Top 10 Heavies from best to worst [Archive]

The Iron Man

08-22-2007, 12:55 AM

10.Lennox Lewis : Defeated every man he went in the ring with, which is not something many boxers can say. Greatest ever british boxer extremely smart in the ring and very powerful.

9.Jack Johnson: The first "Real heavyweight" and extremley talented boxer, he would take opponents all the way just to punish them. If he fought in a more modern era he may have been higher in the list, but he fought many middle weights and light heavyweights.

8.Jack Dempsey: Was one of the most Dominant fighters, amazingly powerful and could knock you out with either Hand!!

7.Larry Holmes: Had probably the best left jab ever in the Heavyweight division.Living in the Shadow of Ali, it was very hard for holmes to make as much of an impact but he did this with an 8 year run as heavyweight champ

6.Joe Frazier: The First person to ever beat ali, fought in the "golden era" of boxing and was one of the best! had one of the best left hooks in boxing history. He had a iron chin, and was part of some of the best ever fights.

5.George Foreman: He not only has one hell of a grill, he had one hell of a punch that knocked down frazier 6 times in one round!! He retired and came back to boxing to become the oldest heavyweight champion of all time at the age of 45 which was 20 years after he lost it to Ali

4.Mike Tyson: The Youngest ever Heavy weight Champion, and the 1st to unify 3 major belts and become the undisputed champion. If Tyson had kept Rooney, he would most probably be #1. The most dominant boxer ever in there prime. He had incredible speed and power, a combination of the two that never been seen and probably never will be. He had the greatest ever left hook. His Opponent feared him so much that they would concentrate on not getting hit rather than winning, its a shame he didn’t keep on the right track.. but nether the less he is still 4th.

3.Rocky Marciano: 49-0, the only heavyweight champion in this list never to lost a fight. His power and stamina were incredible the same goes for his chin. And it looks like his record will never be defeated

2.Muhammad Ali: "The Greatest" well almost, easily the quickest heavyweight of all time, and fought in many of the Greatest ever fights. He dominated at a time with many other great boxers, two others who are in the list. Regaining the Title twice he was an awesome athlete

1.Joe Louis: 25 title defences a record that has never been broken! He was technically gifted as well as having a devastating punch that got him the #1 place in ESPNs Greatest Punchers. Lethal with both arms, this man earns his place in my List!

My List changes all the time, but not many leave the list apart from Lewis and Holyfield or liston enter

neils7147933

08-22-2007, 05:41 AM

Hi everyone, just joined and I know this has probably been done a million times, but just letting everyone know what I think.

Top 10 Greatest Heavyweights of all-time

1> Muhammad Ali
2> Larry Holmes
3> Lennox Lewis
4> Joe Louis
5> Evander Holyfield
6> Jack Johnson
7> George Foreman
8> Rocky Marciano
9> Joe Frazier
10>Mike Tyson

Top 10 Favourite Heavyweight's of all-time

1> Larry Holmes
2> George Foreman
3> Muhammed Ali
4> Joe Louis
5> Mike Tyson
6> Rocky Marciano
7> Jack Johnson
8> Lennox Lewis
9> James J. Jeffries
10>Sonny Liston

Top 10 Worst Heavyweight Champions of all-time
1> Franceso Damiani
2> Corrie Sanders
3> Chris Byrd
4> Michael Bent
5> Nickolay Valuev
6> Lamon Brewster
7> Frans Botha
8> Greg Page
9> John Tate
10>Henry Akinwande

Top 10 Most underated heavyweights of all-time
1> Larry Holmes
2> Lennox Lewis
3> Gene Tunney
4> Ezzard Charles
5> Tim Witherspoon
6> Ken Norton
7> James J. Jeffries
8> George Foreman
9> Jersey Joe Walcott
10>Riddick Bowe
Feel free to get back I know many will disagree especially why I have Lewis 3rd and Tyson 10, so if you want to know just ask and I will explain my reasons
Chris Byrd and Lamon Brewster made multiple defenses of their titles.

How about instead including a guy who got blown out in his first title defense - and looked like **** winning the belt in Shannon Briggs?

Brassangel

08-22-2007, 01:46 PM

This was mine from another thread:

10. Lennox Lewis - He was the last to officially clean up the division, though his wins against all-time greats Holyfield, and Tyson are skewed, given their ages. He was a sound technical fighter, he had good power, and given his size, would have been formidable in any era. He was one of the few who actually got better with age. He fought some of his best fights in his 30's, which is extremely rare, especially for a heavyweight. This is a temporary placeholder at #10, however, as this spot changes more frequently for me than any other on the list. Many people would place Jack Johnson, or someone else from a vintage era here, which is completely respectable.

9. Jack Dempsey - One of the original true terrors. He was smaller than a lot of guys, but he tore them down like it was his job. Well...I guess it technically was. He was dominant in his era, and although he encountered one piece of kryptonite during the course of his career (Tunney), that can't erase one of the true greats from history's list.

8. Charles "Sonny" Liston - Perhaps the most feared fighter of the entire century, Liston tore his way to the top, avenging his only decision loss (Marshall), and destroying then heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson twice, in a total of two rounds. I don't rate him any higher than 8 for now, however, as he only successfully defended his title once, and then failed to splash back onto the scene. He was a fierce, freak of nature, with an incredible reach, and a jackhammer jab.

7. Mike Tyson - A perpetual buzzsaw at his best, a sad, sub-human quitter at his worst, "Iron" Mike was perhaps the single most exciting fighter in heavyweight history. He tore through the division on his way to the crown, decimating all, and leaving little to question when he swept the championship belts onto his shoulders as a mere boy amongst men. Truly, the last heavyweight to hold the undisputed crown for any significant length of time. Were it not for his odd personna and tragic private life, he could have been discussed much higher on many lists. He had rare physical talents, perhaps not seen in any other fighter; he possessed speed, power, and elusiveness in dangerous supply. Given how he turned out, however, this is the absolute highest I can rate him, and he tends to fluctuate on my list from positions as high as 7, and as low as 12.

6. Joe Frazier - The hardest working individual, period. The man didn't lift weights, he was small for a heavyweight, he was a converted lefty, he was awkward, and at times slow. "Smokin" Joe Frazier was a warrior, a true battler who brought 100% from the opening introductions to the final bell. Perhaps my favorite fighter of all-time, he simply got there by out-hustling his opponents. A man with a heart as big as the moon, he could have been the greatest, were he not overshadowed by two others from the same era.

5. George Foreman - I place the grillmaster in the middle of my list, because his accomplishments weren't amazing, having only successfully defended the title for two professional bouts, and containing the largest list of tomato cans in grocery store history. Even so, the man was an absolute house. He even put my #6 boxer to shame, by knocking him to the canvas half-a-dozen times in two rounds. When it seemed as though he was merely a power slugger who's career never truly got there, he comes back, after more than nine years away, and slugs his way to the top to win the belt 20 years after losing it! He showed heart, and tactical boxing skill; two qualities sorely lacking from his dominant prime.

4. Larry Holmes - The man won 48 consecutive fights, and defended the title for 7 years before finally succumbing to age and wear. Even so, he went on to have a fairly successful extended career lasting well into his 50's. Perhaps the best pure boxer, with the most complete game on the list, the "Easton Assassin" is often underrated and dismissed as a shadow to the fighters of the 60's and 70's. I know one thing's for sure: he would perhaps be the single most difficult opponent for anyone at any point in history. He could come back from devastating power (see: Shavers 1 & 2), turn a fight around in the midst of losing (see: Witherspoon), and deliver a combination of speed, power, courage, and stamina that many of his predecessors couldn't boast of containing in such quantities together.

3. Rocky Marciano - The only heavyweight champion to retire undefeated. 49-0. Nothing else needs to be said. It doesn't matter who he faced, or how sloppy he was getting there, the man simply won. It's all he knew how to do. He couldn't be put away, and he had stamina to punch through walls for 20+ rounds. I rate him higher than do many other boxing historians, despite his (seemingly) lackluster competition, but he has accomplished something that may never happen again. He did this while taking on all comers and top contenders of his era.

2. Muhammad Ali - In a head-to-head competition, Ali beats nearly everyone on this list without too much trouble. Given the awkward style matchup, I'd say that he easily handles #1 & #3. This isn't a vs. list, however; it's the greatest champions. As a champion, he was superb. It's a shame that most of his time as champ was spent when his gifts of speed, fluidity, and elusiveness were gone. There is no doubt that Ali has had the biggest impact on the sport, and on particular groups of cultural society in America. "The Greatest" was taken from the sport during his prime years. Some would say it was a judgment for speaking out against the One True God, while others would claim that the government was out to get him. Whatever the case, he still overcame the loss of his swift feet to outsmart, and outwill his way back to the top, 10 years after accomplishing it the first time. He has left us with some of the best, and perhaps the most memorable moments in sports history.

1. Joe Louis - He defended the title 25 times over the course of a 12-year stretch. He avenged his first loss in the most impressive fashion seen before or since. He was sound in all aspects of the game. To have a "prime" last as long as he did is unfathomable by today's standards. He was simply the best, for the longest period of time, and didn't truly suffer a loss except while he was green (which he avenged in brutal fashion), and again, while he was well beyond his best years against Ezzard Charles and Rocky Marciano. Those names are hardly the tags of a couple of bums or journeymen. Joe Louis even took 4 years off to serve his country, and he still returned in very impressive fashion. The man was the most complete fighter in heavyweight history. The "Brown Bomber" loved the sport of boxing, and aided in bringing it to the forefront of all sports. Even though he would match up poorly to my #2, his accomplishments inside and outside of the ring are more than enough to earn him the #1 spot, on my list of the greatest heavyweights of all-time.

Well, there you have it. A little dramatic, a little wishy-washy, but it's my current list. Stay tuned when I'll probably change it in three days time.

kayjay

08-22-2007, 03:39 PM

Brassanger, Ali didn't "easily handle" many fighters. Even very mediocre guys gave him hard times. He sure as hell wouldn't "handle" anyone on THAT list.

Brassangel

08-22-2007, 06:02 PM

A well passed his prime Ali defeated the seemingly invincible Foreman via KO, with little in the way of stopping his game plan. Sure, he took a lot of shots to the midsection, but that was what he expected to do, and he executed it perfectly. Liston never laid a glove on Ali until he blinded him first. Frazier gave Ali extreme difficulty, so I believe that Tyson would as well, but Marciano and Louis would not do so well against him. Joe Louis simply does not match up well to Ali at all. He started fights slow, he plodded around the ring slowly, while Ali would slash him apart and put him down. I love Joe Louis, obviously, as I have him at #1, but I can't watch footage of either fighter and realistically give Louis a chance against Ali; especially if we're talking about the same Ali who fought Cleveland Williams. Even so, Louis was the best "champion" on my list for the reasons presented; all head-to-heads aside. Rocky Marciano was prone to bleed and cut, something Ali was a master at taking advantage of. I think the Rock would do well if the fight made it into the late rounds, but Ali would have all day to cut him up and force a stoppage.

Furthermore, I think that Ali would win a best of three against every single fighter on that list. That's what made him great; he rarely had a truly bad matchup (at least not during his short-lived prime), and that window of "beatability" shrinks before the layoff. While he had some awkward performances against some mediocre opponents, he knew when it was time to take over the fight. Also, much like Mike Tyson, Ali's prime was actually witnessed for a very short period of time, prior to being laid off; the difference being that Ali made something worthwhile of his return. During that short period of time, he was almost perfect. Beatable, but nearly flawless. I don't like him as a man, mind you, and I detest complimenting him so much, but it is difficult to say that anyone on that top ten list would perform better against the other nine than would Ali.

Also, by using the word "handle," I simply meant that he could get business done and probably take at least a decision against most of them. He would have some difficult matchups, though again, I think he wins a best of three against all of them.

Brassangel

08-22-2007, 06:16 PM

Otherwise...what did you think of the list? I'd be interested to hear critique on the list as a whole instead of sentence specific notes.

-CANE-

08-23-2007, 07:04 AM

brassangel - Thanks for your responses, not a bad list. Obviously I disagree with the order of the top 10 as mine was different. But we all have our own reason's, I'll explain mine if you want me to. In regards to the later posting, I'd say I agree with your assesment that in a best of 3 Ali probably would come out on top against all other fighters at least 2-1, with the next best probably Lewis and Holmes. Tyson probably was the most dominent in his prime, but as you may have seen my other articles, I don't think he fulfilled his potential also who did he really beat in his prime. In many boxing magazines, KO and Ring etc, the heavyweight division was regarded as being in one of it's worst states ever during the 80's, which is why Tyson looked so good. I think even considering Lewis getting knocked out by McCall and Rahman, 2 defeats which he avenged that he was in the top 3 greatest of all-time. Consider tactically brilliant,very fast for a big guy,great jab,fantastic power in both hands,could throw combinations,had every punch in the book,great chin despite what people say,look on youtube entitled Lennox had a great chin and see how many punches he took full on against some of the biggest punchers around, the 2 defeats he switched off and was overconfident, and they were great punches that put him down. Remember anyone can get knocked out in the heavyweights, McCall and Rahman despite their weaknesses as boxers could both bang. Lewis was always better against better opposition. He had more title fights than everyone else with the exception of Ali,Holmes and Holyfield. He beat everyone he ever faced and also beat the 2 other greats of his era, a lot of people say they were over the hill, but so was Lewis, he was just as old when he fought them. And apart from the 70's the heavyweight division was never stronger, so the quality of his opponents were better than in other eras, for example Joe Louis and his bum of the month(I'm not dissing Louis in any way, it wasn't his fault, he reigned for so long and had record number of defenses, so hat off to him, he's a legend. His quality of opposition though wasn't great) Also Lewis fought everyone there was to fight in his era and beat them all, with the exception of Bowe and Moorer. Bowe didn't want a piece of Lewis, and Lewis would have got rid of him in 6 rounds, and Moorer well, if a 45 yr old Foreman could knock him out, i'm sure Lewis would have done as well. Another thing Lewis was it seemed to me at some points being frozen out of the heavyweight picture, America wanted and american champion, despite this he still persisted with his dream and won the title 3 times, from 1992 until 2003 and became undisputed champ as well. Apart from 2 blips he reigned for 11 yrs. Taking all that into account not many can match or better achievments, which is why he deserves to be in the top 3.

Panamaniac

08-23-2007, 11:38 AM

Louis
Dempsey
Ali
Johnson
Tyson
Marciano
Holmes
Liston
Foreman
Frazier

Brassangel

08-23-2007, 01:56 PM

@hurricane:

Lewis was the same "age" as Tyson and Holyfield when he fought them, but Lewis had hit the zenith of his career, while the other two were on the way down. Some guys hit their stride later than others.

Tyson's style and build, for example, probably would have meant that even if he hadn't gone to prison, he would have started to slide downwards by the time he was 28-30 years old. While the skill and speed were still visible in training sessions, continuous fighting of that style would have taken a toll on his body, much as it had Frazier, Patterson, and Marciano. Tyson had a second layoff prior to his fight with Lewis, giving him a total of 5 1/2 years of on-and-off inactivity during Lewis' uprising.

Holyfield was completely drained after fighting a rediculous series of wars. The man simply needed a break and just got overmatched by Lewis (though the judges "gifted" him differently.) Lennox Lewis had not gone through this kind of strain.

Lewis' body was large, and fairly mobile, giving him the kind of longevity that the infighters just couldn't possess. Remember the early stages of Lewis' career, however, where he was a lanky, awkward guy with a wide stance and terrible defense. He won against a lot of nobodies before his skills developed, and he really didn't prime until he was almost 30 years old. Because of this, I have trouble believing that he was truly the victor over Holyfield and Tyson. Nonetheless, he was definitely a great champion, and I am one of the few who even place him in the top ten. Much of the 90's hinges on the fact that Tyson was absent for so much of it. Had Tyson never gone to prison, the 90's would have perhaps been the strongest decade for heavyweights. Lewis, Holyfield, and Tyson, among many others (ie: Bowe, Foreman, Morrison, Mercer, Moorer, Rahman later on, etc.), battling back and forth for titles. This is one of the reasons why I rate him above Lewis; his absence almost single handedly brought down the division.

As a side note: I never thought that Rahman was terrible. When he was in shape coming up, he was really a solid boxer. I remember his first fight with Tua, when both of them were in good shape. Even though Tua scored an extremely late (and dramatic) stoppage, Rahman was punishing him all around the ring for 10 1/2 rounds. He was cut, with solid defense, and had a good jab.

In a randomized bracket:

2. Muhammad Ali vs. 10. Lennox Lewis
5. George Foreman vs. 8. Sonny Liston
3. Rocky Marciano vs. 7. Mike Tyson
6. Joe Frazier vs. 9. Jack Dempsey
4. Larry Holmes vs. 1. Joe Louis

Who wins? Who faces off afterwards? What's the final outcome?

kayjay

08-23-2007, 04:31 PM

Otherwise...what did you think of the list? I'd be interested to hear critique on the list as a whole instead of sentence specific notes.

I'm ok with your list, and your qualification of 'handle'.

He didn't have the dominance of the second-tier fighters that the other guys have, which is all I was getting at.

-CANE-

08-23-2007, 05:27 PM

Brassangel - It's nice to hear a sensible explanation, from someone intelligent and obviously knows there boxing, still disagreeing with you over Lewis, but that's what its all about, having your own opinion and debating it sensibly. I completly agree with you regarding Tyson and Holyfield not being at the peak of their powers, but slightly disagree about Lewis, he was definately at his peak tactically, but I don't think physically he was. Lewis IMO had 2 peaks, his physical peak when although amateurish in his style, was fast of hand and foot, and still very powerful, and had better stamina, could fight at a faster pace for longer and this was when he destroyed Ruddock. And his technical peak came after working with steward for a while, like when he fought Holyfield and Tyson. He was a far superior boxer then and a hell of a lot bigger and planted his feet properly when throwing punches, he perfected his uppercuts and hooks as well, and because of this probably hit harder than when he was younger, but had lost a lot of his speed and couldn't fight as hard or for as long. Maybe steward wanted him to bulk up a bit or maybe it just came with age. Had steward been with him from the start he would have been a lot better earlier on. Hope you get the jist of what I'm trying to say, which is we never really saw a peak Lewis. So I would say the victories over Holyfield and Tyson were legitimate.

Regarding your little tournament, it's a shame Ali is up against Lewis as I think this could be the final, but I'll do it your way and then you can try it my way. Personally I think 1. should fight 10. and 2. against 9. carrying on like that, but I'll try it your way. Here goes.

2. Muhammad Ali vs. 10. Lennox Lewis
5. George Foreman vs. 8. Sonny Liston
3. Rocky Marciano vs. 7. Mike Tyson
6. Joe Frazier vs. 9. Jack Dempsey
4. Larry Holmes vs. 1. Joe Louis

Brass mate I started but it doesn't quite work out someone will have to have a bye, needs to be done with 8 or 16 fighters, I'll wait for you to get back.

LondonRingRules

08-24-2007, 09:05 AM

In a randomized bracket:

2. Muhammad Ali vs. 10. Lennox Lewis
5. George Foreman vs. 8. Sonny Liston
3. Rocky Marciano vs. 7. Mike Tyson
6. Joe Frazier vs. 9. Jack Dempsey
4. Larry Holmes vs. 1. Joe Louis

Who wins? Who faces off afterwards? What's the final outcome?

I disagree about Ali always winning of 2 of 3 against elite heavies. He simply never had to face that caliber of prime great heavy, Sonny be damned. The toughest fighter he faced in his prime was Terrell who gave him hell in spite of what you read about that fight. Had Terrell be a big puncher, the outcome might have been different.

A good victory for Ali, but if he looked smallish against Terrell, imagine Terrell on steroids and you have Lewis. Since Ali doesn't have one punch power, any time he does manage to hurt Lewis, Lewis will likely recover before Ali can put him away. In the meantime Lewis would offset Ali's jab with his longer, harder jab, and will be a major offensive threat when Ali has to stop dancing and start fighting.

In his fashion, Ali does have one of the best combinations of natural talent and mental makeups of any fighter in history, but he clowned a bit too much that he got away with against inferior opponents. I don't think we ever saw the best of Ali because of inferior opposition and his forced retirement. Joe Frazier was coming along nicely and likely would have been matched up against Ali in 69/70. Ali would not have been as hungry as he was in 71, but he would've been truer and sharper to his natural style which would alter the nature of the fight somewhat, probably making it even better.

Lewis, close UD.

Foreman, KO 6

Tyson, KO2

Dempsey/Frazier is the hardest pick. Each is a bad match up for the other. Tough, brutal, well schooled fighters. Frazier was a bit of a machine that had to warm up for maximum efficiency though, so I go with Dempsey by early KO, say by 3. Jack is gonna hate it if Joe survives those early rounds though!

Louis, KO 8.

hemichromis

08-24-2007, 10:48 AM

Butterbean knocked Holmes down in the last round and should've gotten a 2nd KD when Larry clearly rode the ropes with an iron grip to keep up after the count ended. Lucky for Larry it was only a 10 rounder.

Butterbean better than Larry and maybe Moe and Curly too!

larry was 52, moved like he ws 72 and still came away with the win thanks to his intelligence and guile

hemichromis

08-24-2007, 10:54 AM

Brassangel

08-24-2007, 11:09 AM

Yeah, it's tough to say, because the Tyson at 25, who likely would have been at his peak, the Tyson who would have shown that he learned something from defeat, was instead wasting away in prison.

What are your predictions for the mini-bracket I made? Maybe that belongs in fantasy matchups or something, but it's always fun to resurrect that sort of thing here as well.

The Iron Man

08-24-2007, 11:20 AM

2. Muhammad Ali vs. 10. Lennox Lewis

This is a tought one to call, if this was an early lewis i would definatley give it to Ali, as lewis wasnt as strong as he was in his 30's, and ali could use his speed and intelligence to box round him. Ali had a great chin so could handle a good punch from Lewis in his early days. As for Lewis in his 30s, its hard to call and i cant come to a conclusion.

5. George Foreman vs. 8. Sonny Liston

These are very similar fighters but george foreman was more skilled than liston, and as mayb more powerfull so id give this to Foreman Via KO in the middle rounds.

3. Rocky Marciano vs. 7. Mike Tyson

Tyson has a good weight advantage over Marciano, he is alot faster and because of the weight advantage more powerfull, im sure rocky would get up after being knocked down as he was soo resiliant thats why tyson would win via a TKO around round 5

I have to rush so cant answer the others atm..will do l8er

redxl7

08-26-2007, 01:26 PM

Well these are my top 10 Heavyweights

1. Rocky Marciano
2. Muhammad Ali
3. George Foreman
4. Joe Louis
5. Joe Frazier
6. Evander Holyfield
7. Mike Tyson
8. Sonny Liston
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Jersey Joe Walcott

Dempsey 1919

08-27-2007, 01:04 PM

The toughest fighter he faced in his prime was Terrell who gave him hell in spite of what you read about that fight. Had Terrell be a big puncher, the outcome might have been different.

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

Brassangel

08-27-2007, 02:00 PM

Yeah, in the NCAA sense, it would be 1 vs. 10., 2 vs. 9., etc., but I was angling for interesting matchups.

