Strong era's that produced weak champions.

[janitor]

There have been some to my mind. Let's have some opinions.

[Thread Stealer]

Michael Moorer & George Foreman in 1994.

And let's not even get into the ABC beltholders.

[SgrRyLeonard]

James Buster Douglas in 1990. Tyson, Holyfield, Ruddock, Tucker, Dokes, Carl Williams, Witherspoon, with Bowe, Lewis, & Mercer still to come. He scores the biggest upset in boxing history and then gets knocked out in his first title defense, in a one-sided fight.

[janitor]

Michael Moorer & George Foreman in 1994.

And let's not even get into the ABC beltholders.

A good example.

I am talking lineal only.

[Muchmoore]

James Buster Douglas in 1990. Tyson, Holyfield, Ruddock, Tucker, Dokes, Carl Williams, Witherspoon, with Bowe, Lewis, & Mercer still to come. He scores the biggest upset in boxing history and then gets knocked out in his first title defense, in a one-sided fight.

Douglas won the title from an ATG and won in impressive fashion. The night he beat Tyson he was not a weak champion.

[Dempsey1238]

The 1970's hands down. It produced Spinks.

[Ramon Rojo]

1930´s

Carnera, Braddock

[Thread Stealer]

Carlos Baldomir

[janitor]

1930´s

Carnera, Braddock
Good choice.

There was actualy a heap of talent in that era but it got pushed aside by the politics, problems of the talented, and circumstance.

The following should have made a decent era-

Schmeling, Sharkey (at his best), Baer (motivated), Godfrey (not making his living by throwing fights), Gains (given a chance), Schaff (lives), Hamas (if not beaten into an old man at the age of 27).

[Duodenum]

1930´s

Carnera, BraddockThe early to mid 1930's were indeed a bizarre time to have weak champions. When considering the extreme deprivations and hardships of the Great Depression, it would be expected to produce extremely hard and durable champions in the boxing ranks. (Could it be, than boxers down on their luck were more receptive to throwing fights, for the sake of an easier payday, or even survival?)

[Robbi]

Douglas won the title from an ATG and won in impressive fashion. The night he beat Tyson he was not a weak champion.

Tyson was not a weak champion at the time either. If Tyson was in with Frank Bruno that night in the Tokyo Dome, he would have looked sensastional.

Douglas won the title from a mediocre ATG. Tyson was beaten in his prime at 23 years of age, never once got up off the floor to win, and apart from regaining the title against Bruno, proved nothing of any significance after the Douglas defeat.

Knocking your opponents out in devastating fashion over a considerable span of time doesn't automatically make you an ATG.

[ironchamp]

90s with Foreman and Moorer (not to mention Bruno, Seldon and Botha the title holders)

70s with Spinks

[ironchamp]

Tyson was not a weak champion at the time either. If Tyson was in with Frank Bruno that night in the Tokyo Dome, he would have looked sensastional.

Douglas won the title from a mediocre ATG. Tyson was beaten in his prime at 23 years of age, never once got up off the floor to win, and apart from regaining the title against Bruno, proved nothing of any significance after the Douglas defeat.

Knocking your opponents out in devastating fashion over a considerable span of time doesn't automatically make you an ATG.

Jim Jeffries never got up off the floor to win and neither did Lewis. Nobody gives them shit for it.

Tyson losing at age 23 to Douglas is no worse than Joe Louis losing to Max Schmeling at age 23.


Tyson was the youngest HW ever to be called champ. He is also the last fighter to single handedly unify the titles and has 9 title defenses to his credit and 12 Championship wins.

If he is not an ATG in your book then you really need to reevaluate your criteria.

[Robbi]

No, frank bruno would have battered the tyson that showed up in tokyo.

Tyson is Top10 ATG easily unless you have some sort of incredible tyson hatred. Tyson was out of his prime. Lennox lewis never got up to win, Neither did quite a few ATG's.



No, Making 9 title defenses ALL against legitmate contenders, unifying the divison, starching Two ATG's, and being the youngest heavyweight champion of all time makes you an ATG.

