more natural fighter of the 2. Doesn't make him a more skilful boxer. Wlad uses his jab to control his opponents. He throws it hard and often. It gradually wears his opponents down. His footwork is great for a heavy. He rarely wastes a punch and I'd say his straight right when he does bother to throw it is as powerful as anything Vitali throws. If he had Vitali's chin he'd be a perfect heavyweight.

eagle eye

If you are putting them all at their best then I don't think anybody beats Lewis. He had the power and superior boxing skills to them all imo.

walshb

eagle eye wrote: »

If you are putting them all at their best then I don't think anybody beats Lewis. He had the power and superior boxing skills to them all imo.

But, what was his best. Some think the early 1990s version wasn't great, and think the one Vitali lost to was better. I happen to think the one who avenged McCall, around this time was probably the best. The loss made him more complete, aware and alert.

I think Formean at peak is a bad match for any Lewis. He walks thru him and probably gets the KO.

walshb

I may as well do my picks.

Ali-Tyson: Ali
Ali-Bowe: Ali
Ali-Lewis: Ali
Ali-Holyfield: Ali

Foreman-Tyson: Foreman
Foreman-Lewis: Foreman
Foreman-Bowe: Foreman
Foreman-Holyfield: Foreman

Frazier-Tyson: Frazier
Frazier-Bowe: Bowe
Frazier-Lewis: Lewis
Frazier-Holyfield: Frazier

Norton-Tyson: Tyson
Norton-Lewis: Lewis
Norton-Bowe: Bowe
Norton-Holyfield: Holyfield

70s scores ten wins and 90s scores 6 wins

*Tyson is not at peak here. Peak Mike was 1986-1989
*Many fights razor close. Real close: Ali beating Bowe, Frazier beating Holyfield, Holyfield beating Norton and Foreman beating Bowe.

So, in saying this, the 90s men could easily tie, or shade it. Such a comepetitive tournament.

gene_tunney

Prime Vitali beats prime Wlad IMO, but prime Wlad is a better overall boxer, bigger puncher, better resume and overall would beat more ATG heavies in H2H than Vitali IMO.

So Wlad>Vitali

walshb

gene_tunney wrote: »

Prime Vitali beats prime Wlad IMO, but prime Wlad is a better overall boxer, bigger puncher, better resume and overall would beat more ATG heavies in H2H than Vitali IMO.

So Wlad>Vitali

I think this is a very fair and accurate post. As mentioned, Wlad with the chin and innate toughness is a special machine, and beats Vit all night.

gene_tunney

walshb wrote: »

I may as well do my picks.

Ali-Tyson: Ali
Ali-Bowe: Ali
Ali-Lewis: Ali
Ali-Holyfield: Ali

Foreman-Tyson: Foreman
Foreman-Lewis: Foreman
Foreman-Bowe: Foreman
Foreman-Holyfield: Foreman

Frazier-Tyson: Frazier
Frazier-Bowe: Bowe
Frazier-Lewis: Lewis
Frazier-Holyfield: Frazier

Norton-Tyson: Tyson
Norton-Lewis: Lewis
Norton-Bowe: Bowe
Norton-Holyfield: Holyfield

70s scores ten wins and 90s score 6 wins

*Tyson is not at peak here. Peak Mike was 1986-1989
*Many fights razor close, most so are Ali beating Bowe, Frazier beating Holyfield, Holyfield beating Norton.

I disagree with a good few there, but I can see your logic in them except how could you possibly suggest Frazier could beat Tyson and Holy? The only reason Frazier got to Ali was he in an infighter so Ali had to be constantly on his bike. Tyson and Holyfield would just exchange with him and blow him out. I'd be very surprised if Frazier lasted more than 3 with Tyson or went the distance with the Real Deal.

walshb

gene_tunney wrote: »

I disagree with a good few there, but I can see your logic in them except how could you possibly suggest Frazier could beat Tyson and Holy? The only reason Frazier got to Ali was he in an infighter so Ali had to be constantly on his bike. Tyson and Holyfield would just exchange with him and blow him out. I'd be very surprised if Frazier lasted more than 3 with Tyson or went the distance with the Real Deal.

As I said Tyson in the 90s was not peak, and I happen to think that Joe's style is one that could cause Mike issues. The big and strong men are bad for Joe.

Holyfield blasts out Frazier? Wow. Never. That to me is a barn burner, and I happen to think that Joe's engine and workrate are superior. Hell of a scrap, and close as hell too. Frazier wins it down the stretch. Look how successful Qawi was in fight 1. Yes, Holyfield will be bigger, but Joe too is a deal bigger and stronger and heavier handed and fitter than Qawi. Styles make fights, and no way I see Holyfield blasting Joe out.

Maravilla33

I can see Tyson getting Joe out of there early. He was such a quick starter and usually took Frazier a few rounds to get into his rhythm. However, if Frazier can weather the early storm and make it half way I think the odds tip significantly in his favour.

Cant see Holyfield blasting out Frazier either. Think it would be a real battle and a close decision either way. Cant pick a winner.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I can see Tyson getting Joe out of there early. He was such a quick starter and usually took Frazier a few rounds to get into his rhythm. However, if Frazier can weather the early storm and make it half way I think the odds tip significantly in his favour.

Cant see Holyfield blasting out Frazier either. Think it would be a real battle and a close decision either way. Cant pick a winner.

Holy blasting Frazier is to me the oddest selection from all possible selections. Logically it doesn't tally. Sure, Holyfield could win on points, but this is a hell of a tight scrap.

Joe in 1971 was a beast. A wrecking ball. Nothing from Holy's HW career suggests the capability to stop or blast Joe. The big men, and possibly only the likes of Foreman, could do the trick, and even then, Joe kept getting back up.

I mean, Dokes went ten or 11 rds and Dokes then was past his best. This is a peak Frazier we're talking about.

Holyfield could punch, but was far from a concussive KO hitter. And, Holyfield could be hurt too. Cooper and Bowe showed this. Frazier could sure bang with that hook. Joe's engine, workrate and non stop in your face attitude will wear Holyfield out late.

cowzerp

I don't think he means blast as in ko him easy, I think he means he'd bully him easy-that's what I think anyway

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

I don't think he means blast as in ko him easy, I think he means he'd bully him easy-that's what I think anyway

Fair enough, but that also is off to me. Holyfield was not a massive man, nor a stronger man than Frazier. As strong, but no raw physical strength advantage from my viewing. Like I said, it's a Foreman/Bowe type fighter that are all bad for Joe.

Evander could outpoint him over 12. I think over 15 Joe's engine will take this on a close points win. Joe's body attack will be key here. Holy doesn't have the one punch power to turn this fight, or really bother Frazier. He will catch him, hurt him, wobble him, but won't seal the deal, and will take a hell of a lot in return.

What really separates these two is workrate. Joe's is more, and more consistent too. Plus, he was always always pressing. Even Marciano wasn't as aggressive and relentless.