You are right about the awkward number of pairings, and someone would end up with a buy or fighting more than anyone else.

Frazier vs. Dempsey would be interesting. If Joe survived those early rounds, it would be extremely difficult later on. I think the same could have been said for his matchup with Foreman. If Joe would have used more movement to take a little zip off of Foreman's punches, and made it to round 4 or 5 (in their first meeting when Joe was closer to his prime), then I think he would have had a shot at bringing the big guy down. He's just as tough as they come in mid-to-late rounds. That's also why he's good in a tournament type setting, I think.

Which fighters get included if we go down to 16?

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Larry Holmes
5. George Foreman
6. Joe Frazier
7. Mike Tyson
8. Sonny Liston
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Jack Johnson?
12. Evander Holyfield?
13. Joe Walcott?
14. Ezzard Charles?
15. Gene Tunney?
16. Floyd Patterson?

It really becomes a big mess once you go below ten. Anywho, I'll stop rambling.

-CANE-

08-28-2007, 05:35 AM

Personally these would be my 16

1> Muhammad Ali
2> Larry Holmes
3> Lennox Lewis
4> Joe Louis
5> Evander Holyfield
6> Jack Johnson
7> George Foreman
8> Rocky Marciano
9> Joe Frazier
10>Mike Tyson
11>Jack Dempsey
12>Sonny Liston
13>Ezzard Charles
14>Riddick Bowe
15>Joe Walcott
16>Gene Tunney

This is not much different from yours, Bowe instead of Patterson, and different order. Just realised that if we did it my way with my list, Lewis would fight Bowe, and there would be some other really inruiging fights

1.Ali - Tunney
2.Holmes - Walcott
3.Lewis - Bowe
4.Louis - Charles
5.Holyfield - Liston
6.Johnson - Dempsey
7.Foreman - Tyson
8.Marciano - Frazier

I would then have winner of fight 1 against 8 and so on, are you happy to do it this way, or would you like your list or any other fighters

Brassangel

08-28-2007, 02:00 PM

I could see Bowe replacing Patterson, it's just that Patterson was a force among heavyweights for a longer period of time than Bowe was. Taking your bracket, however:

1.Ali vs Tunney = Ali
2.Holmes vs Walcott = Holmes
3.Lewis (I wouldn't have Lewis this high, however) vs Bowe = Lewis
4.Louis vs Charles = Louis
5.Holyfield vs Liston = that's frieking tough..
6.Johnson vs Dempsey = Johnson
7.Foreman vs Tyson = I think Tyson could win a decision, much like Morrison did: stay at mid-range, and use his surperior hands speed and elusiveness to outscore him. I absolutely disagree with the idea that this fight would end up like Foreman-Frazier.
8.Marciano vs Frazier = 87 rounds

Brassangel

08-28-2007, 04:11 PM

And if we'd keep going by ranking instead of by bracket set-up:

1. Ali vs. Marciano = that's tough. Ali would cut Marciano up, but the Rock would just keep coming. If it goes late, it would be tough to keep Rocky off, even for Ali.

2. Holmes vs. Tyson = Good style matchup for both fighters. Cus trained Tyson with fighters like Holmes in mind, and Holmes was a little slower than was Ali or Tyson. There would be lots of action, and both fighters have good chins. It would come down to a decision.

3. Lewis vs. Johnson = jabs and defense...I think Lewis' size may give him the edge, although Johnson did knock someguys' teeth out, which could pose a problem for the big man.

4. Louis vs. Liston/Holyfield = I still haven't picked a winner from the previous round, though either would make for a great fight with Louis.

This is insanely hard.

-CANE-

08-28-2007, 06:53 PM

O.K, I'll give it a try

1.Ali vs Tunney = Ali tko 13
2.Holmes vs Walcott = Holmes Wu15
3.Lewis vs Bowe = Lewis ko 6
4.Louis vs Charles = Louis Wu 15 Close fight this one, Charles boxing skills could give Louis some problems
5.Holyfield vs Liston = Holyfield Ws15 Your'e right, this is tough I see Liston dominating the first 6 rounds, and maybe putting Holyfield down but Holyfield gets off the deck and starts to outwork a tiring Liston and wins close decision)
6.Johnson vs Dempsey = Johnson Wu15, frustrating Dempsey all night
7.Foreman vs Tyson = Foreman KO6 I can see this being like the Lyle fight with both fighters hitting the deck, but Foremans will to win helps him prevail
8.Marciano vs Frazier = Marciano Ws15 This is another tough one to call

1.Ali vs Marciano = Ali tko13 I feel Ali would have too much for Marciano, the rock would keep coming at Ali all night, but his speed and precision would eventually take its toll
2.Holmes vs Foreman = Holmes rsf10 Foreman starts strong but if anyone could take Foremans punches it was Holmes, Foreman runs out of stamina and ref steps in to save Foreman from further punishment
3.Lewis vs Johnson = Lewis KO4, As good as Johnson was in his time Lewis would have too much in every department
4.Louis vs Holyfield = Louis Wu15, Louis was an exception, way ahead of his time and could fight even in todays era

1.Ali vs Louis = Ali Wu15
2.Holmes vs Lewis = This is extremely difficult, I've been on this one for ages, I'll get back to you on this tomorrow

Brassangel

08-28-2007, 11:11 PM

I actually wrote a short story about the Frazier vs. Marciano one, though I was assuming 12 round competitions; more in line with today's standards.

I'm on edge about the decision to give Foreman a KO over Mike, but it could go either way.

Holyfield would be the sleeper in an event like this. That's what happened when I ran the NCAA 64 style bracket a looooong time ago; a lot of people kept on voting for him to steal wins, and it was possible given his skill, strength, and heart.

Coincidentally, the finals (based on votes) ended up:

SEMIS
1. Ali vs. 3. Tyson
1. Holmes vs. Louis

FINAL
Ali vs. Holmes

them_apples

08-29-2007, 01:25 AM

1> Mike Tyson
2> Lennox Lewis
3> Larry Holmes
4> Evander Holyfield
5> Teophilio Stevenson
6> David Tua (yea he's under rated)
7> Frank Bruno
8>George Foreman
9> Joe Frazier
10>Muhammed Ali

My list seems to favor newer fighters but only because I think that with time boxers get better not worse. I respect the 40's-70's for having great fighters but the conditioning of the 40's-70's simply would not be able to stand against later fighters such as Holyfield, Tyson, or lewis (who is much larger than any other 40's-70's fighters)

-CANE-

08-29-2007, 05:59 AM

Them Apples - I'm not going to slag you off, cos everyone is entitled to their opinion, and while I agree with you in the fact that boxing has moved on in training methods etc and boxers are bigger, I honestly cannot see how you came to your conclusion in your top 10 list. Did you just base it on who you think would beat everyone else, even if you did this is IMO completely wrong. Have you watched much boxing before? A top 10 list should be based on length of reign, defences made, quality of opposition within the time they fought, attributes of the fighter such as speed,power,chin,ring generalship,tactical awareness, also did they fight everyone in their era worth fighting and how did they do against them.
Also I find it hard to agree with you when you say the fighters today were better conditioned than in the 40's-70's. Holyfield and some of the recent heavies maybe, but the 4 who reign today, no way. Louis,Walcott,Charles,Marciano,Ali,Frazier and even the contenders from them eras could fight longer and harder than today's so called heavyweight champs, and they were a lot tougher, they had to be because of the lack of money, which is why they fought more often.

Your list
1> Mike Tyson
2> Lennox Lewis
3> Larry Holmes
4> Evander Holyfield
5> Teophilio Stevenson
6> David Tua (yea he's under rated)
7> Frank Bruno
8>George Foreman
9> Joe Frazier
10>Muhammed Ali

I find it impossible to even think of Bruno and Tua to be in there, what have they achieved compared to others, absolutely nothing. Stevenson while he was one of the greatest amatuers, I really don't think he would have cut it against the top pros of his era. To have Tyson top is ludicrous, maybe he could have been the greatest of all time (check out my article, Tyson where did it all go wrong, for explanation). Tyson was beat comprehensively by the 2 other greats of his era, and lacked a lot of ingredients to be considered the best, also never achieved as much as Ali,Holmes,Lewis,Louis,Holyfield etc. I don't know if youv'e just started watching boxing and haven't seen the old time fighters, if not check out on youtube just to see some clips. Frank Bruno was lucky to win the title, had he fought against Louis,Marciano,Liston,Charles,Walcott,Dempsey,John son or pretty much any other champion you care to mention, he would have been beaten. I liked big frank and had he not lifted so many weights could have been better, but he was who he was a lumbering robot with a big punch and no stamina, but a really good chin and certainly not an all time great

them_apples

08-29-2007, 06:41 AM

yea I should just say my list was my opinion on who I think are to be the best boxers to hit the ring.

As for the conditioning of today, yes I worded it wrong, I meant the era that holy field - Tyson came out of..so basically the 80's-early nineties. Fighters of today can be on the shoddy side.

Yes Joe Louis had almost 30 title defenses but his fights are boring, and against "bums" any boxer of today or yesterday could have knocked them out. Any great boxer of the 70's or 80's could have put Joe Louis in a body bag.

But Ali!? he just brainwashed everyone! A prime Joe Frazier knocked him out, why does that go unnoticed? He just barely beat foreman, he lost to Norton, he had to go 12 rounds with bums like Doug Jones in his prime..not to mention the many defeats he lost while he was older.
Sure ali has some titles under his name, but why do people view him as the greatest?

No my list does not have the best records (Larry Holmes' is fairly good) I can honestly not bring my self to put boxers like jack Johnson or Joe Louis on it because I know they wouldn't have a chance in hell against a peak conditioned fighter from the 80's and even the 70's. I put Tua on the list because he hits like a freight train, sure his career wasn't amazing (mainly due to his height) but Tua was a great fighter, nobody could hurt him!

EDIT: did you ever watch the documentary on the Tyson - Douglas fight? Tyson was skipping training and just partying, he even got knocked down by his sparring partner! do you think thats how the "focused" mike trains/fights? Tyson was great before the money got to his head, but he remains in history as one of the few boxers that simply could not be touched when in their primes. Tyson knocked the hell out of his opponents, sometimes it only took one punch! Other hitters like Marciano usually continually beat on there opposition until they finally dropped. and honestly, what chance does a 186-190 lbs Marciano have against a 250 lb peak conditioned lewis?

cheers

poet682006

08-29-2007, 10:30 AM

Dempsey 1919

08-29-2007, 01:51 PM

Brassangel

08-29-2007, 01:58 PM

There's more to do with what drugs Ali was on leading up to the Holmes fight then there was with Larry Holmes.

In all fairness, Frazier did put Ali out on his feet in their first fight, and Ali himself said he was going to quit in their third fight, had Frazier's corner not called it off. Even so, Ali missed much of his prime fighting years, and came back to dominate the deepest heavyweight division in history. He beat the hard working, the seemingly invincible, and the proud.

Top ten lists are supposed to include title reigns, level of opposition, dominance, with head-to-heads way down near the bottom of the list. I, for example, rate Joe Louis as #1, with Muhammad Ali as #2, yet I firmly believe that Ali would cut Louis up and down the ring. There is also no proof whatsoever that the conditioning of fighters from recent years would give them an edge again the fighters of old. Joe Frazier, for example, worked so hard during the course of a heavyweight fight, that he would tire out almost any fighter from recent years. He simply punched and slipped and punched and slipped until his opponents couldn't go anymore. Even the good heavies from the 90's didn't carry that sort of work ethic, short of perhaps Holyfield.

Louis was not a boring fighter, by the way. He was very tactically sound, and could figure out almost any opponent. His only "real" loss was avenged in brutal fashion, and he didn't lose again until waaaaaaaaaaay later in life, after serving in the military, against two guys who are definitely not bums.

them_apples

08-29-2007, 05:24 PM

PS. Ali was stopped only once, by Larry Holmes, and even then he wasn't down: His corner stopped the fight between rounds.

Ali has lost more fights than that. Frazier, Norton, Spinks, Holmes and Berbick have all defeated him, mind you the last 3 were more like beating up and old man.

Not to be persistent, but there were many fighter's in the 70's that would get very tired in the ring.

George Foreman, Ron Lyle, Ernie shavers, and even Ali during his later career.

However, while today sucks, during the 80's I haven't seen any footage of the top fighters ever tiring to the point of collapse.

The Iron Man

08-29-2007, 06:42 PM

Them Apples - I respect other peoples views, but as others have said the top heavyweights of all time are judged on there achievments, there technical ability and also there excitment. I am a big mike tyson fan but i couldnt put him top of the ATG list, he had the potential and if we are talking about fighters primes then there is an arguement there. But Wen you compare his achivements to Joe Louis, Ali and Marciano then they seem very small. As for Bruno Being in the list, he had what one title defence in which he lost to Mike Tyson (One not at its best i might add), his technical ability was not great and he could never regain the championship, i would struggle to put him in my top 20.As for Tua he has never won a World title, and he isnt the greatest non-title holder yes he has a great punch..but that spot of Big Punch no belt is taken By Ernie Shavers. As for Conditioning, not all fighters of the 80s were well conditioned, and remember you dnt have to looked ribbed to go all the rounds. Theres a difference between conditioning and looking good.For Example the Tyson in my avatar looks good his ripped, this fight was against mcneely and i think he would of struggled to go all 10, not that it was going to!

them_apples

08-29-2007, 07:01 PM

The Iron Man

08-29-2007, 08:10 PM

I didnt say souley on achievements otherwise i agree they would be the same, other things are taken into account! Are you saying this wouldnt be your normal top 10 list?

poet682006

08-29-2007, 08:54 PM

Ali has lost more fights than that. Frazier, Norton, Spinks, Holmes and Berbick have all defeated him, mind you the last 3 were more like beating up and old man.

Not to be persistent, but there were many fighter's in the 70's that would get very tired in the ring.

George Foreman, Ron Lyle, Ernie shavers, and even Ali during his later career.

However, while today sucks, during the 80's I haven't seen any footage of the top fighters ever tiring to the point of collapse.

Dude, you specifically said knocked out. Ali was NEVER KOed. The Holmes fight is the ONLY example of him being STOPPED. The fight he lost to Frazier was a 15 round decision loss. The Norton fight was a 12 round decision loss.
No KOs were involved.

Poet

ForemanCrossArm

08-29-2007, 10:22 PM

Brassangel

08-29-2007, 11:19 PM

The fighters from the 70's who you are referring to that got "tired to the point of collapse" only ever got that way because they fought fights (and entire careers, for that matter) against an extremely tough heavyweight division full of fighters with high work rates, toughness, and longevity. Foreman is an exception, and he usually got tired after 7 rounds. This is understandable, however, because his arms were quite simply heavy, and throwing that hard for that long, while it should kill his opponent, would probably get tiring for him.

Holmes and Ali, before they got old, looked pretty good by the fight's end; both have 15th round KO's against good opponents. The fighters of the 80's didn't have to worry about 15 round fights anymore, so of course they didn't look as tired.

Frazier exerted more effort in one round than a lot of guys did in 4 or 5, yet he still brought the kitchen sink in the 15th.

The greats only got tired at the end because they were fighting another great, and working hard enough to warrant exhaustion.

It should also be noted that Louis didn't fight "tomato cans", he fought whoever was there and at the top. He made them look bad because he was that far ahead of the game. Tomato cans are the guys that George Foreman used to pad his record during both parts of his career. Even so, he still beat good opponents when the time came. Perhaps the bums are only truly as such when put up against great fighters. I think that the term "tomato cans" is used too liberally, given the people they lost to.

As a side note: Shavers has a far more impressive resume (ie: Ali, Holmes x2, Norton, Ellis, Young, etc.), and more power than does Tua, and Shavers would never make a top 20, let alone a top 10.

ForemanCrossArm

08-29-2007, 11:28 PM

poet682006

08-30-2007, 01:06 AM

He was basically KO'd in Frazier I.. Out on his feet, way worse than Frazier in R14 of the Thrilla. Shows you his will to not give up 'tho, that he even held on like he did, and it's not like he didn't already know he was going to lose (Frazier I).

Did he or did he not have score cards read in the first Frazier fight? It's a retorical question because the answer is, of course, he did. Either you're KOed or you aren't. You aren't sorta KOed or basically KOed: Either the ref counted ten or he didn't. The third fight was stopped NOT because Frazier was out on his feet but because his left eye was completely closed and he couldn't see Ali's right coming any more. I will also point out that the idea of 70's Heavyweights being gassed at the end of 15 is not entirely correct. Some were, like Earnie Shavers, but for every Shavers there was a Frazier who went bell to bell punching non-stop and not even breathing hard in the 15th.

Poet

-CANE-

08-30-2007, 07:50 AM

Continued from the other day

1.Ali vs Louis = Ali Wu15 Louis
2.Holmes vs Lewis = Holmes KO10 Lewis (Difficult this one was, Lewis loved to control the pace of the fight, if Holmes would have let him I see him winning, but I see Holmes forcing the fight and making Lewis fight at a higher pace than he wants to, and knocks out a tired Lewis)

1.Ali vs Holmes = Holmes Ws15 Ali (Another difficult one this, again I feel Holmes would have to force the fight and pressure Ali, as he wouldn't outbox him, Holmes would withstand everything Ali threw at him and at the end of an exhausting fight he wins a very close decision, but Ali would win in a rematch with different tactics not being drawn in so much)

LondonRingRules

08-30-2007, 11:50 AM

As a side note: Shavers has a far more impressive resume (ie: Ali, Holmes x2, Norton, Ellis, Young, etc.), and more power than does Tua, and Shavers would never make a top 20, let alone a top 10.

** Except that Shavers lost half of those fights and many others. Shavers wouldn't stand a chance against an iron jawed Tua so not sure what your point is.

them_apples

08-30-2007, 12:43 PM

** Except that Shavers lost half of those fights and many others. Shavers wouldn't stand a chance against an iron jawed Tua so not sure what your point is

yea I agree, that was pretty much my point also:boxing:

Brassangel

08-30-2007, 01:59 PM

them_apples

08-30-2007, 07:27 PM

Tua had a good chin, but it wasn't Ali's or Holmes'.

how do you know? nobody ever hurt him! automatically assuming he didn't have a chin like the old greats is just stupid.

Ironside

08-30-2007, 07:35 PM

Tua has a harder chin than Holmes and Ali put together. Don't you get it? It's unnatural. Theres nothing you can do to that fattie but UD him.

Yaman

08-30-2007, 07:51 PM

His brain doesn't rattle, probably a more compact skull and bone structure.

LondonRingRules

08-30-2007, 09:00 PM

Shavers lost some of those fights, but he gave them absolute hell before he did. Tua had a good chin, but it wasn't Ali's or Holmes'. Shavers knocked Holmes down multiple times and had Ali out on his feet twice. Tua would never lay a glove on Ali, probably not Holmes either. It would be like his first fight with Rahman, where he was dominated the entire time, only there would be no "miracle punch after the bell." Whether or not Shavers would beat Tua isn't the issue, because a top ten list isn't determined by head-to-head matchups, or else guys like Foreman, Tyson, etc., would always rank higher.

** Nobody would ever mention the possibility of Tua or Shavers in a top 10 list save their inclusion in their era's top 10 contenders list.

Tua has a much better chin than Holmes or Ali. Never been dropped or KOed or even staggered. Guaranteed Tua would KO Holmes and the version of Ali that Shavers fought. Tua beat Ike in spite of the decision. He hasn't always been in the best shape for fights, but when trained he's damn near unstoppable. He's fought the who's who of his era, Rahman, Lewis. Ike, Ruiz, Oquendo, Byrd, Maskaev, and would've faced Tyson, Bowe, and Holy but they don't want any part of this crusher.

Look, I love Shavers, but the guy took up boxing late and had major flaws. Not a fair comparison to Tua.

Brassangel

08-31-2007, 12:43 AM

You're right London, he (Shavers) did take it up late in life, but that should speak more for his natural ability (and strength) than against it. To still be able to compete when not even starting until most guys zenith is pretty amazing.

As to the chins, Tua was rock-solid. He never got hit by someone who hits as hard as Foreman, or Shavers, or Lyle, or Cooney, or even Frazier at his best, however, so the comparison is rather relative. Tua was also lazy and often out of shape, but he was a wrecking machine against one of the softest heavyweight divisions in history.

Of the "who's who" that you listed who Tua faced, they have a combined KO percentage of 61.9%; the majority of that coming from Lewis and Ike. I would hardly say that they really "tested" Tua's chin.

Of the "who's who" that Ali faced, selecting 6 as well, including Frazier, Liston, Foreman, Norton, Patterson, and Holmes (even though Ali's medicine was killing him, and he was waaaaaay beyond his best (and already suffering mildly from Parkinson's) we'll include Holmes), they had a combined KO percentage of 69.2%. Keep in mind, Holmes and Foreman went on to have extended careers as old men that didn't involve nearly as many KO's. Even so, there's far more KO power in this bunch, far more talent, and none of them forced Ali to the count. He was a slender, lengthy man, as opposed to Tua's stocky, no-neck frame, and he stood up to far more punishment than Tua. I didn't even include Shavers in this list.

Of the "who's who" that Holmes face, the 6 pack includes Ali, Shavers, Spinks (Michael), Tyson, Holyfield, Norton, and they had a combined KO percentage of 66%. Again, a group with far more talent and KO capability than that of the lot Tua ever faced.

The point is, the people who Holmes and Ali faced not only hit harder, but were far more formidable opponents, many of whom are hall-of-fame champions (or will be). Lennox Lewis is pretty much it for Tua, and he lost that fight...convincingly. In fact, Lewis said, "I watched tape on him and he doesn't throw a right hand. And I wasn't worried about his right hand only his left hook. In the first round I felt his left hook and I realized, boy, what are they talking about? That's not a power left hook. I didn't think there was too much power. I mean, he executes it well, but that's the only punch he has."

If Tua couldn't hurt the normally questionably-jawed Lewis, or take out Byrd, who said of Tua, "I got into the ropes this time, I was just proving that I can stay in there with the big guys. I can see punches real good. He didn't hurt me on the ropes." (:rofl: then he wouldn't touch Holmes or Ali.

them_apples

08-31-2007, 12:59 AM

As to the chins, Tua was rock-solid. He never got hit by someone who hits as hard as Foreman, or Shavers, or Lyle, or Cooney,

are you saying that a 250 lbs lewis doesn't hit as hard as those mentioned?
While those were very hard hitters I think people are to biased towards older fighters of their era. Tua's neck is 19 inches, he weighs 245 lbs and is only 5'9-5'10 the guy is so solid I hardly think a 218 lb foreman would be able to hit sooo much harder than Lewis that it would have knocked him out. Lewis didn't even phase Tua. On top of that , all those fighters you mentioned were slow as mud that even Tua would look fast around them. Anyone Tua could reach usually went down like a pile of bricks-- his height/reach was his shortcoming however.

poet682006

08-31-2007, 01:38 AM

are you saying that a 250 lbs lewis doesn't hit as hard as those mentioned?
While those were very hard hitters I think people are to biased towards older fighters of their era. Tua's neck is 19 inches, he weighs 245 lbs and is only 5'9-5'10 the guy is so solid I hardly think a 218 lb foreman would be able to hit sooo much harder than Lewis that it would have knocked him out. Lewis didn't even phase Tua. On top of that , all those fighters you mentioned were slow as mud that even Tua would look fast around them. Anyone Tua could reach usually went down like a pile of bricks-- his height/reach was his shortcoming however.