Lewis came back to avenge both his defeats though. Tyson on the other hand panicked during his rematch with Holyfield, and decided a DQ was the best way to end the fight, rather than trying to win. If he never won, then at least he would have went out giving it his best shot, and would no doubt have gotten more praise for losing by looking up at the lights on his ass rather than biting ears.

[ironchamp]

Lewis came back to avenge both his defeats though. Tyson on the other hand panicked during his rematch with Holyfield, and decided a DQ was the best way to end the fight, rather than trying to win. If he never won, then at least he would have went out giving it his best shot, and would no doubt have gotten more praise for losing by looking up at the lights on his ass rather than biting ears.

Tyson never got chance to rematch with Douglas therefore he couldnt right that wrong. Against Holyfield, I'm starting to believe more and more that he snapped. There are many other ways to quit than to bite an ear. He could have thrown elbows, thrown low blows to get disqualified but considering his emotional instability he just went into a fit of rage.

[ironchamp]

Nobody says he insn´t an atg, he just isn´t top10.
Jeffries lost one bout after a six year layoff and was in his mid-thirties. That isn´t comparable to Tyson´s loss.
Yep, Lewis never came back after beeing knocked down but he avenged every single defeat. Tyson didn´t anything like that.
The difference between Tyson´s loss to Douglas and Louis´ to Schmeling is that Schmeling himself is an top20 atg and Douglas is nowhere near that level. Hardly comparable.
Then, Tyson didn´t defend his title 9 times, he defended it 3 times. Alphabet titles don´t really count here.
The youngest hw champion was Floyd Patterson not Tyson but only by a few month.
What also counts against Tyson is that he never beat an fellow atg beside an old Larry Holmes who came out of retirement and just hat 2 weeks to train. That counts as much as Holmes or berbicks win over Ali.

Don´t get me wrong i like Tyson, he was the most exciting hw champ ever but there are just some guys who did more than him.

I can't think of 10 guys who did more.

[Robbi]

Jim Jeffries never got up off the floor to win and neither did Lewis. Nobody gives them shit for it.

Tyson losing at age 23 to Douglas is no worse than Joe Louis losing to Max Schmeling at age 23.


Tyson was the youngest HW ever to be called champ. He is also the last fighter to single handedly unify the titles and has 9 title defenses to his credit and 12 Championship wins.

If he is not an ATG in your book then you really need to reevaluate your criteria.

You really are dumb. After Louis lost to Schemling, he reigned as heavyweight champion for 11 years, and made the most consecutive defenses of the title in heavyweight history. And during his reign, he also got up off the canvas to come back and pull out wins. Longevity and coming back from adversity. Two things Tyson never had, which may well hurt your feelings.

Lewis never got off the floor to win against McCall and Rahman. Your correct, only a drunken full would say otherwise. But Tyson got DQ'd in his rematch with Holyfield. He took the easy way out, rather than grind out a possible win if he decided to play by the Marquis of Queenberry rules. He feared the embarrassment and humilation of losing yet again, and panicked.

Tyson lost for the first time at 23 years of age, but proved nothing of all time great status after the defeat. Thats the difference between himself and someone like Louis. Even Roberto Duran after "no mas" came back and silenced everyone. He rebounded and proved his critics wrong in many instances. Your man on the other hand, never.

McNeely, Mathias, Norris, Savarese, Neilson, Francis. If beating those opponents throughout your career after tasting defeat for the first time makes you true ATG then we have problems. I'll give Tyson a bit credit, his best ever win after Douglas handed him his ass was Ruddock. But its hardly anything to shout about.

Your in denial...........................

[hitman_hatton1]

he was turning things around though robbi.

his comeback got cut short by prison time.

he did win back the title in the end though.

tyson is still an atg at heavyweight.

[ironchamp]

You really are dumb. After Louis lost to Schemling, he reigned as heavyweight champion for 11 years, and made the most consecutive defenses of the title in heavyweight history. And during his reign, he also got up off the canvas to come back and pull out wins. Longevity and coming back from adversity. Two things Tyson never had, which may well hurt your feelings.

Lewis never got off the floor to win against McCall and Rahman. Your correct, only a drunken full would say otherwise. But Tyson got DQ'd in his rematch with Holyfield. He took the easy way out, rather than grind out a possible win if he decided to play by the Marquis of Queenberry rules. He feared the embarrassment and humilation of losing yet again, and panicked.

