Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[StarshipTrooper]

Tyson was champion in the 80s for just over 3 years, and this those 3 years he beat all of the best opposition they put in front of him. If I remember correctly, 7 out of his 10 title fight wins, in that time period, were against top 10 ranked fighters.

The three other fighters who weren't ranked in the top 10 were Holmes, Tubbs and Bruno.

Holmes was past-it but he's still an all-time great heavyweight. Not to mention that the public were demanding that fight.

Tubbs and Bruno, although not rated in the top 10 at the time, were world champions, at one point in their respective careers. Although, these two weren't what you would call memorably great champions, they're certainly not tomato cans.

Tony Tubbs as a top-heavyweight is a joke and Bruno choked everytime he stepped up in class. There's a huge difference between a top-10 rated fighter from a solid era and one from a poor era. The fact that guys like Tubbs and Berbick WERE considered top Heavyweights in that era is frankly an embarressment.

Holmes may be an all-time great but when you fight an ATG matters: Holmes was 38 and certainly well past-prime, hadn't fought in 2 years, and had all of 5 weeks to get ready for the fight. Under those circumstances the fact that Holmes was an ATG is meaningless since he wasn't an ATG fighter at the time his fight with Tyson took place.

Poet

[smallbutstrong]

Tony Tubbs as a top-heavyweight is a joke and Bruno choked everytime he stepped up in class. There's a huge difference between a top-10 rated fighter from a solid era and one from a poor era. The fact that guys like Tubbs and Berbick WERE considered top Heavyweights in that era is frankly an embarressment.

Holmes may be an all-time great but when you fight an ATG matters: Holmes was 38 and certainly well past-prime, hadn't fought in 2 years, and had all of 5 weeks to get ready for the fight. Under those circumstances the fact that Holmes was an ATG is meaningless since he wasn't an ATG fighter at the time his fight with Tyson took place.

Poet

I agreed with you that Holmes was past-it, which is why I stated that it in my first post. I'm just telling you the reason why Tyson fought him.. because the public were demanding that fight.

In case you missed it, I said Tubbs and Bruno (80s version) weren't rated in the top 10. I just said they were each a champion, at some point in their careers.

Pretty good for fighters not rated in the top 10, huh?

I notice that in your profile you have a picture of Joe Louis. You're probably a fan of his, which makes your argument pretty ironic. You talk about Tyson being in a very weak era, when the same is said about Louis.

Want evidence? Tony Galento was a top 5 fighter.

[StarshipTrooper]

I agreed with you that Holmes was past-it, which is why I stated that it in my first post. I'm just telling you the reason why Tyson fought him.. because the public were demanding that fight.

In case you missed it, I said Tubbs and Bruno (80s version) weren't rated in the top 10. I just said they were each a champion, at some point in their careers.

Pretty good for fighters not rated in the top 10, huh?

I notice that in your profile you have a picture of Joe Louis. You're probably a fan of his, which makes your argument pretty ironic. You talk about Tyson being in a very weak era, when the same is said about Louis.

Want evidence? Tony Galento was a top 5 fighter.

Galento ain't got nothing on Tubbs for fat rolls and moobies dude Try again.

Poet

[smallbutstrong]

Galento ain't got nothing on Tubbs for fat rolls and moobies dude Try again.

Poet

Is that a white flag, I see?

[StarshipTrooper]

Is that a white flag, I see?

Hardly. More an acknowledgement that your point has no point. You need to do better than that.

Poet

[smallbutstrong]

Hardly. More an acknowledgement that your point has no point. You need to do better than that.

Poet

I made several points. You addressed one of them, but you didn't provide an argument to counter that point.

You can do better than that.. can't you?

[StarshipTrooper]

I made several points. You addressed one of them, but you didn't provide an argument to counter that point.

You can do better than that.. can't you?

All you did was reiterate the points you made in your intitial post such as:

Holmes was past-it but he's still an all-time great heavyweight.

I addressed this.

Not to mention that the public were demanding that fight.

And your point is?

Tubbs and Bruno, although not rated in the top 10 at the time, were world champions, at one point in their respective careers. Although, these two weren't what you would call memorably great champions, they're certainly not tomato cans.

And I addressed the fact that having those to fighters at the top of the division is proof of the division's weakness.

Now after that you took a gratuitous shot at Louis and brought up Galento who, unlike Tubbs, could actually punch. The 1940s was an average era for Heavyweights. Not strong like the 1960-1970 or the 1990s, but not weak either like the 1980s, 1920s, 1950s, or the 2000s. All you can do is bring up Galento which has been cliched as it's the only thing that Tyson fan-bois can ever bring up when they're protecting their boy's record.

Poet

[smallbutstrong]

And your point is?

It was a big money fight and the public were demanding it.. how much more clear can it get?