You can't equate size with power: They are two different things. Mike Tyson at his best fought at 217 and he punched MUCH harder than his MUCH bigger opponents. Conversly, Mike White was HUGE but couldn't hit a lick. Physiology, ie how a body is contructed, has more to do with punching power than something as simplistic as weight. Why are so many tall scrawny guys (Hearns for example) devestating punchers? It has to do with how their body is put together overall. Tua has one punch power, but not because he weighs 245. He'd have that same bone-breaking power if he weighed 225.

Poet

Yaman

08-31-2007, 09:52 AM

You can't equate size with power: They are two different things. Mike Tyson at his best fought at 217 and he punched MUCH harder than his MUCH bigger opponents. Conversly, Mike White was HUGE but couldn't hit a lick. Physiology, ie how a body is contructed, has more to do with punching power than something as simplistic as weight. Why are so many tall scrawny guys (Hearns for example) devestating punchers? It has to do with how their body is put together overall. Tua has one punch power, but not because he weighs 245. He'd have that same bone-breaking power if he weighed 225.

Poet

Correct, in his early days he weighed 225 and I don't see much of a diffirence. He is just build for it.

ForemanCrossArm

08-31-2007, 11:26 AM

Weight doesn't matter all that much, if you can get between 200-210 at least. Frazier and Holyfield both fought many a fight in that range and were damn good at it, too.

poet682006

08-31-2007, 11:32 AM

Joe Louis weighed 200 in his prime and Rocky Marciano weighed 185: Both hit like trucks. George Foreman weighed 220 in his prime and I'd wager he hit harder than just about everybody not named Earnie Shavers.

PS. Bob Satterfield was a Light-Heavy who had one punch power when fighting Heavyweights; unfortunately for him his chin was so bad he made many of his opponents look like THEY had one punch power too.

Poet

Brassangel

08-31-2007, 01:46 PM

Than you Poet, ForemanCrossArm, and Yaman for understanding one of the things I was trying to say.

Not only does punching power come from physiology, but also timing, technique, etc. Yes, I am saying that Lewis did not hit as hard as Foreman, Shavers, Tyson, or even Frazier. Jack Dempsey was another guy who fought opponents much bigger than he was, and he still knocked 'em out (and broke their bones).

@them_apples: You still didn't address the issue of opponents KO %, quality of opposition, etc., in regards to why Holmes and Ali would simply embarass Tua. The New Zealander did manage to get close to Lewis, who had half the chin of either Holmes or Ali, and moved far slower than they did, and yet Lewis felt as though Tua didn't hit very hard. Read again, the quotes I posted.

them_apples

08-31-2007, 10:00 PM

@them_apples: You still didn't address the issue of opponents KO %, quality of opposition, etc., in regards to why Holmes and Ali would simply embarass Tua. The New Zealander did manage to get close to Lewis, who had half the chin of either Holmes or Ali, and moved far slower than they did, and yet Lewis felt as though Tua didn't hit very hard. Read again, the quotes I posted.

I never said Tua would walk through ali or holmes, I said his chin was better (or at least thats what I ment).

I could defienently see a holmes picking Tua apart because of his jab speed and over all better skill, Tua wouldn't be able to reach him. I young Ali might be able to beat a Tua, but after seeing what Frazier did to him I beg to differ.
Just remember though, Ali didn't always have a hard jaw, back when he was younger he was a baby face.

I have no idea why lewis said Tua can't punch, I've heard stories of of Tua's punch being devastating..

LondonRingRules

08-31-2007, 10:28 PM

If Tua couldn't hurt the normally questionably-jawed Lewis, or take out Byrd, who said of Tua, "I got into the ropes this time, I was just proving that I can stay in there with the big guys. I can see punches real good. He didn't hurt me on the ropes." (:rofl: then he wouldn't touch Holmes or Ali.

** Lewis easily has at least as good a chin as Holmes. Lewis was never dropped by 200lb heavies like Holmes was and fought much stiffer, bigger, stronger comp than Holmes did.

Your KO% show such a difference as to be marginally significant, assuming you calculated correctly.

I could care less about some dubious out of context quote aboiut Tua's power. His record tells a different story. After they engaged briefly, Lewis decided to box carefully rather than open himself up to Tua's power. Smart decision since he had the size, strength, and reach. Holmes only has reach which Tua would walk through.

Lewis, Tyson, Holy and Bowe would win the lion's share in a series against Ali, Frazier, Foreman, and Norton as noble as those warriors were.

them_apples

08-31-2007, 10:51 PM

Lewis, Tyson, Holy and Bowe would win the lion's share in a series against Ali, Frazier, Foreman, and Norton as noble as those warriors were.

That's probably true, those old fighters all had glaring weaknesses..I could especially see A young Tyson KO'ing Ali since his style was made to order.

Lubutheimmortal

09-02-2007, 10:37 AM

1.Joe Louis
2.Muhammad Ali
3.George Foreman
4.Joe Frazier
5.Gene Tunney
6.Sonny Liston
7.Rocky Marciano
8.Jack Dempsey
9.Jack Johnson
10.Ezzard Charles

poet682006

09-02-2007, 12:51 PM

That's probably true, those old fighters all had glaring weaknesses..I could especially see A young Tyson KO'ing Ali since his style was made to order.

Tyson nuthuggers ALWAYS seem to think EVERYBODY'S style was made to order :ugh:

Poet

WelshDevilRob

09-02-2007, 03:18 PM

1.Lennox Lewis
2.Muhammad Ali
3.George Foreman
4.Jack Johnson
5.Larry Holmes
6.Joe Louis
7.Sonny Liston
8.Joe Frazier
9.Mike Tyson
10.Ike Ibeabuchi

them_apples

09-02-2007, 10:16 PM

Tyson nuthuggers ALWAYS seem to think EVERYBODY'S style was made to order

Thats not true, anyone who tries to dance around the ring gets KO'ed simple as that.

The guys that beat Tyson all toughed it out with him, tied him up and out brawled him (apart from Lewis who was just bigger, but definitely had power..and it was a shot Tyson)

Name one skipping little flamer that has taken Tyson down by running and jabbing or covering up and hanging on the ropes

poet682006

09-02-2007, 11:55 PM

Thats not true, anyone who tries to dance around the ring gets KO'ed simple as that.

The guys that beat Tyson all toughed it out with him, tied him up and out brawled him (apart from Lewis who was just bigger, but definitely had power..and it was a shot Tyson)

Name one skipping little flamer that has taken Tyson down by running and jabbing or covering up and hanging on the ropes

How about Botha until he did something dumb?

More to the point, Douglas beat Tyson by moving and jabbing and mixing in lead rights. Hmmm. Sounds an aweful lot like the way Ali and Holmes fought. You may want to watch that fight again (if you can bear it). BTW, James Tillis made Tyson look foolish with his stick and move tactics. Noticing a trend here? Tyson was NEVER so all-powerful that he couldn't be beaten regardless of the tactics used. Even in his prime years I believed he could be beaten (my candidate was Witherspoon). Of couse when a fighter is fed a steady diet of no-hopers he probably isn't going to lose. A pulse doesn't qualify a fighter to have reasonable shot at winning and quite frankly a pulse was all the vast majority of Tyson's prime opponents had going for them.

Poet

them_apples

09-03-2007, 01:57 AM

How about Botha until he did something dumb?

More to the point, Douglas beat Tyson by moving and jabbing and mixing in lead rights. Hmmm. Sounds an aweful lot like the way Ali and Holmes fought. You may want to watch that fight again (if you can bear it). BTW, James Tillis made Tyson look foolish with his stick and move tactics. Noticing a trend here? Tyson was NEVER so all-powerful that he couldn't be beaten regardless of the tactics used. Even in his prime years I believed he could be beaten (my candidate was Witherspoon). Of couse when a fighter is fed a steady diet of no-hopers he probably isn't going to lose. A pulse doesn't qualify a fighter to have reasonable shot at winning and quite frankly a pulse was all the vast majority of Tyson's prime opponents had going for them.

Poet

I'm seriously losing respect for you, especially seeing you continuously rip on my comments.

A Botha?? lol Botha is as slow as mud and Tyson is old, past his prime and has no boxing initiative whatsoever(yet he still knocked him out, so your point doesn't even count). "Hey Trevor Berbick beat up Ali haha!" that's how stupid in comparison that fight is and you know it. Yes Francios Botha has very similar footwork to Ali, very fast quick fighter..(sarcasm)

Douglas has absolutely nothing in common with Ali. Ali was foot work and hand speed, and doing little tricks like rope a dope to wear his opponents down. Buster Douglas continuously hammered the ****y Tyson by out brawling him, not dancing and jabbing. It's not like I haven't seen the fight.

A steady diet of no-hopers? Tyson fought some excellent competition, Spinks, Berbick, Holmes (Holmes was still game, he re-took some titles)ruddock, and Bruno to name a few...

If you think that Tyson was just randomly beat up by some bum like James Douglas then you are mistaken, you need to watch more Tyson documentaries -- he was just boozing it up, not training, and under the ever watchful eye of Don King...

poet682006

09-03-2007, 02:08 AM

I'm seriously losing respect for you, especially seeing you continuously rip on my comments.

A Botha?? lol Botha is as slow as mud and Tyson is old, past his prime and has no boxing initiative whatsoever(yet he still knocked him out, so your point doesn't even count). "Hey Trevor Berbick beat up Ali haha!" that's how stupid in comparison that fight is and you know it. Yes Francios Botha has very similar footwork to Ali, very fast quick fighter..(sarcasm)

Douglas has absolutely nothing in common with Ali. Ali was foot work and hand speed, and doing little tricks like rope a dope to wear his opponents down. Buster Douglas continuously hammered the ****y Tyson by out brawling him, not dancing and jabbing. It's not like I haven't seen the fight.

A steady diet of no-hopers? Tyson fought some excellent competition, Spinks, Berbick, Holmes (Holmes was still game, he re-took some titles)ruddock, and Bruno to name a few...

If you think that Tyson was just randomly beat up by some bum like James Douglas then you are mistaken, you need to watch more Tyson documentaries -- he was just boozing it up, not training, and under the ever watchful eye of Don King...

You need to watch that fight again! I have it if you need it :LOL: Spinks = washed up Light-Heavyweight; Berbick = worst fighter ever to hold the Heavyweight crown; Holmes = 38 years old, over the hill, hadn't fought in two years and STILL made Tyson look bad for three rounds; Bruno = never won a big fight. Who's kidding whom? The era of Tyson's prime was the Heavyweight division at it's ALL-TIME WORST. Excellent competition? Come on. I bet that titan Tony Tubbs was a HUGE threat to the belts (sarcasm).
Oh, BTW, if you watch the Botha fight you'll see him for the most part fighting a SMART fight against Tyson, yes, boxing him. What a concept!

You know, you might want to lay off the Tyson brand KoolAid: It's seriously hampering your ability to think like a rational human being.

Poet

them_apples

09-03-2007, 02:12 AM

You need to watch that fight again! I have it if you need it :LOL: Spinks = washed up Light-Heavyweight; Berbick = worst fighter ever to hold the Heavyweight crown; Holmes = 38 years old, over the hill, hadn't fought in two years and STILL made Tyson look bad for three rounds; Bruno = never won a big fight. Who's kidding whom? The era of Tyson's prime was the Heavyweight division at it's ALL-TIME WORST. Excellent competition? Come on. I bet that titan Tony Tubbs was a HUGE threat to the belts (sarcasm).
Oh, BTW, if you watch the Botha fight you'll see him for the most part fighting a SMART fight against Tyson, yes, boxing him. What a concept!

You know, you might want to lay off the Tyson brand KoolAid: It's seriously hampering your ability to think like a rational human being.

Poet

Lol im not going to argue with you if you honestly think the 80's had the worst fighters of its era, especally when I watch the 40's and 50's and try not to laugh.

My point is, you had to fight them yourself to know if they sucked or not. If Tyson was just an average fighter, then why did Cus D'Amato boast of him being far superior to Floyd Patterson..a tiny fighter from the 60's

poet682006

09-03-2007, 02:27 AM

Lol im not going to argue with you if you honestly think the 80's had the worst fighters of its era, especally when I watch the 40's and 50's and try not to laugh.

My point is, you had to fight them yourself to know if they sucked or not. If Tyson was just an average fighter, then why did Cus D'Amato boast of him being far superior to Floyd Patterson..a tiny fighter from the 60's

Cus D'Amato was more than a little bit biased in that regard. While Cus trained Floyd, Mike was like a son to the old man. You have to take into account the emotions of that old man when weighing his statements.

If you find the fighters from the 40s and 50s laughable I would suggest YOU find a way to transport back and get into the ring with them :LOL: You might see things a little differently then. Remember Mike Tyson himself had NOTHING but respect for those old time fighters and might pop you in the head for even suggesting they were laughable. More than any fighter over the last twenty years Mike Tyson was the most appreciative, most knowledgable of the old-timers. Tyson said it himself he LEARNED how to fight watching those guys.

Poet

Lubutheimmortal

09-03-2007, 03:14 AM

Cus D'Amato was more than a little bit biased in that regard. While Cus trained Floyd, Mike was like a son to the old man. You have to take into account the emotions of that old man when weighing his statements.

If you find the fighters from the 40s and 50s laughable I would suggest YOU find a way to transport back and get into the ring with them :LOL: You might see things a little differently then. Remember Mike Tyson himself had NOTHING but respect for those old time fighters and might pop you in the head for even suggesting they were laughable. More than any fighter over the last twenty years Mike Tyson was the most appreciative, most knowledgable of the old-timers. Tyson said it himself he LEARNED how to fight watching those guys.

Poet

Yea Tyson is a known boxing "history buff", and I can relate to that. I respect Mike, and enjoy his 80's fight's. However I don't rank him in the top 10 greatest Hw's of all time. "To be great you must beat great." I dont know who said that but it was by someone,...important =/ . This is a quote of mine "Mike Tyson knocked out good fighters. George Foreman knocked out legends!"

poet682006

09-03-2007, 03:21 AM

Yea Tyson is a known boxing "history buff", and I can relate to that. I respect Mike, and enjoy his 80's fight's. However I don't rank him in the top 10 greatest Hw's of all time. "To be great you must beat great." I dont know who said that but it was by someone,...important =/ . This is a quote of mine "Mike Tyson knocked out good fighters. George Foreman knocked out legends!"

Yeah, and the funny thing is I have more respect for Tyson for his appreciation of the SPORT of boxing than most of his fawning nuthuggers :LOL: Given a chance to sit down with Mike Tyson over coffee his extreme fans would spend the whole time telling Mike how "bad" he is and such. Me? I'd turn to him and say: Mike, let's put some Dempsey in the DVD player and break down his fights. Which do you think Mike would enjoy more? I have a pretty good idea. While not a Tyson "fan" I'd love to have him as a poster on this forum so I could talk boxing history with him all day long.

Poet

Lubutheimmortal

09-03-2007, 03:31 AM

Yeah, and the funny thing is I have more respect for Tyson for his appreciation of the SPORT of boxing than most of his fawning nuthuggers :LOL: Given a chance to sit down with Mike Tyson over coffee his extreme fans would spend the whole time telling Mike how "bad" he is and such. Me? I'd turn to him and say: Mike, let's put some Dempsey in the DVD player and break down his fights. Which do you think Mike would enjoy more? I have a pretty good idea. While not a Tyson "fan" I'd love to have him as a poster on this forum so I could talk boxing history with him all day long.

Poet

Tyson posting would kick ass,........outside the "groupies" he'd have following. Yea I agree a coffee chat with him would be great. I'd love to hear his thoughts on Ali vs Louis, or Robinson vs Halger, and ect.

Lubutheimmortal

09-03-2007, 03:47 AM

1.Joe Louis
2.Muhammad Ali
3.George Foreman
4.Joe Frazier
5.Gene Tunney
6.Sonny Liston
7.Rocky Marciano
8.Jack Dempsey
9.Jack Johnson
10.Ezzard Charles

WHAT U HAVE GENE TUNNEY @ # 5!?! .....or at least that is what I thought I was walking into heh.

The Iron Man

09-03-2007, 12:19 PM

Tyson fought four men for the right to rule the heavyweights; but he didn't stop there. He went on to beat the men who they defeated for their belts. After destroying the champs and former champs, Mike took on every single challenger, ducking no one. Tyson cleaned out a division that had been in a mess for ten years and did so in such an impressive manor that even after more than four years away from the ring, his reputation entranced the public into believing he could still do it. That's dominance.

Lewis only beat three men who had a claim to the title Shannon Briggs, Evander Holyfield, and Hasim Rahman ( who was only champ because he defeated Lewis). Still, Lewis defeated every man put in front of him but he did duck challengers Chris Byrd and John Ruiz, who just happen to be current title-holders, for fights that would get him more money.

In common opponents, Tyson beat Tony Tucker and Frank Bruno in a more impressive manor than Lewis did and both fighters were older when Lewis fought them. However, Lewis beat Ruddock in more convincing fashion that did Tyson. The same can be said of Lewis's win over Botha and Golota, though they fought the post prison Mike. Still, even the second Tyson victory over Bruno was more convincing than Lewis'.

I believe it's a fair statement to say that James Douglas, Oliver McCall, and Hasim Rahman are roughly the same class of fighter. All are good enough to be ranked. Lennox Lewis to two Buster Douglases whereas Tyson, while lost to one; and took a hell of a beating in doing so, while Lewis went down to one punch KOs. Even in his 2002 challenge of Lennox Lewis, Tyson took a frightful beating until his body could take no more. Which to me shows tyson did have heart. True, Lewis did avenge both of those defeats; but Tyson never got a chance to avenge his due to Douglas being kayoed in 3 by Holyfield…..which shows that Douglas would never again be able to attain the level of intensity he had in the Tyson fight. How would Tyson have done had he got a second shot at Douglas? I think its pretty obvious.

LondonRingRules

09-03-2007, 04:33 PM

I think its pretty obvious.

** Thing is, Tyson short circuits any sensibilities, either by his spectacular ringstyle, or by his thug lifestyle.

Historians already view Tyson favorably in spite of not having accomplished much since 1991. He guaranteed his HOF entry because of his first 5 yrs in the fight biz. He was pretty much done at a younger age than other great heavies were just getting their feet under them.

The Iron Man

09-03-2007, 04:45 PM

Douglas got beat in fact KOed by Holyfield in the 3rd. Tyson would of finished him in a re-match, he learnt from he losses look at his two fights with ruddock, he had the hunger again, he fought him twice he didnt have to but he wanted to prove he was the better fighter

-CANE-

09-03-2007, 05:22 PM

Tyson would have obviously destroyed Douglas in a rematch, but then so could I, because he would have been a fat waster like in the Holyfield fight

WelshDevilRob

09-03-2007, 05:49 PM

** Lewis easily has at least as good a chin as Holmes. Lewis was never dropped by 200lb heavies like Holmes was and fought much stiffer, bigger, stronger comp than Holmes did.

Your KO% show such a difference as to be marginally significant, assuming you calculated correctly.

I could care less about some dubious out of context quote aboiut Tua's power. His record tells a different story. After they engaged briefly, Lewis decided to box carefully rather than open himself up to Tua's power. Smart decision since he had the size, strength, and reach. Holmes only has reach which Tua would walk through.

Lewis, Tyson, Holy and Bowe would win the lion's share in a series against Ali, Frazier, Foreman, and Norton as noble as those warriors were.

Riddick Bowe? Come on now, sonny. Let's keep the debate in the realms of realism.

The Iron Man

09-03-2007, 06:53 PM

WelshDevilRob

09-03-2007, 07:04 PM

Dont even try to compare Lewis chin to Holmes or Ali, or even any people in the top 10. Holmes got up after being NAILED by Shavers who was probably the hardest hitter of all time, where as lewis got KOd by Rahman and McCall

Your right Ali and Holmes had better chins.

Lennox wasn't that bad though - faced alot of punchers in his time. I'm pretty sure that Danny Williams or Kevin McBride wouldn't have knocked-out Lennox, hell Tyson couldn't knock-out Lennox.

The Iron Man

09-03-2007, 07:38 PM

With Danny Williams there is the Knee ligament, but it was more the factoe that tyson didnt have the heart to fight anymore he was doing it for money, mcbride never knocked tyson out or down. I think a prime tyson would of had more of a chance to knock out lewis, if rahman cud and mccall cud then tyson cud. I question Listons chin while watching the ali fight, as for tyson he takes a hell of a beating against lewis and douglas before he is down. and against holyfield it was a tko he didnt fall down, althought in the 6th he was knocked off balance which was a smart shot

LondonRingRules

09-03-2007, 07:50 PM

Dont even try to compare Lewis chin to Holmes or Ali, or even any people in the top 10. Holmes got up after being NAILED by Shavers who was probably the hardest hitter of all time, where as lewis got KOd by Rahman and McCall

** I never compared Lewis' chin to Ali. Ali could have been KOed by Cooper but for Dundee's ripped glove trick, was protected against Holmes, plus has been KDed at least 4x, though I would say 5 because Frazier knocked him down twice but was only given credit for 1.

Lewis has only been KDed twice, and got up the first time in better shape than when Holmes got up against Shavers. The other time he took the full count against Rahman but was up a few seconds later.

LondonRingRules

09-03-2007, 07:54 PM

Riddick Bowe? Come on now, sonny.

** Where we goin' with this Pops? I'd pick Bowe as the 4th man of the 90s to KO the 70s 4th man Norton 9 of 10 matches. 9 KOs by the 3rd rd or earlier.

WelshDevilRob

09-03-2007, 08:59 PM

** Where we goin' with this Pops? I'd pick Bowe as the 4th man of the 90s to KO the 70s 4th man Norton 9 of 10 matches. 9 KOs by the 3rd rd or earlier.

No, no, no after all me and Barlick taught you on the old beeb boards and I find you bigging up Riddick Bowe. Your slippin' LRR - sort it out.

-CANE-

09-04-2007, 08:19 AM

Bowe wouldn't have beat the fighters of the 70's, would have thrown his belt in the bin and buggered off to Dunkin Dougnuts

LondonRingRules

09-04-2007, 08:28 AM

I find you bigging up Riddick Bowe.

** Bowe is what he is. Just because Bowe wanted to finish his career camped in his frig is no reason to ignore his compelling physical attributes and what he did accomplish in the ring.

poet682006

09-04-2007, 09:49 AM

Bowe wouldn't have beat the fighters of the 70's, would have thrown his belt in the bin and buggered off to Dunkin Dougnuts

ROFLMAO!

Poet

ForemanCrossArm

09-04-2007, 01:18 PM

Um, Buster Mathis was like Bowe.. except that he found out about buffets at the age of 8 not 28.

WelshDevilRob

09-04-2007, 04:08 PM

** Bowe is what he is. Just because Bowe wanted to finish his career camped in his frig is no reason to ignore his compelling physical attributes and what he did accomplish in the ring.