Tyson lost for the first time at 23 years of age, but proved nothing of all time great status after the defeat. Thats the difference between himself and someone like Louis. Even Roberto Duran after "no mas" came back and silenced everyone. He rebounded and proved his critics wrong in many instances. Your man on the other hand, never.

McNeely, Mathias, Norris, Savarese, Neilson, Francis. If beating those opponents throughout your career after tasting defeat for the first time makes you true ATG then we have problems. I'll give Tyson a bit credit, his best ever win after Douglas handed him his ass was Ruddock. But its hardly anything to shout about.

Your in denial...........................

Listen, I didn't call you dumb no need for namecalling.

1. Louis lost to Schmeling what he did afterwards is irrelavant but the point remains he lost to fighter on Max Schmeling's calibre which is shameful but like Tyson's loss to Douglas it happened on an off night. BTW I have Joe Louis at number 1 everytime I do a top 10 ATG list.

2. Lewis lost via 1 punch KO. He is the only Champion that has went out that way. He corrected the wrongs but the point is he went out like a journeyman by going down via 1 punch.

Holyfield II was disgraceful no arguement there. But lets not forget that Holyfield once used his chompers in the amatuers after being thoroughly frustrated.

Tyson after Douglas, well he beat Bruno (at the time WBC Champ), Seldon (at the time WBA Champ), Botha (Former IBF Champ at the time). He was practically on his way to unfiying again after prison. Not to mention his wins over Ruddock 2x and Golota.

This is much better than Liston after Ali, Frazier after Foreman and Patterson after Liston.

tobkhan,

Tyson ranks ahead of:

Holyfield
Frazier
Liston
Dempsey
Langford
Jeffries
Wills
Lewis.


Louis, Ali, Foreman, Johnson, Holmes, Marciano rank ahead of Mike.

[JohnThomas1]

He is also the last fighter to single handedly unify the titles


How many belts did Hopkins miss out on? He was running around with 4 belts last time i looked. He had the 3 Tyson had plus a newer one.

[ironchamp]

So losing against an top20 atg hw is a shame? Wow, that´s the first time i heard something like that.

Ah, and no way Tyson ranks above these guys, they all did more at hw than Tyson, be it in terms of achievement or resume. Following is the resume of the guys against fellow hw atgs. Remember Tyson was 1-3 against fellow atgs.

Holyfiel beat Tyson 2 times and is 1-2 agianst Bowe so it makes 3-2 for him.
Frazier has a win over Ali and two losses, and losses to Foreman. So he´s 1-4 against atgs but his win over a near prime Ali is way better than Tysons over ancient Holmes.
Liston is 2-2 against atgs. 2 wins against Patterson and 2 losses against Ali.
Dempsey only fought Tunney as a fellow hw atg and is 0-2 against him.
Langford is 15-19-10 and 3 no contests against fellow atgs Jack Johnson, Joe Jeanette, Sam McVea and Harry Wills.
Jeffries is 4-1 against atgs, 2 wins against Fitzsimmons and Corbett and one loss coming out of a 5 year retirement against Jack Johnson
Wills is 18-4-1 with 2 no contests against Joe Jeanette, Sam McVea and Sam Langford.
Lewis is 2-0-1 against Holyfiel 1-0-1 and Tyson.

You see just with the records against atgs the only won you could argue Tyson above is Dempsey but taking the complete resume and achievements in account Dempsey comes out above Tyson too.

Tyson is 2-3 vs ATG's.

Holmes, Spinks with losses to Holyfield and Lewis.

1. Jeffries refusal to face Black fighters seriously undermines his resume. I rank him in the top 20 well below Tyson.

2. Dempsey held the title hostage and refused to face Wills. His inactivity, fewer title defenses is dismal vs. Tyson's reign. Also his run to the title has a few of blemishes unlike Tyson.

3. Liston cleared out most of the division in the late 50s early 60s much like Tyson did in the late 80s. Tyson maintained relevance in terms of solid wins including regaining the HW Championship after he lost the title whereas Liston become a footnote.