And I addressed the fact that having those to fighters at the top of the division is proof of the division's weakness.

Yet again, you forgot to read the part where I said THEY WERE NOT RATED IN THE TOP 10.

I said they were two of the three who Tyson fought during his championship reign that were not rated in the top 10. But both of them were champions at one point in their careers.

So, if the lowest rated fighters he fought during that time were all world champions, what does that say about his championship reign? That it was good, of course.

Now after that you took a gratuitous shot at Louis and brought up Galento who, unlike Tubbs, could actually punch. The 1940s was an average era for Heavyweights. Not strong like the 1960-1970 or the 1990s, but not weak either like the 1980s, 1920s, 1950s, or the 2000s. All you can do is bring up Galento which has been cliched as it's the only thing that Tyson fan-bois can ever bring up when they're protecting their boy's record.

Poet

When you have Galento as a top 5 fighter, your era sucks. No two ways about it.

Chris Arreola (who was rated at #7, not too long ago) could punch. Who cares?

And Galento (who was in the top 5) was still much more out of shape than Tubbs (who wasn't even in the top 10).

I'm not saying Tyson is better than Louis, either, because he's not. I just mentioned that Louis fought in a weak era, much like you claim Tyson did.

So, in the end, you bash Tyson for dominating in a weak era. But for Louis, it's okay?

Oh wait! I forgot.. certain standards apply for your favorite fighters.

[StarshipTrooper]

It was a big money fight and the public were demanding it.. how much more clear can it get?

Completely missing the point! It doesn't matter a hill of beans if the public demanded it, it does NOTHING to enhance Tyson's standing. And yet people like YOU keep holding it out as a great win for Mike: It wan't.

Yet again, you forgot to read the part where I said THEY WERE NOT RATED IN THE TOP 10.

I said they were two of the three who Tyson fought during his championship reign that were not rated in the top 10. But both of them were champions at one point in their careers.

So, if the lowest rated fighters he fought during that time were all world champions, what does that say about his championship reign? That it was good, of course.

Wrong! What is says is that the era royally REEKS because garbage like Berbick could actually win a belt.

When you have Galento as a top 5 fighter, your era sucks. No two ways about it.

When you have Berbick (and Dokes, and Page, and Tubbs) as one of your CHAMPIONS, your era sucks. No two ways about it.

Chris Arreola (who was rated at #7, not too long ago) could punch. Who cares?

Being a puncher is practically always a ticket to the top-10: That's why Arreola (and Galento) was there in the first place.

And Galento (who was in the top 5) was still much more out of shape than Tubbs (who wasn't even in the top 10).

Obviously you've never much of Tubbs. I've seen plenty and more than I care to see of that Tubb of lard. My God! The dudes man-boobs jiggled when you punched that "waist" of space.

So, in the end, you bash Tyson for dominating in a weak era. But for Louis, it's okay?

Oh wait! I forgot.. certain standards apply for your favorite fighters.

Apparently you have an evolving standard for what constitutes a weak era since you're willing to rewrite history to make your idol look better.

Poet

[smallbutstrong]

Completely missing the point! It doesn't matter a hill of beans if the public demanded it, it does NOTHING to enhance Tyson's standing. And yet people like YOU keep holding it out as a great win for Mike: It wan't.

Why would the public be demanding this fight if it meant nothing?

Obviously Holmes wasn't a tomato can. He might've not been at his best, but he was still a good choice of opponent. Such a good choice that 4 years later, he was able to beat an undefeated Mercer and go the distance with Holyfield.

Wrong! What is says is that the era royally REEKS because garbage like Berbick could actually win a belt.

When you have Berbick (and Dokes, and Page, and Tubbs) as one of your CHAMPIONS, your era sucks. No two ways about it.

And if the 1930s had ABC titles, fighters like Galento and Paychek would've likely been champions. Is that any better?

By the way, after doing a little fact-checking, I just learned that Galento was the #1 rated heavyweight, behind the champion Louis, in 1939.

I think it's time for a face palm.

Being a puncher is practically always a ticket to the top-10: That's why Arreola (and Galento) was there in the first place.

Doesn't take away the fact that their physical condition was and still is considered a disgrace to the sport. And just how much it shows how weak the era is.

Obviously you've never much of Tubbs. I've seen plenty and more than I care to see of that Tubb of lard. My God! The dudes man-boobs jiggled when you punched that "waist" of space.

You're trying to tell me that Tubbs was fatter than Galento. That's all I need to know to realize that you're either in a state of denial or that you have no idea who you're even talking about.

If I showed you a side by side picture of the two, you would probably still deny it.

Apparently you have an evolving standard for what constitutes a weak era since you're willing to rewrite history to make your idol look better.

Poet

He's not my idol. I'm a fan of him, though. And as a fan I'm not gonna just stand by and let someone spread lies about him and try to pass it off as the truth.