Ah, I never liked Bowe intruth and I doubt I ever will, I lost complete respect for him when he gave up the WBC strap and proceeded to defend against Mike Dokes and Jesse Ferguson.

Outside of Holyfield it's hard to think of his biggest win maybe Larry Donald or Jorge Luis Gonzalez - probably forgotten someone.

I don't doubt his physical attributes but I'll not for one minute put him on a pedastal like the true greats. All subjective though.

-CANE-

09-04-2007, 04:19 PM

WelshDevilRob

09-04-2007, 04:30 PM

I personally couldn't stand him either, I think it was his attitude and his twat of a manager. Saying that though he had all the tools to be great. His chin wasn't as good as Lewis's, but for such a big guy, was one of the best infighters I have ever seen. Another wasted talent, who just couldn't leave them Dougnuts alone. I'd like to have seen Bowe vs Douglas fighting over some food though, that would have been a good fight.

Rock Newman was a hard man to like though in retrospect maybe his attitude was because he knew that Bowe wasn't as good as some thought and if that is the case the Rock did a good job in protecting his 'cash cow'.

Brassangel

09-04-2007, 07:08 PM

*The following post will be a bit scattered as I'm trying to answer several posts.

The "marginal difference" in KO percentage you speak of is actually quite large when you calculate the number of fights between all of the fighters, and the fact that Foreman, Holmes, Shavers, and Ali all had "extended" careers when they were way beyond their normal skills to KO people like they used to.

Also, Holmes was probably the 4th man of the 70's, since he won the strap in 1978. Norton was probably 5th, though. Even so, I'd take him over Bowe.

I will concede one point: Tyson, Holyfield, and Lewis could hold their own against Ali, Holmes, and Foreman (or Frazier). Seriously though, Lewis got up in better shape from his knockdowns (except that he was knocked out by Rahman) than did Holmes? Holmes was knocked down by Shavers...anybody would get up in better shape against an opponent other than Shavers. Holmes not only got up, he went on to TKO Shavers, not just survive.

Lewis beat Tua with the jab, and a straight right hand, plain and simple. The 2" of reach advantage Lewis had over Holmes wouldn't matter, seeing as how Holmes had perhaps the best pure jab in the division's history. Holmes would beat Tua, because he was better at using the strategy Lewis used to beat him, had a better chin, better stamina, better recovery rate, etc. Ali would beat Tua, because it took a good counter-jab and parrying right hand to beat Ali; niether of which Tua possessed in spades. Foreman would land wide open punches all day long, though Tua would definitely have a better chance here than he would against the other two. Both fighters would throw a lot, with Foreman having the size, height, power, and reach advantage; both had incredible chins, though Tua may have had the stamina edge here.

I seriously can't believe I'm still talking about Tua...he has no business on a list like this.

LondonRingRules

09-04-2007, 08:13 PM

*The following post will be a bit scattered as I'm trying to answer several posts.

The "marginal difference" in KO percentage you speak of is actually quite large when you calculate the number of fights between all of the fighters, and the fact that Foreman, Holmes, Shavers, and Ali all had "extended" careers when they were way beyond their normal skills to KO people like they used to.

Also, Holmes was probably the 4th man of the 70's, since he won the strap in 1978. Norton was probably 5th, though. Even so, I'd take him over Bowe.

** First off, Foreman was KOing fighters at about the same rate as his youth.

2. Lewis, Tyson, Holy, had extended careers as much as Shavers and Ali.

3. If Holmes was the 4th man of the 70s, how come no Frazier, Foreman, Ali, Norton in their primes? He only faced a fading Norton and shot Ali, even though he's a contempary of the 4.

4. Holmes KO % was improved immeasurably by defending against Frank, Evangelista, Zanon, and the rest of the mostly washerwomen he scraped up. Norton arguably won their fight and could have done it much easier. Holmes actually fought tougher comp in his comeback even though he was losing the big bouts. Tyson, Holy, Mercer, McCall, all bigger and stronger and tougher than anyone he faced before Spinks. Even Neilson was better than everyone but Spinks, Cooney, Norton, and Shavers, so that's 17 fighters right there.

The smallest 4 of the 90s was Holy, and he's the same size as all but Foreman in the 70s. The 90s are about 15-20lbs over the 70s and stronger.

Now, if you want to include Holmes as the 5th man of the 70s, well, OK, Foreman of the 90s just walks him down and knocks him out. Man vs boy. Ouch! Well, maybe Holmes could wear his track shoes and take the loss standing up!

Brassangel

09-04-2007, 11:36 PM

Holmes had one of the most punishing jabs in history. His straight right was no cupcake either. He would simply outbox Foreman into submission, as his defense was vastly surperior to Ali's. When Ali's swiftness faded, it became clear that his best defense was to simply absorb punishment until the other guy got tired. Well, Holmes could take a lot, but it wasn't easy to get it in. Foreman would have trouble finding Holmes in the 70's, and in the 90's, sure, Foreman would clobber him (assuming a 90's Holmes as well).

Tua's KO percentage was improved immeasurably by never fighting anyone important. When he did fight them, he lost.

Foreman's KO percentage before his exile was 89.1%; post exile it was 75.7%...tell me how that's practically the same.

poet682006

09-04-2007, 11:44 PM

-CANE-

09-05-2007, 05:29 AM

On a list of greatest fighters of all time, sure there are gonna be differences, but come on, why on earth is everyone still arguing over Tua, he shouldn't have been mentioned in the first place, the guy that posted that list is from cuckoo land, his list is quite possibly the worst list I have ever seen, or the best windup I have ever seen, and wev'e all fallen for it

The Iron Man

09-05-2007, 11:17 AM

** I never compared Lewis' chin to Ali. Ali could have been KOed by Cooper but for Dundee's ripped glove trick, was protected against Holmes, plus has been KDed at least 4x, though I would say 5 because Frazier knocked him down twice but was only given credit for 1.

Lewis has only been KDed twice, and got up the first time in better shape than when Holmes got up against Shavers. The other time he took the full count against Rahman but was up a few seconds later.

That Dundee thing has been extended in time, watch the fight it wasnt as long a breack as everyone claims it to be. Once again, Ali may have been knocked down 4 times but he wasnt knocked out! thats were chin comes in to it, you can be knocked down by being off balance or a well placed hit. How many times did lewis get off the canvas to carry on fighting?........

As for Lewis gettin up in a better condition than holmes dnt make me laugh, Number 1. Shavers hit much harder than McCall could dream of hitting. and Rahman for that matter. Number 2. Holmes got up and won the fight, Lewis Lost by KO from both punches, so its rediculous saying he get up in better shape cose he lost!! he got KOd Holmes got up and WON! i cant belive u really said that..people go on about Tyson Nuthuggers, here we have a Lewis Nuthugger

poet682006

09-05-2007, 12:02 PM

That Dundee thing has been extended in time, watch the fight it wasnt as long a breack as everyone claims it to be. Once again, Ali may have been knocked down 4 times but he wasnt knocked out! thats were chin comes in to it, you can be knocked down by being off balance or a well placed hit. How many times did lewis get off the canvas to carry on fighting?........

As for Lewis gettin up in a better condition than holmes dnt make me laugh, Number 1. Shavers hit much harder than McCall could dream of hitting. and Rahman for that matter. Number 2. Holmes got up and won the fight, Lewis Lost by KO from both punches, so its rediculous saying he get up in better shape cose he lost!! he got KOd Holmes got up and WON! i cant belive u really said that..people go on about Tyson Nuthuggers, here we have a Lewis Nuthugger

Hey Iron Man! You have to remember too that this joker purely hates Ali and will say anything to try and discredit him. BTW, you are FAR from being a Tyson nuthugger. Like Versatile you are one of the few Tyson fans I've met who are rational and I can hold an excellent conversation with. As for Lewis, WelshDevilRob (my best friend in boxing chat btw) and I have had a running debate over how good Lewis really was. It has been cordial and reasonable from the start which are how these discussions should be!

Poet

LondonRingRules

09-05-2007, 12:52 PM

Foreman's KO percentage before his exile was 89.1%; post exile it was 75.7%...tell me how that's practically the same.

** We're just going to have to disagree as to Holmes' effectiveness against a big strong 90s Foreman who showed good pace, offsetting jab, and mindboggling strength in punching and grappling. In short he either negates or has every advantage save youth.

Foreman's KO% in his comeback was 87% by the time they revived Moorer. His last 4 fights went to decisions after he turned 46 and had already achieved his goal, so I feel comfortable in repeating that he was KOing fighters at about the same rate. If you want to say he hung on to long and reduced his KO%, well, whatever. His final KO% was 84%, only down 5%, not a big deal to me.

Wiley Hyena

09-06-2007, 06:13 AM

mickeyb

09-06-2007, 11:49 AM

I can see what your saying Wiley Hyena but Boxing used to be the no'1 sport in America and old time fighters have a higher legendary status than modern fighters. Also you have so many belts nowadays the average person on the street wouldnt have a clue who Chagaev or Ibragimov are, where as everyone and their dog could have named Primo Carnera when he was champ, in todays market he'd barely make the back pages of yesterdays news.

I also can't totally agree with your "we cant base it on who can beat who" comment, ok we will never know if Tyson could have beaten Dempsey or Louis but we can all have an opinion based on our knowledge from what we've seen of them. Therefore i dont agree with your top ten. Fair play on your opinions and list, each to their own, but Jeffries and Sullivan cant be in there on hear say, your only going on what you've read. They are worth a mention but cant seriously be considered in a top 10.

Hemmingway and Babe Ruth?? what does it matter what they think? They never laced up a pair of gloves.

Bloke down my local pub says Lennox Lewis was the best so must be true !! and Lennox Lewis beat every man he ever faced so why is he not in there?

Wiley Hyena

09-06-2007, 08:06 PM

Thank you Britt for your response, and it is well taken. However, I think we are comparing oranges to apples here. I'm talking about the most important fighters for the HISTORY of boxing. Could Lennox beat John L. Sullivan? That's a fair question, and some might pick Lennox. Although, Lennox would never in his life know what it must be like to fight a 50 round fight without gloves. To dismiss Sullivan and Jeffries from the top ten in favor of a Lennox Lewis, is like saying George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are less important to U.S. history than Jimmy Carter! Of course Lewis compares with Holyfield in a heads up matchup. Lewis was a dominant fighter and one of my personal favorites. But, Holyfield won multiple championships and Lewis did not. Therefore, Holy is entitled to the number 10spot.
Ironically, number 10 is quite a bit more difficult to settle on than number 1. Jim Jeffries is an easy pick for number one. Only Joe Louis has the stats and the record to commend himself in comparison with Jeffries, but then again...the 3 ounce gloves.... Number 10, however, comes with a host of considerations and regards many modern fighters such as, Joe Frazier. I cannot abjectly disagree with those with different 10s as the course of history will eventually tell with the passage of time, however numbers 9-1 are solid in stone. That is until another true great arrives on the scene.

Wiley Hyena

09-06-2007, 08:08 PM

Thank you Britt for your response, and it is well taken. However, I think we are comparing apples to oranges here. I'm talking about the most important fighters for the HISTORY of boxing. Could Lennox beat John L. Sullivan? That's a fair question, and some might objectively pick Lennox. Although, Lennox would never in his life know what it must be like to fight a 50 round fight without gloves. To dismiss Sullivan and Jeffries from the top ten in favor of a Lennox Lewis, is like saying George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are less important to U.S. history than Jimmy Carter! Of course Lewis compares with Holyfield in a heads up matchup. Lewis was a dominant fighter and one of my personal favorites. But, Holyfield won multiple championships and Lewis did not. Therefore, Holy is entitled to the number 10spot.
Ironically, number 10 is quite a bit more difficult to settle on than number 1. Jim Jeffries is an easy pick for number one. Only Joe Louis has the stats and the record to commend himself in comparison with Jeffries, but then again...the 3 ounce gloves.... Number 10, however, comes with a host of considerations and regards many modern fighters such as, Joe Frazier. I cannot abjectly disagree with those with different 10s as the course of history will eventually tell with the passage of time, however numbers 9-1 are solid in stone. That is until another true great arrives on the scene.

LondonRingRules

09-06-2007, 11:16 PM

Hey Iron Man! You have to remember too that this joker purely hates Ali and will say anything to try and discredit him.
Poet

** Ah, the Don't Know it Poet goes on the rag again. Time for a hormone adjustment dearie.

Ali was one of the bravest most talented ring warriors ever, but he don't walk on water and he's already married sweetie. Give it up.

them_apples

09-06-2007, 11:53 PM

yea some people like the view the fighters of their time as gods...

Could Lennox beat John L. Sullivan? That's a fair question, and some might pick Lennox. Although, Lennox would never in his life know what it must be like to fight a 50 round fight without gloves.

Thats not even a question, boxing was so undeveloped back then that even a lightweight nowadays could probably walk rings around John L. Sullivan. I'm so sick of people over hyping old fighters like Johnson and Sullivan, these guys wouldn't last a second in the ring with Lewis, foreman, holy field, Tyson...

Wiley Hyena

09-07-2007, 04:09 AM

Thank you for your response Them Apples. In reply, let me say that I'm not "hyping" the oldtimers. I'm just telling it like it is, or was. Furthermore, I'm not talking about who could beat who in the modern day 12 round pillowfight. I'm talking about boxers who were the most important to the history of boxing. It's ridiculous to take our modern day "heroes" and try to compare them to fighters of an earlier era because the sport is always evolving. Today's boxing is not the boxing of the 1950s, nor is it the boxing of the 1850s. But as to your statement "boxing was so undeveloped back then", any historian of the sport knows that simply is not true. Boxing started in the 1700s and many evolutions have occurred since that time. Simply put, to be successful in a 50 round bareknuckle match it's easy to see that styles and methods would evolve that would be totally foreign and unsuccessful in today's game. Conversely, it's also easy to see that the styles and methods of today's game would fail in a bareknuckled (or 3 ounce gloved) event of virtually unlimited duration.
Having said this however, one cannot help but wonder how the spoiled and overprotected modern day athlete would hold up against true men of grit. This is not to say that modern boxing cannot be gritty, for it surely is from time to time, and when a good fight does break out, boxing is still the best sport of all. But let's face it, the game has gone soft even compared to what it was 25 years ago because, in part, of the feminization of our society and from efforts to protect the fighters from debilitating injury (ie..abolishing the 15 round fight). And with it, the fighters of today are generally softer, and seem to be much more concerned with self-preservation and making a buck than really proving who is the baddest of the bunch. One may argue that this is a good thing, and from the perspective of the fighter it may be. But, from the perspective of the viewer (or "consumer") this trend may not be such a good thing. Whether for better or worse, it's just a fact that the human organism incurs a peculiar primal satisfaction in human conflict...ie...brutality. Take the brutality out of boxing, and those inside the game are forced to artificially create spectacles in order to attract attention and make money. Does this situation unfortunately sound familiar to you?

The Iron Man

09-07-2007, 11:47 AM

I'm talking about boxers who were the most important to the history of boxing. -

Well Thats Hypocritical for someone who hasnt got Tyson in their top 10, the most influential Boxer in the last 20years..possibly ever!!

WelshDevilRob

09-07-2007, 05:30 PM

WelshDevilRob

09-07-2007, 05:38 PM

** We're just going to have to disagree as to Holmes' effectiveness against a big strong 90s Foreman who showed good pace, offsetting jab, and mindboggling strength in punching and grappling. In short he either negates or has every advantage save youth.

Foreman's KO% in his comeback was 87% by the time they revived Moorer. His last 4 fights went to decisions after he turned 46 and had already achieved his goal, so I feel comfortable in repeating that he was KOing fighters at about the same rate. If you want to say he hung on to long and reduced his KO%, well, whatever. His final KO% was 84%, only down 5%, not a big deal to me.

The big deal is that you don't seem to be in grips with reality.

Prime Larry Holmes does beat the old, fat 90's Foreman.

You know your stuff LRR but you are the guy that laughed at Seer - who said Cotto would be champion. Guess what Seer was right- LRR was wrong.

WelshDevil

ForemanCrossArm

09-07-2007, 05:57 PM

Holyfield battled Foreman and Holmes both within a year of one another in the very early 90's. Big George was much closer to scoring a KO, and the fight was all-together much closer and more exciting (IMHO, it did win Ring's Round of the Year, btw). I think Foreman, even old Foreman, loses a close points fight to Prime Holmes, and that he would've owned an older Holmes..

-CANE-

09-07-2007, 06:05 PM

Consideration of history's top ten heavyweights cannot be based simply upon one's notion of who could beat who because any dominant heavyweight in his prime could beat any other dominant heavyweight in his prime on any given, or lucky, day.
The issue requires consideration of the following factors, with equal emphasis on each: 1. Impact upon the culture; 2. Impact upon the sport; 3. Length of championship reign; 4. Win/Loss record; 5. Strength of the competition of the subject's era; and 5. Overall talent.
Accordingly, history's top ten are:
10. Evander Holyfield. Undersized body but oversized heart, and one of the greatest chins in boxing history. In his prime, Holy could have competed with any fighter of any era. And, he handily whipped Tyson;
9. George Foreman. One of the most powerful punchers the sport has ever seen. Regained a belt in his 40s;
8. Larry Holmes. Length of reign and win/loss record place Holmes in the top ten despite a rather ordinary level of competition;
7. John L. Sullivan. The great bareknuckler who first popularized the fight game in the United States;
6. Jack Johnson. One of the greatest defensive fighters ever seen. He won the true "fight of the century" against the aging iron man, Jim Jeffries, thus crossing the cultural color line to the benefit of the sport and the country;
5. Jack Dempsey. The most ferocious fighter of the 20th century and America's first sports "superstar." Babe Ruth thought Dempsey was a god;
4. Rocky Marciano. Retired as undefeated champion. Enough said;
3. Muhammad Ali. Charismatic stylist and a great talent. He won multiple championships and undeniably left his mark on the culture and the sport;
2. Joe Louis. Longest championship reign in history. Hemingway said of Louis, "He was the greatest fighting machine that ever strapped on gloves."
1. James J. "The Boilermaker" Jeffries. In his prime, Jeffries was never beaten or even knocked down. He retired as the undefeated champion of the world. Six years later he came out of retirement for one fight only, and incurred his only loss to a prime Jack Johnson in the "fight of the century" and then permanently retired. At 6' 3" and 225 lbs, Jeffries was regarded as the quickest and most powerful fighter ever seen during or before his era. He had great stamina and could withstand punishment, often going over 25 rounds in fights with 3 ounce gloves (no pillowfights here, folks). He took all comers and beat all the greats of his era. At one time, he offered to fight Fitzsimmons, Corbett, and Sharky in the same night, and they refused. After his fight against Jeffries, Jack Johnson said, "Jeffries is the greatest fighter of all time." The fact is that during his prime, nobody was ever as dominant and unbeatable as Jim Jeffries.

You say John L. Sullivan at no.7 and you've given your criteria for selection as say equal emphasis must be placed on each, he did have impact on the culture, and the sport, but I'm not sure how impact on culture is criteria for all time great but taking them into account and his record which I think is something like 38-1-2 forget how many kos, which looks good but he didn't have many official world recognised title fights, and of the 38 wins he had 31 of his opponents had not won a fight and 30 of them had never fought before, so quality of opposition was hardly good was it, and he lost against the only quality boxer he came up against so he wasn't that talented either. While I think James J. Jeffries was a very good fighter to have him at no.1 is IMO stupid, but you are entitled to your opinion. I just can't comprehend how you haven't got the great Lennox Lewis in there, the impact he had especially in the u.k, unified the belts, 3 time champ, quality of oppostion was excellent considering the heavyweight division was never stroner with the exception of the 70's, he fought everyone there ever was to fight with the exception of bowe and moorer, and I think he would have beat them both, bowe certainly didn't want anything to do with him and moorer wouldn't have lasted 4 rounds, he beat every opponent he ever faced, avenging his 2 defeats, add his 3 reigns togeather and he reigned for nearly 10 years, beat the 2 other greats from his era and retired as champ, he was also ultra talented as he could do it all and had every punch in the book had speed and power and could adapt to different situations, and other than Ali,Holmes,Louis and Holyfield had more title fights than anyone else, surely that puts him into the top10, 3rd for me and certainly above the likes of Holyfield,John L. Sullivan,Jack Dempsey,James J. Jeffries,Jack Johnson,George Foreman (Who said Lewis was the greatest ever) and Rocky Marciano

WelshDevilRob

09-07-2007, 06:10 PM

Lennox said he didn't fight a comebacking Foreman because as George will admit he didn't want to face Lennox and as Lennox said he "would have killed Foreman".

Yaman

09-07-2007, 06:29 PM

Oh George did want to face Lewis. I remember after the Bowe-Holyfield l Lampley told Lewis who he may face soon and he mentioned Foreman, big George got excited because he wanted to. Also Lewis once said something like "That'd be like fighting my paps!".
Anyways, good top 10s. Also some new mentions I haven't seen many times. Jeffries might be underrated today.

poet682006

09-07-2007, 06:59 PM

Yeah, unfortunately Jeffries is usually only remembered as "that white guy that lost to Jack Johnson". It's a pity: He was a good fighter.

Poet

Wiley Hyena

09-07-2007, 07:19 PM

Thank you all for well considered responses, even those that disagree with my analysis. IN further reply, let me immediately say that Jeffries is most certainly underrated by today's enthusiasts, but that wasn't always the case. Just take a look at the pundits opinions even through the early 1960s. You might be very surprised at Jeffries' rankings. His top ranking held up consistently, even through the career of Joe Louis. Now that's impressive.
Secondly, as to the issue of Lennox Lewis: Yes, I would agree his impact on the culture of Britain has been very impressive. Let's face it, Lennox was a dominant heavyweight and he is one of my personal favorites, I don't care what nationality he hails from. To me, Lennox is the perfect combination of aggressiveness, intelligence, and class. Too aggressive to be a "gentleman" but absolutely no "thug." He is great.
Frankly, Lennox Lewis was very much a struggle in consideration of the ultimate list because I do respect and admire what he did as a boxer. But, it comes down to whether he should displace Evander Holyfield as number 10, as I explained before. Lennox cannot compete as a boxer of historical importance with the remaining top 9. Just take a moment to consider this. Only George Foreman remains slightly vulnerable to Lennox, and I mean only slightly. The fact that a prime Lennox has a good chance against a prime Foreman is irrelevant because of Foreman's stats and history making matches ie..the Rumble in the Jungle. Lennox cannot claim anything like that, even in his matches with Holyfield and Tyson. And more importantly, he did not REGAIN the title at a later time in his career. Holyfield and Foreman both did. However, I will concede to our British friend that the story on Lennox Lewis may not be over. I hope it is not. It is pretty clear that if Lennox did come back and regain the title, his historical status regarding Holyfield would have to be re-evaluated, and justly so.
Let's be honest with ourselves, neither Lennox, Holyfield, nor Mike Tyson hold the stature to seriously compete with anybody in the HISTORICAL ranking except for the number 10 spot. John L. Sullivan was instrumental to the history of boxing. It's irrelevant that the prime Mike Tyson probably could have whipped him in one of today's 12 round pillowfights. This apparent truth is a dilemma, and as I stated before, I can give and take with Lewis, Holyfield, and Tyson (and Joe Frazier) for the number 10 position. At this time, however, in my opinion Holyfield edges these other candidates because he did REGAIN the title. No matter how you look at it, that is an historical achievement.