4. With the exception of the Ali win, Tyson's resume has more depth than Frazier. Had a better career after losing the title as well.

5. Lewis first won the title in the courtroom and then lost it via 1 punch in the ring against McCall. His resume is pretty good and he was for the most part consistent, but not really dominant. He was never really undisputed unil 1999 when he beat Holyfield (the first fight decision was BS)

6. Holyfield was too inconsistent as champ to ranked ahaed.

To be continued. Gotta go.

[JohnThomas1]

Jim Jeffries never got up off the floor to win and neither did Lewis. Nobody gives them shit for it.


The true test for Lewis was going to be the McCall fight, he was up and definitely eager to fight on. Who is to say what may have happened. Plenty of fighters have been allowed to fight on in a similar condition, and some have indeed won from it.

[TBooze]

I'm suprised no one has mentioned it (talking about Heavies again;) ), but the era that screams out the moment I read the title of the thread, is the 147lbers in the late 60s.

I know it was virtually all good luck, and he soon lost the championship, but Billy Backus being king of a division that had Jose Napoles, Curtis Cokes, Hedgemon Lewis and Mr Griffith making the odd appearance?

[janitor]

Knocking your opponents out in devastating fashion over a considerable span of time doesn't automatically make you an ATG.

Sure.

I personaly think that if a champion dominates a definable era, genuinely beating the best around then he has to be seen as an all time great.

I also think that if a champion unifies the titles seperating them from their seperate owners than it is hard to refuse him ATG status.

[ironchamp]

Spinks isn´t an atg at hw.

Spinks is an ATG fighter who took the title from the Champ. And made a few lineal defenses. Tyson took care of him. And yes he may have been a LHW but so was:

Gene Tunney who I should add beat Dempsey twice,
Billy Conn who Joe Louis needed a little more than 91 seconds to handle,
Michael Moorer who split fights with Holyfield,
Archie Moore who even dropped Marciano.


He fought Pter Jackson before he won the title. It wasn´t his fault not fighting blacks as a champion the politics of the time prevented him from doing so.


It may not have been his fault but he wasn't rushing to fight McVea, Langford or Jeanette. In fact he publically stated that he's not putting the Heavyweight Championship on the line for a black fighter.


He defended his title 7 times, that is 4 times more often than Tyson. He also wanted to fight Wills, like with Jeffries poltics prevented this from happen. Yeah he lost but then he faced the better competition and had not the amateur experience Tyson had.


Tyson in unifying accumulated 9 title defenses and reigned for 4 years. Dempsey did not face better comp than Tyson. Tyson fought better fighters. Not having amatuer experience isnt grounds for any excuses. its like saying you didnt study for an exam and therefore should be graded accordingly. Also Tyson wasn't stopped in 1 round by Firemann Flynn.

Liston was nearly 10 years older than Tyson when he lost the title and especially at that time an old man in boxing terms.

Tyson had a better resume.


Tyson didn´t face the competition Frazier did, no way. Tyson had a better career than Frazier in that he won some alphabet-crap but beside Ruddock he lost everytime he stepped up. Frazier just lost to Ali and Foremen, who Tyson ducked, and was beating still everyone else despite beeing past it.


Tyson didnt duck Foreman. Mike really didnt have anything to gain from a Foreman fight, he fought Ruddock instead. Take Fraziers best wins and Tysons best wins stack them up Frazier over Ali in FOTC is unparralell but after that he has nothing on Tyson. Frazier only lost to Foreman and Ali because he didnt fight enough top level comp to add to his L column. Lyle, Shavers, Young and Norton were 4 fighters that Joe should have fought.

Lewis defended his title more often than Tyson, defeated every man he faced and was on the top for much longer than Tyson and beat him.

Lewis was a belt holder who was more of a top contender than Champion. He got a belt in 1994 lost it to a journeyman via 1 punch. Got it back in the courtroom and held on to until he fought Holyfield in 1999 whom everyone considered the man at the time they fought. So his reign is really from 1999-2003. Tyson's was from 1986-1990. I think Mike had the more impressive reign. And Lennox beat terrible version of Tyson.



When you fight the best you will have some losses, he always faced the best unlike Tyson in the 90s. He still defended his title more often than Tyson and he beat Tyson two times.