ForemanCrossArm

09-07-2007, 08:07 PM

Yes, but Holyfield did it in a watered down world.. Frazier was THE man for four-five straight years during a pretty good time in the HW division.

I think Holyfield is in the top ten (below Frazier, 'tho) and I'll tell you why. He has the most wins against current/former world champs. Or, I'm pretty sure he does.. If he doesn't he has to at least be top 2/3 in that department.

Yaman

09-07-2007, 08:16 PM

Holyfield deserves a good ranking imo. Lasted a long time in the game, Many belts, coming back from defeat, succesful rematches, going against the ods nearly his entire career and always disproving the critics(Maybe again soon), great boxing ability, NEVER DUCKED ANYONE IN HIS LIFE(He deserves so much respect for this!), ability to adapt, one of the biggest heart the sport has ever seen..man I can go on, what has this man not accomplished in his career? I have to be honest, he is definitely ahead of Tyson. And IMO also ahead of Lewis.

LondonRingRules

09-07-2007, 11:12 PM

The big deal is that you don't seem to be in grips with reality.

Prime Larry Holmes does beat the old, fat 90's Foreman.

You know your stuff LRR but you are the guy that laughed at Seer - who said Cotto would be champion. Guess what Seer was right- LRR was wrong.

WelshDevil

** Jeepers Creepers Robby, open up those peepers. I've always liked Cotto from the first fight I ever saw him in. His brother is pretty decent too and maybe holds a belt eventually. Cotto ain't the 2nd coming yet, but I'm willing to wait and watch the fun.

Prime Larry Holmes could barely handle past prime Norton, was lucky to survive a limited Shavers/Snipes. Many refs would've stopped that Shavers bout. Holmes, not as good a chin as Ali, not as shifty defensively as Young, never as good as Holy. Now maybe the prime Holmes could surprise the version of Foreman who was not ready for Morrison's hit and run tactics, a complete style change for Morrison or win a stupid Briggs decision.

The only guy Larry fought that represented a comprehensive threat was Cooney, and Larry had to take some punishment to take out Cooney late. Cooney hadn't even completed 2 rounds over his previous 2 yrs and never been past 8 rds in his limited experience.

Larry, a good fighter, but strangely absent during periods of great and good young talent in the 70s and 80s.

WelshDevilRob

09-08-2007, 09:18 AM

** Jeepers Creepers Robby, open up those peepers. I've always liked Cotto from the first fight I ever saw him in. His brother is pretty decent too and maybe holds a belt eventually. Cotto ain't the 2nd coming yet, but I'm willing to wait and watch the fun.

Prime Larry Holmes could barely handle past prime Norton, was lucky to survive a limited Shavers/Snipes. Many refs would've stopped that Shavers bout. Holmes, not as good a chin as Ali, not as shifty defensively as Young, never as good as Holy. Now maybe the prime Holmes could surprise the version of Foreman who was not ready for Morrison's hit and run tactics, a complete style change for Morrison or win a stupid Briggs decision.

The only guy Larry fought that represented a comprehensive threat was Cooney, and Larry had to take some punishment to take out Cooney late. Cooney hadn't even completed 2 rounds over his previous 2 yrs and never been past 8 rds in his limited experience.

Larry, a good fighter, but strangely absent during periods of great and good young talent in the 70s and 80s.

I agree that Larry was not quite the dominant champion that some seem to elude too but I do think he had the jab and ability to soundly outbox the old version of Foreman. The Prime version of George I rate above Larry in my Top 10.

Out of interest how did you score the Holmes vs Witherspoon fight, LRR?

Also great to see your still around in the boxing world. And while I don't agree with everything you say - I do learn alot from reading your observations and posts.

The Iron Man

09-08-2007, 02:27 PM

I think Holyfield Faced 8 ex-champs and Champs. Tyson Faced i think Tyson face around 9 or 10, and Lewis i think only 5 not too sure with him tho

-CANE-

09-10-2007, 06:15 AM

I think Holyfield Faced 8 ex-champs and Champs. Tyson Faced i think Tyson face around 9 or 10, and Lewis i think only 5 not too sure with him tho

Including fighting Current Champs,ex Champs and Future Champs:-

Joe Louis : 8 faced, record 7-3-0 6KOS
Muhammed Ali : 11 faced,record 12-5-0 7KOS
George Foreman : 7 faced, record 4-4-0 4KOS
Larry Holmes : 13 faced,record 10-5-0 6KOS
Mike Tyson : 12 faced,record 10-4-0 8KOS
Evander Holyfield : 12 faced,record 13-4-2 5KOS
Lennox Lewis : 12 faced,record 12-2-1 8KOS 1DQ

I thought you lot mind find that quite interesting, when I have some more time, I'll go through and do the others

LondonRingRules

09-10-2007, 09:04 AM

Out of interest how did you score the Holmes vs Witherspoon fight, LRR?

** Excellent case in point. I had Larry squeaking by a win. Spoon gave him as much as he could handle and still win, which considering Spoon's poor training habits and inexperience, 15-0, speaks to the true level of talent that Larry had. Good talent, but not great talent.

Larry was 33 yrs old, and closed out the year against Scott Frank, 21-0 and Marvis Frazier, 10-0, both overmatched physically and in experience against Holmes, but much easier than a Witherspoon rematch. This is also when Thomas, Page, Tate, Tubbs, Dokes, Coetzee, are good physical specimans and entering their primes.

Brassangel

09-10-2007, 01:40 PM

Holmes didn't get the belt until the point in his career when many would consider a swift style heavyweight passed their prime.

Those are some interesting stats you have, hurricane. It goes to show that the champions weren't so different after all when it comes to the level of competition they faced.

poet682006

09-10-2007, 03:07 PM

Including fighting Current Champs,ex Champs and Future Champs:-

Joe Louis : 8 faced, record 7-3-0 6KOS
Muhammed Ali : 11 faced,record 12-5-0 7KOS
George Foreman : 7 faced, record 4-4-0 4KOS
Larry Holmes : 13 faced,record 10-5-0 6KOS
Mike Tyson : 12 faced,record 10-4-0 8KOS
Evander Holyfield : 12 faced,record 13-4-2 5KOS
Lennox Lewis : 13 faced,record 12-2-1 8KOS 1DQ

I thought you lot mind find that quite interesting, when I have some more time, I'll go through and do the others

These are interesting stats to be sure, but I wouldn't read too much into them. All world champions are not created equal afterall. There is a HUGE difference between Tyson beating world champion Trever Berbick and Ali beating world champion George Foreman.

Poet

sterling

09-10-2007, 03:30 PM

Best heavywieghts of all time:
1.Muhammad Ali
2.joe louis
3.jack dempsey
4.rocky marciano
5.mike tyson
6.Larry holmes
7.Joe frazier
8.Goerge foremen
9.Sonny liston
10.Ken norton

LondonRingRules

09-10-2007, 03:40 PM

There is a HUGE difference between Tyson beating world champion Trever Berbick and Ali beating world champion George Foreman.
Poet

** True dat, but then again Ali goes to 10-7 with fair judging for Norton, 8-7 if we throw out the Liston fights, and 7-7 if he had fought Norton the 4th time like he was supposed to instead of Spinks.

I just love it when numbers rhyme like a rhythmic chime in time!

The Iron Man

09-10-2007, 04:32 PM

OK im pretty sure that Lennox Lewis one isnt true, can u name all the Champions and Ex-Champs.

-CANE-

09-10-2007, 05:12 PM

OK im pretty sure that Lennox Lewis one isnt true, can u name all the Champions and Ex-Champs.

I did say champs,ex champs and future champs here they are in order they were fought:-

Mike Weaver 1991 W TKO6
Tony Tucker 1993 W UD12
Frank Bruno 1993 W TKO7
Oliver McCall 1994 L TKO2
Tommy Morrison 1995 WTKO6
Ray Mercer 1996 W MD10
Oliver McCall 1997 W TKO5
Henry Akinwande 1997 W DQ5
Shannon Briggs 1998 W TKO5
Evander Holyfield 1999 D12
Evander Holyfield 1999 W UD12
Hasim Rahman 2001 L KO5
Hasim Rahman 2001 W KO4
Mike Tyson 2002 W KO8
Vitali Klitchko 2003 W TKO6

There you go Iron Man hope that does it for you.

The Iron Man

09-10-2007, 06:30 PM

Your counting each person more than once?! I dnt really agree with that or the future champ part either!

Wiley Hyena

09-11-2007, 02:08 AM

-CANE-

09-11-2007, 04:14 AM

Your counting each person more than once?! I dnt really agree with that or the future champ part either!

I said 13 for Lennox which was a typo should have been 12, also even then that isn't counting each person more than once, add them up there is 12 different names, I was simply listing the result's against them all.

-CANE-

09-11-2007, 04:18 AM

Don't forget that with the proliferation of championship belts, there are many more ex-champs, current champs, and future champs out there. Don't forget about that! This statistic, while interesting on its face, doesn't pass muster when your looking at the historical top 10.

Wiley, yes this is an interesting statistic, but I never used this when compiling my top 10, but had I then that would give me more reason to have Lennox as high as he was. And I never forgot about proliferation of belts etc, surely an educated fan could see that I never started this, all I did was reply to someone who said Tyson,Holyfield and Lewis fought so many champs and ex champs etc, surely you read that and could have seen it

ForemanCrossArm

09-11-2007, 11:56 AM

** Excellent case in point. I had Larry squeaking by a win. Spoon gave him as much as he could handle and still win, which considering Spoon's poor training habits and inexperience, 15-0, speaks to the true level of talent that Larry had. Good talent, but not great talent.

Larry was 33 yrs old, and closed out the year against Scott Frank, 21-0 and Marvis Frazier, 10-0, both overmatched physically and in experience against Holmes, but much easier than a Witherspoon rematch. This is also when Thomas, Page, Tate, Tubbs, Dokes, Coetzee, are good physical specimans and entering their primes.

You know that Marvis beat 3 of those guys you mentioned in the am's, right? Marvis was over-matched, and the record was weak, but weren't people saying the same thing about Spinks less than 10 years earlier?

And DAMN. Holyfield had only 4 losses in 17 fights against (ex)champs.. sheeshkerbobs.

ForemanCrossArm

09-11-2007, 11:57 AM

-CANE-

09-11-2007, 12:43 PM

i think i'm going to check out the ring's boxing database book from like 1985.. then i'll post who had the most wins against top 10, top 5, top 3 contenders and who had the most time in the top 10, etc.. at least up until early Larry Holmes

If you could that would be really interesting, who will you be looking at Holmes,Tyson,Holyfield,Lewis,Bowe and Moorer would be good. Or have I misunderstood, is it upto 1985 or 1985 onwards

LondonRingRules

09-11-2007, 01:01 PM

Marvis was over-matched, and the record was weak, but weren't people saying the same thing about Spinks less than 10 years earlier?

** Spinks was only overmatched against everyone else. Holmes may not have been as great as some make him out, but he never ever sank to the depths of Ali either unless you count the Butterbean knockdown.

ForemanCrossArm

09-11-2007, 02:07 PM

If you could that would be really interesting, who will you be looking at Holmes,Tyson,Holyfield,Lewis,Bowe and Moorer would be good. Or have I misunderstood, is it upto 1985 or 1985 onwards

its up to 1985..

The Iron Man

09-11-2007, 07:31 PM

I did say champs,ex champs and future champs here they are in order they were fought:-

Mike Weaver 1991 W TKO6
Tony Tucker 1993 W UD12
Frank Bruno 1993 W TKO7
Oliver McCall 1994 L TKO2
Tommy Morrison 1995 WTKO6
Ray Mercer 1996 W MD10
Oliver McCall 1997 W TKO5
Henry Akinwande 1997 W DQ5
Shannon Briggs 1998 W TKO5
Evander Holyfield 1999 D12
Evander Holyfield 1999 W UD12
Hasim Rahman 2001 L KO5
Hasim Rahman 2001 W KO4
Mike Tyson 2002 W KO8
Vitali Klitchko 2003 W TKO6

There you go Iron Man hope that does it for you.

Well, many of those became champions after Lewis beat them, also 2 of them were champions because of beating Lewis. Im saying this to put it into perspective, as it shows how dominant the fighters were, tyson for instance fought champions and ex champions in a row cleaing out the division and im not counting future champs he fought. Holyfield fought less champions compared to both men and so you could argue he did not dominate as Lewis and Tyson did.

Brassangel

09-12-2007, 01:50 PM

-CANE-

09-12-2007, 06:07 PM

In all fairness, while Klitschko may not have become champion until after his fight with Lewis, Vitali had him licked, were it not for the rediculous stoppage; so it's practically like fighting a champion. :afro:

How ya doing brass long time no speak. Have to disagree with you on this, Vitali never had him licked, watch the fight again mate. While he started very well and hit Lewis with some terrific shots, this was only for the first 2 rounds. By the 3rd Lewis started to get back in the fight and while Klitchko was still competetive his punches were having less of an effect, and he was starting to tire. Although Lewis seemed quite tired himself he looked fresher than Klitchko and was landing the better shots, in the 4th and 5th Lewis hit him with some devastating shots, especially his uppercuts which is quite surprising considering the size of Klitchko. Lewis had busted him up fairly and was on top at the time of the stoppage, and I have no doubt he would have kod him in the next few rounds. But that's my opinion.

The Iron Man

09-12-2007, 07:58 PM

Well u cant basically fight a champion because he fought well, you either do or you dont. Also Briggs was Lineal Champion wen lewis fought him, i dnt think he actually held a belt tho!

-CANE-

09-12-2007, 08:09 PM

Well u cant basically fight a champion because he fought well, you either do or you dont. Also Briggs was Lineal Champion wen lewis fought him, i dnt think he actually held a belt tho!

How ya doing Iron, glad to see some are still up and about.
Nah! Don't think he held a belt either. Just out of curiousity and to save me sifting through all the pages what was your top10 list again, also i'd be interested in seeing your top10 worst,top10 favourite and top10 underrated heavyweight champs. Obviously mine are at the start of the thread.

The Iron Man

09-12-2007, 08:25 PM

10.Lennox Lewis
9.Jack Johnson
8.Jack Dempsey:
7.Larry Holmes
6.Joe Frazier:
5.George Foreman
4.Mike Tyson
3.Rocky Marciano
2.Muhammad Ali
1.Joe Louis

My List changes all the time, but not many leave the list apart from Lewis and Holyfield or liston enter. The reasons are on the first page of the thread, im going off soon but ill try to post the others lists another time

-CANE-

09-12-2007, 08:33 PM

Cheers look forward to seeing them

Wiley Hyena

09-12-2007, 10:06 PM

Wiley Hyena

09-12-2007, 10:08 PM

How ya doing brass long time no speak. Have to disagree with you on this, Vitali never had him licked, watch the fight again mate. While he started very well and hit Lewis with some terrific shots, this was only for the first 2 rounds. By the 3rd Lewis started to get back in the fight and while Klitchko was still competetive his punches were having less of an effect, and he was starting to tire. Although Lewis seemed quite tired himself he looked fresher than Klitchko and was landing the better shots, in the 4th and 5th Lewis hit him with some devastating shots, especially his uppercuts which is quite surprising considering the size of Klitchko. Lewis had busted him up fairly and was on top at the time of the stoppage, and I have no doubt he would have kod him in the next few rounds. But that's my opinion.
Lewis didn't seem the fresher man to me at the end of that fight. Vitali had a good thing going there. Too bad about that amazing horse gash, possibly the worst cut I have ever seen on a boxer.

Wiley Hyena

09-12-2007, 10:10 PM

How ya doing brass long time no speak. Have to disagree with you on this, Vitali never had him licked, watch the fight again mate. While he started very well and hit Lewis with some terrific shots, this was only for the first 2 rounds. By the 3rd Lewis started to get back in the fight and while Klitchko was still competetive his punches were having less of an effect, and he was starting to tire. Although Lewis seemed quite tired himself he looked fresher than Klitchko and was landing the better shots, in the 4th and 5th Lewis hit him with some devastating shots, especially his uppercuts which is quite surprising considering the size of Klitchko. Lewis had busted him up fairly and was on top at the time of the stoppage, and I have no doubt he would have kod him in the next few rounds. But that's my opinion.
Lewis didn't seem the fresher man to me at the end of that fight. Vitali had a good thing going there. Too bad about that gash. It looked like horse that had been tangled up in a barbed wire fence. Possibly the worst single cut I have ever seen on a boxer.

LondonRingRules

09-12-2007, 10:33 PM

Klitchko. Lewis had busted him up fairly and was on top at the time of the stoppage, and I have no doubt he would have kod him in the next few rounds. But that's my opinion.

** Opinion, not fact.

Vitali was ahead on the cards and Lewis had been staggering back to his corner for most of the rounds. It was a legit stoppage, the worst cut I've ever seen and the only time Vitali was ever cut, but Lewis got lucky with what amounts to a fluke cut. He had no legs left and Vitali was still standing and punching after Lewis' best shots of the fight.

Great fight. Too bad about no rematch. Vitali was game, but Lewis had his legacy to protect.

Wiley Hyena

09-12-2007, 11:34 PM

-CANE-

09-13-2007, 05:24 AM

** Opinion, not fact.

Vitali was ahead on the cards and Lewis had been staggering back to his corner for most of the rounds. It was a legit stoppage, the worst cut I've ever seen and the only time Vitali was ever cut, but Lewis got lucky with what amounts to a fluke cut. He had no legs left and Vitali was still standing and punching after Lewis' best shots of the fight.

Great fight. Too bad about no rematch. Vitali was game, but Lewis had his legacy to protect.

I'm sorry I've just watched the whole fight twice, and I think you need to reavalue your assesment of the fight. Klitchko takes first 2 rounds and is the physically stronger of the 2 bulling Lennox around, but Lewis comes out in the 3rd very fast and has the snap back in his punches and takes this round. Lewis edges the 4th with the better punches and although tired it is Klitchko that is feeling the pace more is he grabs and holds nearly every opportunity he can get. 5th round is close and a case can be made for either boxer, but Lewis's punches have more snap, although still holding when he can Klitchko puts a lot of effort in throwing just as much as Lewis, but he looks tired off balance and is the more desperate fighter. 6th round it's like Klitchko is trying to give it one final push, working hard, but extremely tired more so than Lewis, Klitchko's mouth is gaping wide open and holds onto Lennox whenever he can even after throwing his punches, he is in survival mode now suffocating Lewis as much as he can, Lewis because of this is having trouble getting his punches off, but what he does manage is far superior hurting Klitchko whenever they land, Lewis does look tired but no where near as much as Klitchko and all the quality punches are coming from Lewis, who looks like a professional compared to the amateurish but game Vitali Klitchko.
Was Klitchko ahead possibly but not by much, a round at most. Who was the more tired Klitchko, mouth wide open and holding whenever he could. Who was throwing the better punches, Lewis was by far, faster more snap and a lot harder, thrown properly, by planting his feet and shifting his balance correctly, Klitchko's punches never had the snap and were thrown clumsily while coming forward off balance so he could hold straight after. Did Klitchko have a chance of winning, YES but only a small chance of landing one big shot, the more likely winner had this fight gone on was Lewis who probably would have stopped him in the next 3 rounds, with a completely exhausted, busted up Klitchko unable to take any more. You are educated boxing fans and are memories distort things sometimes. Sit down and watch the fight again as I did. I decided to watch it as a neutral as one should and was prepared to say I was wrong and your assesment was correct, but I just can't. I've watched it twice and while maybe slightly behind and a little tired, Klitchko was even more tired and the one trying to survive, it was Lennox who was trying everything he could to finish this difficult fight and he looked in much better condition than Klitchko.

poet682006

09-13-2007, 10:25 AM

I thought Lennox had turned the fight in the fourth and was in control from then on. As for the "freak" cut, last time I checked cuts and swellings were part of the sport and a stoppage for either a legitimate result. Most of this seems to me to be a result of wishful thinking and sour grapes on the part of the Lennox bashers.

Poet

LondonRingRules

09-13-2007, 10:45 AM

I'm sorry I've just watched the whole fight twice, and I think you need to reavalue your assesment of the fight.

** I'm not sorry that your sorry, rather I'm glad you finally got to watch the fight with a more critical eye. You've come around to my position basically regarding who was ahead in the fight, though you're still off. Vitali ahead on all 3 cards 58-56.

Re the cut: I said it was a legit stoppage of the worst cut I've ever seen. I also stated it was a fluke since Vitali has never been cut before or since, and to have that cut be arguably the worst in boxing history is a one off occurance.

Now that the facts have been properly sorted out, my opinion: Vitali stood up to Lewis' best round, the 6th and was punching back. It was Lewis who was staggering back to his stool at the end of the round. Vitali couldn't see how bad his eye was and only wanted to finish Lewis off. I believe Lewis was done at that point. His legs had been wobbling for 6 rds now and he had no more energy left against a huge, strong, extremely accurate puncher with proven late rounds KO power.

Of course my opinion has no bearing on the fight outcome. It is what it is, but unfortunately not many bother to break a fight down as they watch it like a judge might, and fewer still can break down a fight objectively as they score it and retain the information.

Brassangel

09-13-2007, 11:10 AM

I should clarify, that my statement was a sweeping one made in haste. The cut was obviously legit, but Lewis was not winning. Klitschko gave up a round or two towards the end, but that could have been strategic as well. Both men would have tired, and it would have come down to conditioning, and Lewis was visibly out of shape. Lennox was great, however, so he's always got a fighting chance. There still should have been a rematch.

-CANE-

09-13-2007, 01:12 PM

** I'm not sorry that your sorry, rather I'm glad you finally got to watch the fight with a more critical eye. You've come around to my position basically regarding who was ahead in the fight, though you're still off. Vitali ahead on all 3 cards 58-56.

Re the cut: I said it was a legit stoppage of the worst cut I've ever seen. I also stated it was a fluke since Vitali has never been cut before or since, and to have that cut be arguably the worst in boxing history is a one off occurance.

Now that the facts have been properly sorted out, my opinion: Vitali stood up to Lewis' best round, the 6th and was punching back. It was Lewis who was staggering back to his stool at the end of the round. Vitali couldn't see how bad his eye was and only wanted to finish Lewis off. I believe Lewis was done at that point. His legs had been wobbling for 6 rds now and he had no more energy left against a huge, strong, extremely accurate puncher with proven late rounds KO power.

Of course my opinion has no bearing on the fight outcome. It is what it is, but unfortunately not many bother to break a fight down as they watch it like a judge might, and fewer still can break down a fight objectively as they score it and retain the information.

I always watch a fight with a critical eye, just as a judge would. And after watching it again, I still see it the same. You say I was off with my scoring, by 1 round and I did say some of the rounds were close and a case could be made for giving it either way. The cut wasn't a fluke, that is one of the objectives in boxing, Lewis's punches were doing damage, the fact he hadn't happened to him before doesn't make it a fluke. Lewis was the 1st real world class opponent he had come up against, and it showed all over his face.

I think you need to watch the fight again objectively and retain some information. I never said Lewis was infront, I said he was on top at the time of the stoppage, completely different meaning, so I haven't come round to your position as you put it. Try actually reading what I say, and not what you think I'm saying. It seems to me you really don't like Lewis at all. I also never denied Lewis was tired, he was actually at the heavyiest of his career for this fight, which may have contributed along with the fact that an exhausted Klitchko mouth wide open from the 4th onwards was holding and leaning on him as much as he could. Watch the fight again and apart from the 1st 2 rounds, tell me who was throwing the better punches, whose had more snap, more power and were thrown properly. As I said before Klitchko although working hard, when coming forward was throwing his punches like an amatuer, they had no real snap and were not having now where near as much effect as in the 1st 2 rounds, where as Lewis's punches were the opposite, he couldn't get going in the 1st 2 rounds and his punches seemed to have no effect, but from the 3rd round onwards his punches were getting better and better and having a lot more effect, so although tired, not as tired as you seem to think. As each round went on Lewis's punches were getting stronger. It wasn't Lewis holding, it was Klitchko at every opportunity he got, he was the one suffering from the pace more. Lewis was not done after 6 rounds, tired yes but not done. And as for your statement of Lewis's legs had been wobbling for 6 rounds, try looking up the definition of wobble,wobbling and then tell me the same. If you really can't see that after watching the fight again, and I mean WATCH it with all this in mind before replying back, then if you disagree then fair enough that's your opinion, I'll take as your not as intelligent as I 1st thought.

The Iron Man

09-13-2007, 07:22 PM

Nice list Iron. Good to see Dempsey up there where he belongs. Tyson's too high though.

Thanks man, Dempsey belongs there with the greats. And i am confident with my placement with tyson..sometimes i think he should be higher, he achived as much and mayb more than the boxers i placed above him.

-CANE-

09-14-2007, 03:21 PM

Ironman - Any chance of seeing them other lists you send you'd put up.

Foremancrossarm - Have you managed to go through the ring database yet, still looking forward to seeing that

Yaman

09-14-2007, 05:49 PM

I had Klitchko winning the first 2 rounds. Lewis wasn't getting his shots in, and wasn't throwing much. He looked old and uncomfortable, both actually. At times it looked like a wrestling match. Vitali was landing his right in the 2nd round, they were starting to connect. So he had his old 1-2 going while Lewis was still sloppy and not yet in the fight, however, he blocked many right hands from Klitchko.

Lewis came out strong in the 3rd round, and was more accurate. He was getting Klitchko off balance with his jab(If he was in his prime, he would have used this and picked him apart, winning the fight. Lewis looked shot in 03) this allowed him to land some shots. But Klitchko kept coming although being more active, Lewis landed the better more meaningful punches IMO, and didn't hold as much. So I give Lennox this round but it was very close.

In the 4th, Vitali kept using his left jab over and over, was more active, landed the better shots etc, he wont this round.

In the 5th, Lewis looked more focused, I think he listened to Manny. Coming out strong landing good shots. Looks like he got advice from his corner to hit the clinching Klitchko's body over and over. It was effective. :40 right hand from hell from Lewis. I give this round to Lennox as well.

Lewis won the 6th because of his chopping uppercuts. I looked closely at the end of the 6th, Lewis wasn't done. He was so close to his corner, you couldn't see him wobbling and he looked like this at the end of the 3rd and other rounds where he still came out strong. I'm not convinced he was done.

Lewis went out like a true champion, he didn't hold like Klitchko, and kept coming forward even when he had no legs or stamina. A true Lion. Vitali had no sportsmanship unlike Lewis, who also helped him get up when they both fell down in the early rounds.
So anyway, this was very close. I have it 3-3 looking at it now but I might change it when I watch this fight more often. I think round 3 was very close and many have that one for Vitali, I might too later. So it was either 3-3, or 4-2 for Klitchko. Hardly a domination, especially in the 6th, not 10th or something.
About the stoppage, this was a case of having a chin too good for your own good, if you can look at it that way. A handful of men could keep taking uppercuts and right hands like that from Lennox Lewis. Look at Vitali's face, this shows it. If it would of continued, Lewis would have ripped his face open, seriously damaged him etc. A fair win for Lewis.

number6

09-15-2007, 11:44 AM

Top 10 Worst Heavyweight Champions of all-time
1> Franceso Damiani
2> Corrie Sanders
3> Chris Byrd
4> Michael Bent
5> Nickolay Valuev
6> Lamon Brewster
7> Frans Botha
8> Greg Page
9> John Tate
10>Henry Akinwande

I dont think Byrd and Brewster should be on the list.They made a few sucsessfull defences.
Bruce Seldon should be on though.

-CANE-

09-15-2007, 12:44 PM

-CANE-

09-15-2007, 12:49 PM

I dont think Byrd and Brewster should be on the list.They made a few sucsessfull defences.
Bruce Seldon should be on though.

It's actually quite difficult doing your worst list, a case can be made for quite a few that I never put on. Bruce seldon was a poor champion, week chin, but although I never took into account how they would have done in head to heads, I would pick Seldon over Byrd and Brewster.

Yaman

09-15-2007, 01:35 PM

Not a bad analysis, Lewis was the fair winner. Had it gone on who do you think would have won or been the more likely winner?

Well at that stage Lewis probably would have won since Vitali wouldn't be able to see with his left eye at all, and some people don't realise how it would of affected Klitchko's life and career if it went on any further. Also both in their primes, I don't think Vitali would make it that far either, the fight would always be stopped. Look at how many cuts he had, his chin was just too good, he would absorb all of Lewis' punches and eventually have some ugly cuts again.

-CANE-

09-16-2007, 04:33 PM

Well at that stage Lewis probably would have won since Vitali wouldn't be able to see with his left eye at all, and some people don't realise how it would of affected Klitchko's life and career if it went on any further. Also both in their primes, I don't think Vitali would make it that far either, the fight would always be stopped. Look at how many cuts he had, his chin was just too good, he would absorb all of Lewis' punches and eventually have some ugly cuts again.

Yaman, thanks for replying. I would really like a good dicussion on the heavies with you and a few others like poet,brassangel,LRR,Ironman,Wiley,Foremancrossarm and the rest that have replied a few times on this post I don't want to trawl through all the pages, can't remember if you posted your top 10 list, could you do it for me please, also if you have time how about top 10 worst,favourite and underated. Most people that have replied to this thread have just given top 10 best, I would really be interested in seeing EVERYONE'S top10 best,worst,favourite and underated heavies. Once all have put there lists up, maybe we could all go through and discuss each one and see if we can come up with a list togeather, hard I know but it would be great to try. We'd all agree on the criteria for selection and then look at the stats and take it from there.

LondonRingRules

09-16-2007, 11:56 PM

Yaman, thanks for replying. I would really like a good dicussion on the heavies with you and a few others like poet,brassangel,LRR,Ironman,Wiley,Foremancrossarm and the rest that have replied a few times on this post I don't want to trawl through all the pages, can't remember if you posted your top 10 list, could you do it for me please, also if you have time how about top 10 worst,favourite and underated.

** Not much into top 10 lists which become extremely difficult the further down you go on the list. The best is much easier.

Joe Louis should be the clear consensus best ever heavy.

The worst is clearly Leon who had a journeyman's career at best and KOed more than any heavy champ other than Jack Johnson.

Favorite is Jack Dempsey and George Foreman. Loved both.

Underrated is Sam Langford. Might not be competitive by modern standards of the heavy division, but he could KO anyone in his era and was the MAN of his era. No wonder he never got a title shot. Always looks bad to get KOed by a squatty little tarbaby with a squeaky voice, all the greatest respect accorded to little Sam.

Brassangel

09-17-2007, 12:07 AM

Best: Joe Louis

Worst: John Ruiz, or Leon Spinks

Favorite: Joe Frazier

Underrated: Sam Langford

I agree with LRR about top 10 lists. It's easier to justify the top half of a list, but extremely difficult once you start filtering down. 7-10 for me, for example, on a best-of list, variate from time to time, and even the fighters between 11-15 sometimes creep on there.

Lubutheimmortal

09-17-2007, 04:44 AM

[QUOTE=Brassangel;2660844]Best: Joe Louis

Worst: John Ruiz, or Leon Spinks

Favorite: Joe Frazier

Underrated: Sam Langford
QUOTE]

Ahem! I agree cept my Fav is either Louis, or Ali.

Yaman

09-17-2007, 09:07 AM

Yaman, thanks for replying. I would really like a good dicussion on the heavies with you and a few others like poet,brassangel,LRR,Ironman,Wiley,Foremancrossarm and the rest that have replied a few times on this post I don't want to trawl through all the pages, can't remember if you posted your top 10 list, could you do it for me please, also if you have time how about top 10 worst,favourite and underated. Most people that have replied to this thread have just given top 10 best, I would really be interested in seeing EVERYONE'S top10 best,worst,favourite and underated heavies. Once all have put there lists up, maybe we could all go through and discuss each one and see if we can come up with a list togeather, hard I know but it would be great to try. We'd all agree on the criteria for selection and then look at the stats and take it from there.

I don't remember posting a top 10, I don't really believe in top 10 ATG lists that much and i'd always change it, but it could be fun sometimes and I don't want to be boring:) I'll go with greatness alone:

1-Muhammad Ali
2-Joe Louis
3-Rocky Marciano
4-Larry Holmes
5-Jack Dempsey
6-Jack Johnson
7-Lennox Lewis
8-George Foreman
9-Jim Jeffries
10-Mike Tyson

Liston, Holyfield, Frazier, Tunney, Walcott and Charles would pop in there all the time if I made a list every few weeks.
Best: Louis, Ali

Worst: Spinks, Ruiz

Favorite: Tyson

Underrated: Patterson(Great fighter, never seen him mentioned in a Top 10 list, not even in the Heavyweights)

poet682006

09-17-2007, 09:12 AM

I don't remember posting a top 10, I don't really believe in top 10 ATG lists that much and i'd always change it, but it could be fun sometimes and I don't want to be boring:) I'll go with greatness alone:

1-Muhammad Ali
2-Joe Louis
3-Rocky Marciano
4-Larry Holmes
5-Jack Dempsey
6-Jack Johnson
7-Lennox Lewis
8-George Foreman
9-Jim Jeffries
10-Mike Tyson

Liston, Holyfield, Frazier, Tunney, Walcott and Charles would pop in there all the time if I made a list every few weeks.
Best: Louis, Ali

Worst: Spinks, Ruiz

Favorite: Tyson

Underrated: Patterson(Great fighter, never seen him mentioned in a Top 10 list, not even in the Heavyweights)

Patterson is a favorite of mine but he typically gets downgraded because of his chin. Favorite moment: The leaping left hook that iced Johansson in their second fight.

Poet

Dempsey 1919

09-17-2007, 01:11 PM

I don't know if I posted this, but...

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Sonny Liston
3. George Foreman
4. Mike Tyson
5. Joe Louis
6. Larry Holmes
7. Jack Johnson
8. Joe Frazier
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Lennox Lewis

11. Rocky Marciano
12. Riddick Bowe
13. Evander Holyfield
14. Floyd Patterson
15. Ezzard Charles
16. Jersey Joe Walcott
17. Gene Tunney
18. Jim Jeffries
19. Ken Norton
20. Sam Langford

brownpimp88

09-17-2007, 10:46 PM

Evander Holyfield has beaten 7 lineal heavyweight champs, on top of that he has wins over michael dokes, pinklon thomas and ray mercer. He should be on the list based on that resume.

-CANE-

09-18-2007, 04:30 AM

Evander Holyfield has beaten 7 lineal heavyweight champs, on top of that he has wins over michael dokes, pinklon thomas and ray mercer. He should be on the list based on that resume.

Well I started the thread and if I remember correctly, I had him on the list at no.5. Try reading the first page.

LondonRingRules

09-18-2007, 08:29 AM

Evander Holyfield has beaten 7 lineal heavyweight champs, on top of that he has wins over michael dokes, pinklon thomas and ray mercer. He should be on the list based on that resume.

** He also lost to 3 lineal champs and 2 non lineal champs, including one of the worst "champs" ever, Ruiz. Holy's heavyweight record is 24-8-2 fixing to be 24-9-2. Gotta take the good with the bad.

-CANE-

09-18-2007, 08:55 AM

To all that have posted on this thread. I will probably change my list in the next week or so. I am currently about to do some reasearch on all the major champions. I want to try and come up with a way to find the greatest heavyweight champions, NOT as fighters or in head to head matchups but in what they achieved as champions. I am gonna take 16 to start off with and will have different criteria such as career record, length of reign(s), title defenses, champions fought (which will take into account that today there are more champions, so more likely to fight one), % of wins, % by ko, % of wins in title fights, % by ko, and so one. I will input all of this onto a spreadsheet. Most of the criteria I have selected is FACTUAL STATS however there will be a few that are subjective such as Impact,Quality of Opposition and maybe a few more. I want everyone's help and input on this. Any criteria you think that should be included or not, Factual or Subjective, also I need a way of coming up with a points scoring system in each category that is fair, so at the end I can total all the points up from each category and see who scores the highest thus finding out who is the greatest. I was going to score them 1 to 16, 16 being the highest because there will initially be 16 champions to sort through. So for example on title defenses Joe Louis would score 16 because he had the most and Sonny Liston 1 because he had the least of the champions I selected. But that doesn't seem fair. Maybe each category will have to have a different way to be scored, that's why I want everyone's input. So let me know what criteria you think needs to be included and how to score that particular criteria for the 16 boxers. I hope everyone is following this. Look forward to hearing your replies.

mickeyb

09-20-2007, 10:04 AM

how's that list coming along?

-CANE-

09-20-2007, 12:53 PM

I have now done my research on 16 champions to start off with.
I have taken into account their achievments as champions and done my list accordingly. Just because I have someone at no16 it doesn't mean I don't think they were not better or could not beat the fighters above them. This list is greatest champions on what they acheived and how they affected the sport. I have taken the following as my criteria:-
1>Total years as champions (Factual)
2>Number of defenses (Factual)
3>Number of times they became champion (Factual)
4>Quality of opposition (Subjective)
5>Impact on the sport (Subjective)

I have devised my own system for scoring points in each of the 5 catagories as fair as I could and then added up the points to find the greatest champion.
I was surprised at how my list had changed from the original.

My Original list:-
1> Muhammad Ali
2> Larry Holmes
3> Lennox Lewis
4> Joe Louis
5> Evander Holyfield
6> Jack Johnson
7> George Foreman
8> Rocky Marciano
9> Joe Frazier
10>Mike Tyson

My new greatest list of heavyweight champions:- (I will use the same system for the champions I have not yet included and will update my list at a later date)

1> Muhammed Ali
2> Joe Louis
3> Lennox Lewis
4> Larry Holmes
5> Evander Holyfield
6> Mike Tyson (scored same as Holyfield, but his 2 losses give EH 5th spot)
7> George Foreman
8> Joe Frazier
9> Jack Johnson
10>Rocky Marciano
11>Jack Dempsey (scored same as Marciano, but RM unbeaten so gets 10th)
12>Floyd Patterson
13>James J. Jeffries
14>Tommy Burns
15>Ezzard Charles
16>Sonny Liston

Yaman

09-20-2007, 01:10 PM

That's pretty good. Figuring that some of them had such a huge impact on the sport(making it higher to the list because of that) it's no surprise they could be Top 5, 10 "greatest" Champions. And the other important factors as well, some score higher in one catory than the other. I guess it still comes down to opinion but I'd say you did a really good job. I might use this list in the future when the greatness of heavyweights is discussed.

The Iron Man

09-20-2007, 01:29 PM

Tysons First Reign : 10 Defences. 2 time champ

Lewis'2nd Reign : 9 Defences. 3 time Champ

Holyfiled Longest Reign : 3 Defences. 4 time champ

Im also going to add Dominance of Era.

Years as champion - Im taking into account how many times they were champ as well, as to be honest a five time champ in holy has 7 years and 3 time lewis has the same counts for more, tysons 2 years as champ are more than half of holyfields 5!.

Tyson: 4 years 8mths
Lewis:7 years
Holyfield:7years 1 mnth

Quality, of opposition is mainly the same as they were around the same era, althought it could be argued that Tyson didnt fight Bowe or Tua. But The others didnt fight spinks. So i will to be fair give tyson 2 and lewis and holy 3.

im going to give each a rating of 5 on each field.

Tyson: 21/25
lewis : 21/25
Holyfield :18/25

-CANE-

09-20-2007, 08:07 PM

Thanks for the replies. Thought I ought to let you all know how I scored each category and what points they all got.

1>Total years reigned = 5 points for every year
2>Total number of defenses = 5 points for every defense
3>Times champion = 10 points for every time they became champion, +2 points for every year since they won their first title, until winning 2nd title. e.g George Foreman won the title twice giving him 20points, he won his 1st title in 1973 and his 2nd in 1994 a gap of 21 years giving him a further 42 points.
4>Quality of opposition = A=20 points, B=10 points and C=5 points (Of course this is subjective and my opinion)
5>Impact on the sport = A=20 points, B=10 points and C=5 points (Again this is subjective and my own opinion)

Here is how the fighters scored

1> Muhammed Ali,8 yrs,19 def,3 time champ,A QofOpp,A Impact = 233 points
2> Joe Louis,12 yrs,25 def,1 time champ,B,A = 225 points
3> Lennox Lewis,9 yrs,14 def,3 time champ,A,C = 168 points
4> Larry Holmes,7 yrs,20 def,1 time champ,A,C = 160 points
5> Evander Holyfield,7 yrs,7 def,4 time champ,A,C = 145 points
6> Mike Tyson,5 yrs,10 def,2 time champ,A,A = 145 points
7> George Foreman,2 yrs,3 def,2 time champ,A,A = 127 points
8> Joe Frazier,5 yrs,9 def,1 time champ,A,B = 110 points
9> Jack Johnson,7 yrs,6 def,1 time champ,B,A = 105 points
10>Rocky Marciano,4 yrs,6 def,1 time champ,A,A = 100 points
11>Jack Dempsey,7 yrs,5 def,1 time champ,B,A = 100 points
12>Floyd Patterson,6 yrs,6 def,2 time champ,C,C = 97 points
13>James J. Jeffries,5 yrs,6 def,1 time champ,A,B = 95 points
14>Tommy Burns,2 yrs,11 def,1 time champ,C,C = 85 points
15>Ezzard Charles,2 yrs,8 def,1 time champ,C,B = 75 points
16>Sonny Liston,2 yrs,2 def,1 time champ,B,B = 50 points

Interested in your thoughts please

sterling

09-21-2007, 07:15 AM

hmm gd list but dnt agree with lewis being so high as a fighter but he did gain alot of accomplishments gd job.

mickeyb

09-21-2007, 07:28 AM

-CANE-

09-21-2007, 07:48 AM

interesting, it shows that the top 12 or so are ranked pretty much in the order that most people would think. not too many surprises, Louis and Ali are ahead of the rest as you would expect. Then not a lot to chose between Holmes, Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson.

Did Bowe or anyone else figure into your calculations, i thought Bowe would score more points than Liston even if you dont rate him in the top 16 or did you just work out the one's you've listed??

I just did the 16 I had listed but will make a point of doing the others sometime in the near future. Off the top of my head I would say Bowe would figure somewhere between 12 and 16.

Where would you have the 16 that I listed.

mickeyb

09-21-2007, 08:07 AM

without the calculations pretty much same as you. although i wouldnt have foreman higher than Marciano or Dempsey and i'd have tyson down lower too.

The Iron Man

09-21-2007, 08:30 AM

Mayb Accomplishments should be taken into consideration aswell?

-CANE-

09-21-2007, 09:19 AM

Mayb Accomplishments should be taken into consideration aswell?

I thought I did take them into account. Years reigned,times champion,defenses did I miss anything.

Maybe I could have unifying titles, in which case Ali,Tyson,Holyfield and Lewis would score more.

The Iron Man

09-21-2007, 09:42 AM

poet682006

09-21-2007, 09:43 AM

-CANE-

09-21-2007, 11:27 AM

Things like. Foreman becomming the oldest every champion, Lineal Champs, Tyson Becomming the Youngest ever champion. Ali and Tyson winning it after years of inactivity something Dempsey couldnt do, marcianos unbeaten streak. Holyfields titles holds are accounted for which is good. As with Louis' lengthy reign so it would only b fitting if other accomplishments were noted. and as u mentioned being the Undisputed champion, i think Tyson, Lewis and Holyfield should be given more credit as it was much harder to achieve this during their time.
And if contestants are neck and neck then ability should come into it not record against each other. As this could not work all the time.

How many points do you suggest for the following accompishments:-
Youngest & Oldest Heavyweight Champ = 10 points o.k. (Obviously more than one fighter would have to score in each category, as Floyd Patterson was the youngest until Tyson, and without checking I'm not sure before him, and would John L. Sullivan automatically get both as he was the 1st recognized champion, or would you take from James J. Corbett)
Lineal champions = I don't think this is fair, because all the old fighters would have automatically scored because there was only one champ, whereas Bowe should have fought Lewis but threw the belt in the bin denying Lewis the chance.
Inactivity = Not sure how I would score this as how long would you have to be inactive for before qualifying, and what about Joe Louis's inactivity during the war would the next defense count for points.
Undisputed Champion = 20 points (This is a possibility, but is it just for actually unifying more than 1 title, or are we to include winning an undisputed title as Holyfield did from Douglas, and Bowe from Holyfield)
Undefeated = 20 points for retiring undefeated and 10 points for retiring as champion ala Jeffries,Louis and Lewis. Marciano would score a further 30 points here.

Brassangel

09-21-2007, 01:59 PM

This is a pretty interesting take on the rating(s) system, and systematic is a good way to go. Some things I noticed, however, which should probably be changed or reconfigured were the categories such as "Impact on the Sport" and "Quality of Opposition." Both are fairly relative, meaning they could have wildly different values depending on who is asked.

Many of these fighters, Muhammad Ali, for example, met their toughest competition when they didn't have the title. Who had a large impact on the sport is almost 100% relative, not absolute, because the impact factors in many things. Joe Louis, for example, was someone who aided in bringing heavyweight boxing to the front of all sports, while Mike Tyson almost single-handedly drove it into ground by making a mokery of it. Both had titanic impacts, with shades of positive and negative effect. Lennox Lewis, meanwhile, while a successful champion, was barely known by the general public, because he came in when the last era of "greats" were fading away. George Foreman actually didn't make a tremendous impact on the sport until he started making the Foreman Grill during his comeback. Rocky Marciano's impact was felt long after everyone realized that no one will retire as an undefeated heavyweight champion; that's a hindsight impact. Really, I think that this category in particular should be avoided, especially when it can vary by as much as 20 points.

I will post again soon, as my break is now over, and I will give more input in regards to a points system.