Holyfield lost to Michael Moorer who in turn allowed a 45 year old man to win the Heavyweight title. Tyson in the 90s had a 3 year prison stint that took alot out of him.

We can agree to disagree. I have Tyson in my top 10.

Truthfully I dont like to rank fighters like McVea, Langford, Jeffries- pre Dempsey fighters because the lack of film forces me to go on hear say and biased information that I have to accept as fact. If I cannot see the fighters peformance and I have to read about thier technique in books then all of a sudden they become these mythical figures. I cant grade what I cant properly assess.

[Irish Steel]

WHo ever said tyson. dempsey, go die.

[Cojimar 1945]

Tyson had two defenses of the linear title. The other fights still help his legacy but Tyson's problem is that there were heavyweights better than him in his own era and this prevented him from dominating his own time.

[Dempsey1238]

Holyfield lost to Michael Moorer who in turn allowed a 45 year old man to win the Heavyweight title. Tyson in the 90s had a 3 year prison stint that took alot out of him.

We can agree to disagree. I have Tyson in my top 10.

Truthfully I dont like to rank fighters like McVea, Langford, Jeffries- pre Dempsey fighters because the lack of film forces me to go on hear say and biased information that I have to accept as fact. If I cannot see the fighters peformance and I have to read about thier technique in books then all of a sudden they become these mythical figures. I cant grade what I cant properly assess.

Well there is film on Langford, Jeff and a Pass prime McVea sparining with Johnson though.

[Guido]

Tyson was not a weak champion at the time either. If Tyson was in with Frank Bruno that night in the Tokyo Dome, he would have looked sensastional.

Douglas won the title from a mediocre ATG. Tyson was beaten in his prime at 23 years of age, never once got up off the floor to win, and apart from regaining the title against Bruno, proved nothing of any significance after the Douglas defeat.

Knocking your opponents out in devastating fashion over a considerable span of time doesn't automatically make you an ATG.

That's the best analysis of Tyson I've heard in a long time, but you could easily categorize me with the "haters." Still, that's the point that resignates most with me -- an ATG is one who proves his championship worth especially after a major defeat.

[ironchamp]

That's the best analysis of Tyson I've heard in a long time, but you could easily categorize me with the "haters." Still, that's the point that resignates most with me -- an ATG is one who proves his championship worth especially after a major defeat.

Anybody who cleans out a division, unifies the titles, losses comes back after a layoff and wins the title again is an ATG.

What did Frazier do after his first major defeat?
He lost to Ali twice and then lost to Foreman again.

What about Dempsey?
He beats Sharkey only to lose to Tunney again.

The point is Tyson was an ATG and you cannot spin it any other way. The criteria for being an ATG does not include getting off the floor to win a fight or overcoming odds. The measure is:

1. Tenure as Champ
2. Quality of opposition
3. Ability as a fighter.

In other sports, dominant and decisive wins are awareded with praise whereas in boxing, dominant and decisive victories are greeted with skepticism.

The "xxxxxxx" express has so many passengers until "xxxxxx" gets Ko'd or outboxed. Then he's overrated.

1. After Jeff Lacy lost to Joe Calzaghe, Lacy was all of a sudden overrated. One dimensional, exposed. Not "Calzaghe was alot better than I expected" but "Jeff Lacy wasnt that good"

2. Michael Spinks at HW is remembered most for his 91 loss to Tyson as opposed to his (at the time unprecedented) Signature victory over the Real and Reigning HW Champ Larry Holmes.

3. Felix Trinidad has two losses (three if you count DLH) to fighters that are undoutedly ATG fighters. And all of a sudden he's limited, not that good.

4. Roy Jones jr. was a fighter in which people just couldnt wait to see lose.


Some people don't want to believe that a fighter can be head and shoulders above his competition. Instead they want to see struggle, they wanna see Rocky everytime a fighter steps in the ring. They don't embrace perfection rather they prefer imperfection. Thier ideal fighter is someone who gets up off the floor in a HW title fight and rallies back to win a the decision. My ideal fighter is someone who from start to finish takes care of business and leaves no doubt who the better man was.

My two cents.