-CANE-

09-21-2007, 02:09 PM

Brassangel

09-21-2007, 04:10 PM

We could approach it by their attributes as well. For example:

Out of 10 possible points in each category

Power
Speed
Agility
Chin
Stamina
Heart
Defense
TOTAL:

Lubutheimmortal

09-21-2007, 04:21 PM

We could approach it by their attributes as well. For example:

Out of 10 possible points in each category

Power
Speed
Agility
Chin
Stamina
Heart
Defense
TOTAL:

Thats what I try to do with my p4p lists! Like some kind of Video game stats, for lack of a better example!

-CANE-

09-21-2007, 04:38 PM

We could approach it by their attributes as well. For example:

Out of 10 possible points in each category

Power
Speed
Agility
Chin
Stamina
Heart
Defense
TOTAL:

Yeah we could but like you said earlier regarding Quality of Opposition and Impact they are subjective and everyone will have their own opinion, but I could try if you want, and also try adding what Iron Man said as well regarding youngest and oldest champs, unifying titles etc. This may take some time. When inputing the stats on the spreadsheet I did I put in everyone's record and title fight record and then worked out percentage of wins in both categories and also percentage of wins by ko in both categories, so that would help me with the power. I could also take how many times they have been knocked down and out and by who. This is going to turn into something really big and it will be a long hard job, but it will be satisfying when it is all done.

hhascup

09-21-2007, 05:11 PM

We could approach it by their attributes as well. For example:

Out of 10 possible points in each category

Power
Speed
Agility
Chin
Stamina
Heart
Defense
TOTAL:

This has been done many times in the past. It would be very hard to rate them by any standards BUT it's fun trying to do so.

Brassangel

09-21-2007, 07:02 PM

That's true. Plus, this list of relative abilities could simply be a lumped category, worth a total of 70 possible points (no one will score perfectly, mind you), that is placed beside length of reign, record, KO %, etc.

Again, quality of opposition is such a relative category, along with impact, and the opposition only actually looks that good against one another. There's truly no telling how good they would have been in any other era. I also think that many of today's critics are hardcore 70's nuts, who felt that time when boxing was nationally broadcast, and made to be the biggest sport in the world. Like I said on another thread, these things have to be taken in a vacuum sometimes, without the surrounding mythical hype.

Wiley Hyena

09-21-2007, 07:31 PM

-CANE-

09-21-2007, 07:56 PM

Brass, I would have to respectfully disagree with this when trying to rank the greatest heavies in boxing history. It's too difficult to try and form an accurate opinion of what Joe Louis would have been like in 1985. It's impossible. Boxers are different from generation to generation. Impact on the sport and quality of opposition must be considered to have a valid comparison.

So Wiley, did you manage to check out my new list and how it has changed and how the scoring was done, want to know your opinion on this

Wiley Hyena

09-21-2007, 08:11 PM

So Wiley, did you manage to check out my new list and how it has changed and how the scoring was done, want to know your opinion on this
Checking.....one moment please.

Wiley Hyena

09-21-2007, 08:23 PM

So Wiley, did you manage to check out my new list and how it has changed and how the scoring was done, want to know your opinion on this
Yes...Very nice list. My list is above, so I disagree as to the order of some of the fighters, but your list is well considered IMO. Standards that I have additionally are Impact on the Culture, and, Overall Talent. Perhaps it would be easy to lump Impact on the Culture in with Impact on the Sport, but Overall Talent is something that I think should be considered. It is somewhat subjective, but it's impossible to totally dispense with it, IMO. Cheers.

The Iron Man

09-21-2007, 10:45 PM

When i have time ill do a spread sheet of my own, taking into account all the things we have spoken about. Should be interesting once we get the results

Brassangel

09-21-2007, 11:10 PM

But the very fact that you [Wiley] have agreed with my statement(s) concerning the variables of each champion within each era proves that their impact on the sport is relative. Their impact is so different, whether good or bad, that they would all deserve an "A" unless someone has a personal bias towards (or against) a particular fighter; or, the fighter had very little true impact on the sport, such as Lennox Lewis.

Far too many variables create a very messy chalkboard when trying to develop an accurate formula for determining a champion's impact; some of which may be unfair to others. The fact that television was around for half of them and not for others, while some still had to be shown only on pay-per-view, some on closed circuit, some during allegedly "down" eras, etc. A boxers' popularity, which greatly affects their impact, is bad for determining how great they are. Just because Muhammad Ali was loved by the people of Africa, does not aid in his being one of the best "boxing champions" of all-time. Just because Germany hated Joe Louis, does not mean that he wasn't one of the greatest of all-time. Rocky Marciano went undefeated through, what some consider to be a down time in the heavyweight division, and so his impact wasn't felt until it was seen in hindsight. That should affect his greatness. Can you see why this is an awkward category?

Wiley Hyena

09-22-2007, 12:15 AM

-CANE-

09-22-2007, 09:03 AM

Yes...Very nice list. My list is above, so I disagree as to the order of some of the fighters, but your list is well considered IMO. Standards that I have additionally are Impact on the Culture, and, Overall Talent. Perhaps it would be easy to lump Impact on the Culture in with Impact on the Sport, but Overall Talent is something that I think should be considered. It is somewhat subjective, but it's impossible to totally dispense with it, IMO. Cheers.

I shall as you and others have pointed out try adding overall talent, it will need to be broken down into different categories, such as heart, speed, power etc. Of course this is subjective and everyone's opinion differs greatly. But in doing this the whole concept now changes, I did originally when constructing the list say that this was only to find the greatest champions in the division on achiements only. In taking the suggestions of everybody else on board it will be greatest heavyweights overall, taking everything into account, such as achievments, ability, impact etc etc. So the title of the list has to change. Maybe that's where alot of confusion comes in and while everyone's list is different. For instance Wiley said my list was well constructed but his still differs from mine, but that's because of the criteria. If we were going to go on achievments, and you all (Wiley,Brass,LRR,IronMan,Sterling,Lubutheimmortal, etc etc) did your list on that and that only then everyone's list would be very similar. I think done that way there are 4 heavyweights that stand out at the top. The top 2 would alway's be Ali and Louis in whatever order, but they stand out above everyone else. Next comes 3rd and 4th and again 2 more heavyweights stand out above all the others, that being Holmes and Lewis again any order you want. I think if you all were honest and went only one what they achieved as champions, total defenses and years reigned and how many times they became champion then the above 4 mentioned heavyweights are the top 4 every time. I think that's why most of you are disagreeing with the list because you are taking other factors,criteria into account which you are all entitled to do, but the list isn't then greatest heavies on achievment alone, which I did state mine was on numerous occasions. So I believe I have found the greatest champions in the division on achievment, because most of the criteria was factual and you cant argue with that. So I will now try to incorporate all the suggestions made by everyone else into the equation, and quite clearly with there being so much subjective criteria everyone's list will probably differ greatly. I urge everyone to try doing their own list, and to try both types on achievment only, and then taking into account everything for an overall greatest list. If everyone done this I believe done on achievment we should all have pretty much the same top10, maybe slightly different order, but the top4 should always be the 4 I mentioned earlier (Ali,Louis,Lewis and Holmes). Taking everything into account then yes we probably have a lot more variation on the top10 and they will be a lot different from everyone elses. So please take time out and do the list both ways and see what you come up with, and then let me know.

WelshDevilRob

09-22-2007, 11:41 PM

-CANE-

09-23-2007, 04:17 AM

Great to see Lennox Lewis so high, Hurricane. Though Sonny Liston should be higher

Yeah as a fighter I agree, he would have beat some of the people that were higher on the list, but this list is just done on what they achieved or accomplished while they were champion and how many times they became champion. From the feedback of other posters, other criteria should be taken into consideration, such as overall talent, unifying titles, youngest and oldest champions in which case I'm sure Sonny would move up the list.

Wiley Hyena

09-23-2007, 02:42 PM

Great to see Lennox Lewis so high, Hurricane. Though Sonny Liston should be higher
Here, I disagree that Lewis is top 10, for reasons I've explained in detail before. Not dissin Lewis, I really respect him. He just doesn't get there IMO. If he made a comebact to recapture a championship, then his status would have to be reevaluated.

-CANE-

09-23-2007, 04:49 PM

Here, I disagree that Lewis is top 10, for reasons I've explained in detail before. Not dissin Lewis, I really respect him. He just doesn't get there IMO. If he made a comebact to recapture a championship, then his status would have to be reevaluated.

Why doesn't Lewis make your top10 then Wiley, is this because you are taking a lot more criteria into consideration other than just achievments while they were champion, because as I said just above if we are trying to find the greatest champions just on achievment only, no. of defenses, years reigned and how many times they won the title then Lewis is in the top4, because these criteria are factual and you can't argue with that. Or do you try and find the greatest champions overall as fighters, taking into account what they achieved,level of competition,impact,overall ability etc. I would really like it if you and others explained fully the exact criteria you use and what you consider more important and do you have a way of trying to score for each of the criteria, which makes it easier when trying to place the fighters in a certain order. Do you consider who would beat who when trying to compile the list.

I really would be very interested in not just seeing everyone's list, but to have it explained as to how and why a certain individual places fighters, what criteria they use, do they give a score or what.

Sorry to keep going on and asking the same things, but I would like to see where everyone rates fighters on just achievments alone on one list and then a second including what ever criteria they choose, and how it was done.

There is nothing I enjoy more in boxing discussions than Heavyweight boxing and it fascinates me, why one person rates one fighter high and not another.
Does favouritism come into it

LondonRingRules

09-23-2007, 10:17 PM

I really would be very interested in not just seeing everyone's list, but to have it explained as to how and why a certain individual places fighters, what criteria they use, do they give a score or what.

Posted this to Hhascup on the p4p thread. Things got a little sidetracked over there by some kid.

Just me:
1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Dempsey
4. Foreman
5. Jeffries
6. Lewis
7. Langford
8. Rocky
9. Tyson
10 Frazier

I could easily swing Dempsey past Ali had the Wills fight not fallen through resulting in Jack wasting 3 yrs in Hollywood. Most excellent for his pocketbook however, and he should not be criticized for his choice given his situation and background.

Jeffries dominated his era from day one and fought anyone regardless of what the history books may bleat.

Sam is hard to rank because of his size, but was the dominant fighter and became the dominant heavy of his era and is probably the greatest, most fearless fighter ever, though some other greats may be better p4p fighters.

Rocky....Rocky!

Tyson, the youngest and most dominant and destructive heavy in history when in training with his original team. A tragedy too great for even Shakesphere to create for the stage.

Johnson would fall into the next tier. Just read the NYTimes report on the Jeffries fight. Jack says no way he's fighting Langford. John L picked Johnson BTW and I guess won some money. He say's he couldn't believe Jeffries could come back after so much time away and weight loss. Interesting character, John L.

I would add in I rank Holmes and Liston over Johnson too in the 2nd tier. Things fall apart the further back anyone tries to make a list of. So many variables.

-CANE-

09-24-2007, 04:29 AM

Posted this to Hhascup on the p4p thread. Things got a little sidetracked over there by some kid.

Just me:
1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Dempsey
4. Foreman
5. Jeffries
6. Lewis
7. Langford
8. Rocky
9. Tyson
10 Frazier

I could easily swing Dempsey past Ali had the Wills fight not fallen through resulting in Jack wasting 3 yrs in Hollywood. Most excellent for his pocketbook however, and he should not be criticized for his choice given his situation and background.

Jeffries dominated his era from day one and fought anyone regardless of what the history books may bleat.

Sam is hard to rank because of his size, but was the dominant fighter and became the dominant heavy of his era and is probably the greatest, most fearless fighter ever, though some other greats may be better p4p fighters.

Rocky....Rocky!

Tyson, the youngest and most dominant and destructive heavy in history when in training with his original team. A tragedy too great for even Shakesphere to create for the stage.

Johnson would fall into the next tier. Just read the NYTimes report on the Jeffries fight. Jack says no way he's fighting Langford. John L picked Johnson BTW and I guess won some money. He say's he couldn't believe Jeffries could come back after so much time away and weight loss. Interesting character, John L.

I would add in I rank Holmes and Liston over Johnson too in the 2nd tier. Things fall apart the further back anyone tries to make a list of. So many variables.

Interesting list LRR, what criteria did you use when selecting the list and what carried the most weight, dominance,years reigned,defenses? Did you take into account who you think would beat who? Is it favourtism over certain styles of fighters? As a champion only Louis achieved more defenses than Holmes, surely on defences alone Holmes should be in the top10. I find it difficult to rate Langford who was great, because I've never really seen him and had a chance to compare against other fighters. What we know of fighters from that era is mainly what we have read, which is only someone's opinion. Very small as well and wouldn't have been able to compete with todays heavies no matter how tough.

LondonRingRules

09-24-2007, 07:54 AM

Interesting list LRR, what criteria did you use when selecting the list and what carried the most weight, dominance,years reigned,defenses? .

** I believe you and Henry (Hhascup) have used specific career criteria, which is well considered, but more context of eras and fighters are needed. It can never be rocket science, but it can be the art of science.

If I base my list on who beats who than Tyson wins hand down. That shouldn't enter the equation since that's not a fact.

Holmes never fought Frazier or his peers except Norton and Ali at the end of their careers and even then Norton arguably beat him. Then Tyson has to clear out all the ABC champs Holmes wouldn't fight and obliterates Spinks and Holmes. Please don't compare Holmes to Louis. I give Larry a lot of credit for fighting on past Tyson, but he was no Foreman, no Louis. Let him head up the 2nd tier.

I don't like ranking Langford as a heavy. He's his own category and could have won a title from lightweight to heavy, the most unique fighter in history and the greatest in many respects. Same goes for Fitz to a lesser extent.

If I rely on film, then Ali really looks bad in many bouts with questionable outcomes. Langford won 200 bouts and has more bouts against HOF fighters than any fighter in history by a huge margin. Most were heavies, and he was contesting long past his best. He was the first KO specialist of the heavies on any scale.

Tunney appears on many of these lists, but he only had a handful of heavy bouts, sort of like MSpinks. They were LHs who stepped up and should be rated as LHs with the bonus. Same with Charles, very highly ranked as a LH, falls well back on a heavy career.

Corbett, Jackson, Johnson, and Jeffries were good sized men. John L and Sharkey were Rocky sized. Burns and Fitz were smallish middle types, but that was the history of boxing that big men were often clumsy in the ring, no different than today. Jeffries was certainly no virtuoso of grace, but Corbett and Jackson were highly praised. Johnson was praised on specific skills, not his grace.

The general rule of thumb is the rater tend to favor fighters of his era. I've worked hard to overcome that and have a good mix. If I have a bias it's 9 of 10 are sluggers, but that's the history of the division. Some could box pretty good when they wanted, so it's a wash.

In the end, anyone can have an opinion, but some are better considered than others. I just hate when certain fighters like Jeffries and Langford are dismissed, and being of this era, I'm more than tired of the endless Ali hype.

I disagree with Nat Fleischer in his evaluation of Ali, but in his letter I posted on the p4p thread you can see some early hysteria over Ali that pressured Fleischer through his last years. As soon as he dies, Ali just shoots up the ratings.

Liston is another fighter hard to rate. Same with Baer. Patterson, Corbett, Walcott, Holy, much easier for me to rank and put in the 2nd tier, great names all, but when you chose, someone has to follow, just like when two greats fight, one has to lose.

I really enjoy the history aspect though. Lot of stuff is forgotten and should be remembered and I change things up when someone has something I didn't know or forgot. That's how Louis became #1!

-CANE-

09-24-2007, 10:57 AM

** I believe you and Henry (Hhascup) have used specific career criteria, which is well considered, but more context of eras and fighters are needed. It can never be rocket science, but it can be the art of science.

If I base my list on who beats who than Tyson wins hand down. That shouldn't enter the equation since that's not a fact.

Holmes never fought Frazier or his peers except Norton and Ali at the end of their careers and even then Norton arguably beat him. Then Tyson has to clear out all the ABC champs Holmes wouldn't fight and obliterates Spinks and Holmes. Please don't compare Holmes to Louis. I give Larry a lot of credit for fighting on past Tyson, but he was no Foreman, no Louis. Let him head up the 2nd tier.

I don't like ranking Langford as a heavy. He's his own category and could have won a title from lightweight to heavy, the most unique fighter in history and the greatest in many respects. Same goes for Fitz to a lesser extent.

If I rely on film, then Ali really looks bad in many bouts with questionable outcomes. Langford won 200 bouts and has more bouts against HOF fighters than any fighter in history by a huge margin. Most were heavies, and he was contesting long past his best. He was the first KO specialist of the heavies on any scale.

Tunney appears on many of these lists, but he only had a handful of heavy bouts, sort of like MSpinks. They were LHs who stepped up and should be rated as LHs with the bonus. Same with Charles, very highly ranked as a LH, falls well back on a heavy career.

Corbett, Jackson, Johnson, and Jeffries were good sized men. John L and Sharkey were Rocky sized. Burns and Fitz were smallish middle types, but that was the history of boxing that big men were often clumsy in the ring, no different than today. Jeffries was certainly no virtuoso of grace, but Corbett and Jackson were highly praised. Johnson was praised on specific skills, not his grace.

The general rule of thumb is the rater tend to favor fighters of his era. I've worked hard to overcome that and have a good mix. If I have a bias it's 9 of 10 are sluggers, but that's the history of the division. Some could box pretty good when they wanted, so it's a wash.

In the end, anyone can have an opinion, but some are better considered than others. I just hate when certain fighters like Jeffries and Langford are dismissed, and being of this era, I'm more than tired of the endless Ali hype.

I disagree with Nat Fleischer in his evaluation of Ali, but in his letter I posted on the p4p thread you can see some early hysteria over Ali that pressured Fleischer through his last years. As soon as he dies, Ali just shoots up the ratings.

Liston is another fighter hard to rate. Same with Baer. Patterson, Corbett, Walcott, Holy, much easier for me to rank and put in the 2nd tier, great names all, but when you chose, someone has to follow, just like when two greats fight, one has to lose.

I really enjoy the history aspect though. Lot of stuff is forgotten and should be remembered and I change things up when someone has something I didn't know or forgot. That's how Louis became #1!

Thanks for the reply, made interesting reading. I haven't dismissed Jeffries I had him at 13, but Langford due to his size and more importantly was never officially World Champion is dismissed, but agree with you that he was a terrific fighter throughout the weight divisions. I disagree with the Tyson statement I don't think he would be top if it were who would beat who, although he was capable of knocking anyone out. If fights were between 6-8 rounds then maybe I'd have Tyson top that way, but they weren't and even in his prime he was a 6-8 round fighter. He had trouble holding his concentration and got bored very easily letting his game plan slip in the later rounds.

Agree with you about Tunney and Charles, both were great boxers and probably underated but were better Light Heavies IMO.

Again I agree with the assesment of Liston, became champ but only reigned for a short time and never made a string of defenses, so on achievment he did very little but everyone knows what a great fighter he was. As much as I rate Ali, there will never be anyone like him and he was truly unique but I still can't quite accept the Liston fights. There is something very dodgy there.

Patterson is difficult to rate as well. He achieved more than Liston, he made several defenses reigned for a longer time than Liston and was the first man to regain the title, but the manor of his defeats and the competition of his title defenses doesn't do a great deal for him. Unlike Lennox Lewis who although lost twice by KO, proved in the rematches that they were flukes and he was the better fighter.

I have to disagree with you on Holmes, maybe I'm being biased because he was probably my favourite Heavyweight. He should have retired undefeated because IMO he won both fights against M.Spinks. Had he been given the decisions in them fights he would have retired 50-0 beating Marciano's record.
Holmes was underated and unfortunate that he came after Ali and ended up beating him badly when Ali should never have been in the ring. Holmes pleaded with the referee to stop the fight several times and took it easy on Ali as a mark of respect. Holmes was hated for this (beating Ali) he also upset a lot of people just before the Spinks fight. When someone mentioned him possibly equalling Marciano's record, Holmes said "Rocky, couldn't carry my jockstrap". Which didn't go down to well. Something about those 2 fights stinks as well. Mike Tyson is well known for his boxing knowledge and when he wasn't being an animal and the nice Mike was around, was articulate and honest in his assesments of fighters and fights, and after beating a 38 yr old Holmes said in the ring afterwards "Everyone knows Larry Holmes is a legend and if he was in his prime I wouldn't have stood a chance". Larry Holmes had a big mouth but could back up everything he said, he was also spot on with his assesment of Mike Tyson when he said (I can't remember the exact words, but something to this effect) "Mike Tyson will go down in history as a S.O.B and somewhere further down the line will destroy himself". Seems like Larry had a crystal ball.

hhascup

09-24-2007, 01:08 PM

I really like your list BUT their really is no cut and dry way of doing this. I wish their was, BUT it's really fun trying. I have seen many ways, here's a few of them.

Back in 1963, a Boxing Mag. ran an article on all the Heavyweight (http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/private.php?do=showpm&pmid=604640#) Champions. They rated them on Power, Chin, Footwork, Jab, Hook, Right & Stamina.

Recently Bill Gray wrote a book called "Boxing Top 100" The Greatest Champions of All Time, he went by 29 different catagories.

These charts provide comparisons in four areas:

1. Age Comparison:
Beg: Age at which a fighter began his career.
End: Age at retirement.
PC: Age of fighter in his first championship fight.
LC: Age of fighter when he won his last championship fight.
LCP: Age of fighter when he fought his last championship fight.

2. Years Comparison
Car: Length of fighter's career.
Ch: Number of years a fighter was a champion.
TB: Span of time fighter engaged in title bouts.
VS: Span of time between first and last championship win.
%C: Percent of fighter's career as a champion.

3. Title Bouts Comparison
Tot: Number of title bouts.
W: Title bout victories.
W%: Won-lost percentage in title bouts.
#/Yr: Average number of title bouts fought per year.

4. Career Bouts Comparison
Tot: Career bouts.
KO: Career wins by knockout.
WD: Career wins by decision.
LKO: Career losses by knockout.
LD: Career losses by decision.
#/Y r: Average number of fights per year during career.

The entry directly below the fighter is Avg. Champ: These lines show the averaged production and vital statistics of all fighters in 29 categories. The last entry, 'Difference' is the summation of the champion's production against average. From this we can determine that any champion is above or below the established median of 700 champions by a factor of X.

The champion's charts show a career in a different way than the traditional review basis of wins, losses, and draws. Every fighter is analyzed in 29 categories and ranked against a 700 group median in each category. Here are the 29 categories and medians, and Sugar Ray Robinson's (http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/private.php?do=showpm&pmid=604640#) actualperformance compared to the medians.

..........................Robinson ……Median
1. Age at beginning of career: 19…19
2. Age at end of career: 44…33
3. Length (years) of career: 25…13
4. Age at time of first title bout win: 25…25
5. Age at time of last title bout win: 37… 27
6. Age at time of last championship fight: 40… 29
7. Total number of years fighter held a title: 12....2
8. Number of years a fighter engaged in championship fights: -- 15... 3
9. Number of title bouts won: 14 ...3
10. Number of title bouts fought: 22.... 5
11. Average number of title fights per year: 1.2 ...1.5
12. Percentage of career that the fighter was a champion: 52 ...14
13. Bouts to a decisio.n. (excludes no-decision bouts): 200... 57
14. Career wins by decision: 66 ...18
15. Career losses by decision: 18 ...4
16. Career wins by knockout: 109 ...26
17. Percentage of total wins by knockout: 55.... 46
18. Percentage of total losses by knockout: 5 ....33
19. Career won-lost percentage: 88 ...82
20. Title fights as a percentage of total career bouts: 11 ...9
21. Won-lost percentage in title bouts: 64 ....60
22. Number of years between first and last title bout win: 12 ...2
23. Number of years between first and last title fight: 15....3
24. Percent of career spent as a champion: 52 ...14
25. Number of titles won (includes titles regained): 6.... 3
26. Losses by knockout: 1.... 2
27. Net wins (total fights to a decision minus losses): 156 .....38
28. Average number of fights per year: 8 .....4.4
29. Failure to win in a title bout (includes draws): 8 ....2

hhascup

09-24-2007, 02:22 PM

-CANE-

09-24-2007, 02:41 PM

-CANE-

09-24-2007, 02:51 PM

Lets do it with Ali & Tyson: Remember it's when they fought Ali or Tyson that were going by.

 
1. Foreman 40-0-0 vs. Holmes 48-2-0
2. Frazier 30-1-0 & 32-2-0 vs. M. Spinks 31-0-0
3. Liston 35-1-0 & 35-2-0 vs. P. Thomas 29-1-1
4. Norton 30-1-0 & 37-3-0 vs. Berbick 32-4-1
5. Patterson 43-4-0 & 55-7-1 vs. Tubbs 24-1-0
6. Quarry 37-4-4 & 43-5-4 vs. J. Smith 19-5-0
7. Bonavena 46-6-1 vs. Tucker 35-0-0
8. Ellis 30-6-0 vs. Biggs 15-0-0
9. Folley 74-7-4 vs. Bruno 32-2-0 & 40-4-0
10. Terrell 38-4-0 vs. C. Williams 22-2-0
11. Chuvalo 34-11-2 & 66-17-2 vs. Tillis 31-8-0
12. Lyle 30-2-1 vs. Ruddock 24-1-1 & 24-2-1
13. Shavers 54-5-1 vs. Botha 39-1-0
14. Bugner 43-4-1 & 51-6-1 vs. M. Green 16-1-1
15. Bob Foster 49-5-0 vs. M. Frazier 16-1-0
16. Mac Foster 28-1-0 vs. Tillman 20-4-0
17. Mildenberger 49-2-3 vs. Stewart 26-1-0

I still feel that it would be Ali's opponents that would win most of these match-ups.

I shall give my predictions on these matchups.

1. Foreman 40-0-0 vs. Holmes 48-2-0 - Foreman KO2 Holmes
2. Frazier 30-1-0 & 32-2-0 vs. M. Spinks 31-0-0 - Frazier KO6 Spinks
3. Liston 35-1-0 & 35-2-0 vs. P. Thomas 29-1-1 - Liston KO10 Thomas
4. Norton 30-1-0 & 37-3-0 vs. Berbick 32-4-1 - Norton W12 Berbick
5. Patterson 43-4-0 & 55-7-1 vs. Tubbs 24-1-0 - Tubbs KO7 Patterson
6. Quarry 37-4-4 & 43-5-4 vs. J. Smith 19-5-0 - Quarry W12 Smith
7. Bonavena 46-6-1 vs. Tucker 35-0-0 - Bonavena W12 Tucker
8. Ellis 30-6-0 vs. Biggs 15-0-0 - Ellis W12 Biggs
9. Folley 74-7-4 vs. Bruno 32-2-0 & 40-4-0 - Folley KO9 Bruno
10. Terrell 38-4-0 vs. C. Williams 22-2-0 - Terrell KO8 Williams
11. Chuvalo 34-11-2 & 66-17-2 vs. Tillis 31-8-0 - Chuvalo W12 Tillis
12. Lyle 30-2-1 vs. Ruddock 24-1-1 & 24-2-1 - Lyle KO5 Ruddock
13. Shavers 54-5-1 vs. Botha 39-1-0 - Shavers KO4 Botha
14. Bugner 43-4-1 & 51-6-1 vs. M. Green 16-1-1 - Bugner W12 Green
15. Bob Foster 49-5-0 vs. M. Frazier 16-1-0 - B.Foster KO4 M.Frazier
16. Mac Foster 28-1-0 vs. Tillman 20-4-0 - M.Foster W12 Tillman
17. Mildenberger 49-2-3 vs. Stewart 26-1-0 - Mildenberger KO9 Stewart

hhascup

09-24-2007, 02:58 PM

Thanks Henry that was really interesting. There is a lot of criteria taken into account. It would be interesting to see how many of the Heavyweight Champions actually made it into the top 100. And who came out on top of all the Heavyweights. Out of interest what's your Top 10, and does it change or has it been the same for a while now?

Mind changes some over the years because like Bert Sugar says, I listen to what other have to say.

This book has Robinson as #1 with 100 points:

1. Robinson 100
2. Moore 97.29
3. Armstrong 96.85
4. Duran 92.59
5. JC Chavez 90.55
6. Ali 89.43
7. Foreman 88.88
8. Saddler 87.08
9. Panama Al Brown 86.83
10. Ricardo Lopez 86.23
11. Louis 85.49

I have to leave now BUT I had Ali #1 for a long time now, followed by Louis.

Dempsey 1919

09-24-2007, 06:21 PM

Posted this to Hhascup on the p4p thread. Things got a little sidetracked over there by some kid.

Just me:
1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Dempsey
4. Foreman
5. Jeffries
6. Lewis
7. Langford
8. Rocky
9. Tyson
10 Frazier

Why is Langford on the list, when Johnson is not and he beat Sam like a child when they both were at similar stages in their careers? Also Jeffries is too high. He was good for his time, but combination punching for him was virtually non-existant. Many ATG would pick him apart, IMO.:fing02:

LondonRingRules

09-25-2007, 12:30 AM

Why is Langford on the list, when Johnson is not and he beat Sam like a child when they both were at similar stages in their careers?

** Step away from the Koolaide.

Sam had a pretty good career fighting lightweights when he met Johnson having won 35 fights. Thereafter he goes on a tear, winning 165 more fights against heavyweights, 74 more than Johnson accumulated in the whole of his career. Sam won more than double what Johnson won.

Sam, hands down the better fighter with almost 50% more KOs than Johnson has wins. Johnson was big in stature, but small compared to Sam.

hhascup

09-25-2007, 01:24 AM

Ali Opponents vs. Holmes Opponents:

Note: I put Shavers vs. Shavers, L. Spinks vs. L. Spinks and Norton vs. Norton, so they would be draws. You can also change any match ups if you like as long as you have the best against the best. You can also put Shavers, L. Spinks and Norton against some other boxers as well. Also, I didn't include Ali's name on Holmes's list.

 
1. Foreman 40-0-0 vs. Cooney 25-0-0
2. Frazier 30-1-0 & 32-2-0 vs. Mercer 18-0-0
3. Liston 35-1-0 & 35-2-0 vs. Witherspoon 15-0-0
4. Norton 30-1-0 & 37-3-0 vs. Norton 40-4-0
5. Patterson 43-4-0 & 55-7-1 vs. Berbick 18-1-1
6. Quarry 37-4-4 & 43-5-4 vs. J. Smith 14-1-0 & 44-16-1
7. Bonavena 46-6-1 vs. Bey 14-0-0
8. Ellis 30-6-0 vs. Snipes 22-0-0
9. Folley 74-7-4 vs. M. Frazier 10-0-0
10. Terrell 38-4-0 vs. L. Jones 24-0-1
11. Chuvalo 34-11-2 & 66-17-2 vs. Cobb 21-2-0
12. Lyle 30-2-1 vs. Weaver 19-8-0 & 41-17-1
13. Shavers 54-5-1 vs. Shavers 54-6-1 & 59-7-1
14. Bugner 43-4-1 & 51-6-1 vs. Carl Williams 16-0-0
15. Bob Foster 49-5-0 vs. Ocasio 13-0-0
16. Mac Foster 28-1-0 vs. Butterbean 65-2-3
17. Mildenberger 49-2-3 vs. LeDoux 26-8-4
18. Moore 184-22-11 vs. Zanon 25-4-2
19. Young 17-4-2 vs. Evangelista 23-2-1
20. Clev. Williams 65-5-1 vs. Ferguson 20-12-0
21. D. Jones 21-3-1 vs. L. Rodriguez 35-7-1
22. Cooper 27-8-1 & 33-11-1 vs. S. Frank 21-0-1
23. L. Spinks 7-0-1 vs. L. Spinks 10-2-2

LondonRingRules

09-25-2007, 01:38 AM

I still feel that it would be Ali's opponents that would win most of these match-ups.

** I like the way you think Henry. Great detail and originality.

Consider this though, a straight up head to head matchup of careers

Tyson, pro at age 18 vs Ali, pro at age 18.

Tyson, 28-0, 20.5 yrs old, KO 2 Berbick
Ali, 20-0, 22 yrs old, KO 7 Liston.
Tyson, 20.75 yrs old, UD Smith
Ali, 23.5 yrs old, KO 1 Liston.

Liston is obviously the HOFer, but the question will always be either how much he had left or whether he threw these fights. Advantage Tyson who faced strong prime heavies as big or bigger than Liston.

Tyson, 20.75 yrs old, KO 7 Thomas
Ali, 23.75 yrs old, KO 12 Patterson.

Advantage Tyson. Thomas walks through Patterson

Tyson, 21 yrs old, wide UD Tucker.
Ali, 24 yrs old, wide UD, Chuvalo.

Advantage, Tyson. Tucker bigger, stronger, faster, just as durable and more powerful plus undefeated.

Tyson, 21.5 yrs old, KO 7, Biggs.
Ali, 24.5 yrs old, KO 6 Cooper.

Advantage, Tyson. Biggs is ridiculously bigger, stronger, faster, with the pedigree of young Ali compared to Cooper.

Tyson, 21.5 yrs old, KO 4, Larry Holmes
Ali, 24.5 yrs old, KO 3, London.

You got to be kidding!

Tyson, 21.75 yrs old, KO 2 Tubbs
Ali, 24.75 yrs old, KO 12, Mildenberger

Advantage Tyson. Tubbs bigger, stronger, faster.

Tyson, 22 yrs, KO 1 Spinks
Ali, 24.75, KO 3 Williams

Got to be kidding!

Tyson, 22.75 yrs old, KO 5 Bruno
Ali, 25, wide UD Terrell.

Advantage Tyson. Bruno bigger, stronger overall with more power. Terrell not enough power and boxing abilities about even.

Tyson, 23 yrs old, KO 1 Williams
Ali, 25.25 yrs old, KO 7 Folley

Advantage Tyson. Williams bigger, stronger, faster, more prime than Folley who was still a respected fighter at that point.

Here is where the paths diverge dramatically. Tyson KOed by Douglas in a bout he had Douglas KOed in and Ali is stripped and doesn't fight for 3 yrs. Tyson is shortly afterwards charged, convicted, and imprisoned, out of action for 5 yrs and then an additional yr a couple years after that..

Tyson never really mounts a credible comeback, and Ali struggles against better fighters, has some classic bouts, some he loses, others he wins, others very controversial. Both men completely done by mid 30s.

When Tyson and Ali were at their best, Tyson's competition is several grades above Ali's with the possible exception of Liston who just doesn't pass the smell test IMO. Ali has the advantage in the comebacks, but Tyson never benefitted from controversy like Ali, even having a couple bouts ruled NC when it was clear Tyson was knocking out his opponent.

At any rate, both became circus sideshows at their ends.

Brassangel

09-25-2007, 11:10 AM

-CANE-

09-25-2007, 11:20 AM

The Iron Man

09-25-2007, 11:33 AM

hhascup

09-25-2007, 11:55 AM

** I like the way you think Henry. Great detail and originality.

Consider this though, a straight up head to head matchup of careers

Tyson, pro at age 18 vs Ali, pro at age 18.

Tyson, 28-0, 20.5 yrs old, KO 2 Berbick
Ali, 20-0, 22 yrs old, KO 7 Liston.
Tyson, 20.75 yrs old, UD Smith
Ali, 23.5 yrs old, KO 1 Liston.

Liston is obviously the HOFer, but the question will always be either how much he had left or whether he threw these fights. Advantage Tyson who faced strong prime heavies as big or bigger than Liston.

Tyson, 20.75 yrs old, KO 7 Thomas
Ali, 23.75 yrs old, KO 12 Patterson.

Advantage Tyson. Thomas walks through Patterson

Tyson, 21 yrs old, wide UD Tucker.
Ali, 24 yrs old, wide UD, Chuvalo.

Advantage, Tyson. Tucker bigger, stronger, faster, just as durable and more powerful plus undefeated.

Tyson, 21.5 yrs old, KO 7, Biggs.
Ali, 24.5 yrs old, KO 6 Cooper.

Advantage, Tyson. Biggs is ridiculously bigger, stronger, faster, with the pedigree of young Ali compared to Cooper.

Tyson, 21.5 yrs old, KO 4, Larry Holmes
Ali, 24.5 yrs old, KO 3, London.

You got to be kidding!

Tyson, 21.75 yrs old, KO 2 Tubbs
Ali, 24.75 yrs old, KO 12, Mildenberger

Advantage Tyson. Tubbs bigger, stronger, faster.

Tyson, 22 yrs, KO 1 Spinks
Ali, 24.75, KO 3 Williams

Got to be kidding!

Tyson, 22.75 yrs old, KO 5 Bruno
Ali, 25, wide UD Terrell.

Advantage Tyson. Bruno bigger, stronger overall with more power. Terrell not enough power and boxing abilities about even.

Tyson, 23 yrs old, KO 1 Williams
Ali, 25.25 yrs old, KO 7 Folley

Advantage Tyson. Williams bigger, stronger, faster, more prime than Folley who was still a respected fighter at that point.

Here is where the paths diverge dramatically. Tyson KOed by Douglas in a bout he had Douglas KOed in and Ali is stripped and doesn't fight for 3 yrs. Tyson is shortly afterwards charged, convicted, and imprisoned, out of action for 5 yrs and then an additional yr a couple years after that..

Tyson never really mounts a credible comeback, and Ali struggles against better fighters, has some classic bouts, some he loses, others he wins, others very controversial. Both men completely done by mid 30s.

When Tyson and Ali were at their best, Tyson's competition is several grades above Ali's with the possible exception of Liston who just doesn't pass the smell test IMO. Ali has the advantage in the comebacks, but Tyson never benefitted from controversy like Ali, even having a couple bouts ruled NC when it was clear Tyson was knocking out his opponent.

At any rate, both became circus sideshows at their ends.

Interesting BUT I have to disagree. Ali fought the much better opponents at the time they each fought them.

If you match up Ali's best against Tyson's best Ali's would come out on top. Try matching these guys and see for yourself.

1. Foreman 40-0-0 vs. Holmes 48-2-0
2. Frazier 30-1-0 & 32-2-0 vs. M. Spinks 31-0-0
3. Liston 35-1-0 & 35-2-0 vs. P. Thomas 29-1-1
4. Norton 30-1-0 & 37-3-0 vs. Berbick 32-4-1
5. Patterson 43-4-0 & 55-7-1 vs. Tubbs 24-1-0
6. Quarry 37-4-4 & 43-5-4 vs. J. Smith 19-5-0
7. Bonavena 46-6-1 vs. Tucker 35-0-0
8. Ellis 30-6-0 vs. Biggs 15-0-0
9. Folley 74-7-4 vs. Bruno 32-2-0 & 40-4-0
10. Terrell 38-4-0 vs. C. Williams 22-2-0
11. Chuvalo 34-11-2 & 66-17-2 vs. Tillis 31-8-0
12. Lyle 30-2-1 vs. Ruddock 24-1-1 & 24-2-1
13. Shavers 54-5-1 vs. Botha 39-1-0
14. Bugner 43-4-1 & 51-6-1 vs. M. Green 16-1-1
15. Bob Foster 49-5-0 vs. M. Frazier 16-1-0
16. Mac Foster 28-1-0 vs. Tillman 20-4-0
17. Mildenberger 49-2-3 vs. Stewart 26-1-0

Your going to tell me that Tyson fought and beat the better opponents. Just about every boxing expert and historian will disagree with you.

Match Tyson's top opponent that he beat against Foreman, then match his 2nd best opponent against Frazier and so on. No way will Tyson's opponents beat Ali's.

Tyson fought an average opponent that had a record of - 22.3 - 3.5 - 0.3

Ali fought an average opponent that had a record of ---- 33.2 - 5.2 - 1.2

Tyson fought 33 different opponents 36 times that were at one time or another rated in the top 10 in his 58 bouts, that's just over 62% of his opponents he fought that were rated in the Top 10 at one time or another. ( 32-4-0 )

Ali fought 38 different opponents 49 times that were at one time or another rated in the top 10 in his 61 bouts, that's over 80% of his opponents he fought that were rated in the Top 10 at one time or another. ( 44-5-0 )

I will say that Tyson fought the much better opponents then most if not all the rest of the Heavyweight Champions, BUT I just can't see it with Ali.

-CANE-

09-25-2007, 12:33 PM

For those who care, i have done a spread sheet with all the different catagories we spoke aboout and i came to a conclusion, but i have given it to someone else who will make adjustments to what they think, and then ill discuss it with them, which should hopefully eliminate any biasedness. And have more opinions.

Can't wait to see that, hope you exlpain what criteria you used, and how if at all you scored each one. Was this list any different from your original top 10 and if so by how much. I would like to see both list when you are ready.

-CANE-

09-25-2007, 12:49 PM

Interesting BUT I have to disagree. Ali fought the much better opponents at the time they each fought them.

If you match up Ali's best against Tyson's best Ali's would come out on top. Try matching these guys and see for yourself.

1. Foreman 40-0-0 vs. Holmes 48-2-0
2. Frazier 30-1-0 & 32-2-0 vs. M. Spinks 31-0-0
3. Liston 35-1-0 & 35-2-0 vs. P. Thomas 29-1-1
4. Norton 30-1-0 & 37-3-0 vs. Berbick 32-4-1
5. Patterson 43-4-0 & 55-7-1 vs. Tubbs 24-1-0
6. Quarry 37-4-4 & 43-5-4 vs. J. Smith 19-5-0
7. Bonavena 46-6-1 vs. Tucker 35-0-0
8. Ellis 30-6-0 vs. Biggs 15-0-0
9. Folley 74-7-4 vs. Bruno 32-2-0 & 40-4-0
10. Terrell 38-4-0 vs. C. Williams 22-2-0
11. Chuvalo 34-11-2 & 66-17-2 vs. Tillis 31-8-0
12. Lyle 30-2-1 vs. Ruddock 24-1-1 & 24-2-1
13. Shavers 54-5-1 vs. Botha 39-1-0
14. Bugner 43-4-1 & 51-6-1 vs. M. Green 16-1-1
15. Bob Foster 49-5-0 vs. M. Frazier 16-1-0
16. Mac Foster 28-1-0 vs. Tillman 20-4-0
17. Mildenberger 49-2-3 vs. Stewart 26-1-0

Your going to tell me that Tyson fought and beat the better opponents. Just about every boxing expert and historian will disagree with you.

Match Tyson's top opponent that he beat against Foreman, then match his 2nd best opponent against Frazier and so on. No way will Tyson's opponents beat Ali's.

Tyson fought an average opponent that had a record of - 22.3 - 3.5 - 0.3

Ali fought an average opponent that had a record of ---- 33.2 - 5.2 - 1.2

Tyson fought 33 different opponents 36 times that were at one time or another rated in the top 10 in his 58 bouts, that's just over 62% of his opponents he fought that were rated in the Top 10 at one time or another. ( 32-4-0 )

Ali fought 38 different opponents 49 times that were at one time or another rated in the top 10 in his 61 bouts, that's over 80% of his opponents he fought that were rated in the Top 10 at one time or another. ( 44-5-0 )

I will say that Tyson fought the much better opponents then most if not all the rest of the Heavyweight Champions, BUT I just can't see it with Ali.

Totally agree with the matchups above, mostly Ali's wins.
I did my predictions on these matchups on a previous page, be interested to see what you think and how they compare with yours. You say Tyson fought 33 different opponents 36 that were at one time or another rated in the top10 in his 58 bouts. That doesn't mean they were rated top10 when he fought them,but at one point in their careers, would I be correct in assuming that. I'd like to see the same for Lewis,Louis,Holyfield and Holmes would you have the stats for them on that. You also say Tyson fought better opponents than most if not all the rest of the champions with the exception of Ali. I find that hard to believe considering the state of the division when he cleaned up and what was said at the time. If I remember correctly most people were saying it was probably the worst state it had ever been in. I say the 70's was the strongest era closely followed by the 90's. I think Lennox Lewis fought much better opponents than Tyson, he also beat better opponents and beat the 2 other greats of his era.

hhascup

09-25-2007, 01:28 PM

Totally agree with the matchups above, mostly Ali's wins.
I did my predictions on these matchups on a previous page, be interested to see what you think and how they compare with yours. You say Tyson fought 33 different opponents 36 that were at one time or another rated in the top10 in his 58 bouts. That doesn't mean they were rated top10 when he fought them,but at one point in their careers, would I be correct in assuming that. I'd like to see the same for Lewis,Louis,Holyfield and Holmes would you have the stats for them on that. You also say Tyson fought better opponents than most if not all the rest of the champions with the exception of Ali. I find that hard to believe considering the state of the division when he cleaned up and what was said at the time. If I remember correctly most people were saying it was probably the worst state it had ever been in. I say the 70's was the strongest era closely followed by the 90's. I think Lennox Lewis fought much better opponents than Tyson, he also beat better opponents and beat the 2 other greats of his era.

I agree, as I was just being nice. Tyson did fight the better opponents then most, BUT not all.

Here's some of the top Heavyweight Champions with the amount of top 10 boxers they fought and the average record of each Opponent.

Boxer- # Contenders – Total Bouts - Average Opponents record
 
Ali –------- 38/49 in 61 bouts –----------- 33.2 – 5.2 – 1.2
Louis-------43/54 in 71 bouts--------------38.1 – 10.2 – 2.6
Holyfield—--31/37 in 52 bouts-------------28.9 – 3.9 – 0.5 (Note: I have to up-date his last 2 opponents in this category)
Tyson------33/36 in 58 bouts--------------22.3 - 3.5 - 0.3
Lewis------23.26 in 44 bouts--------------25.1 – 5.2 – 0.5
Holmes----31/35 in 75 bouts--------------19.85 – 5.1 – 0.67
Foreman---23/27 in 81 bouts--------------20.78 – 7.54 – 1.0
Patterson---19/26 in 64 bouts-------------28.84 – 8.578 – 1.9
Liston------18/22 in 54 bouts--------------22.2 – 8.15 – 1.8
Marciano-—13/16 in 49 bouts-------------29.7 – 10.2 – 1.8

Note: Ali fought 38 different Top 10 contenders a total of 49 times, Louis fought 43 different Top 10 contenders a total of 54 times. I hope you understand that.

I also have most of these boxers like Ali, Louis & Rocky on the Top 10 contenders when they fought them.

Ali was 33/38 in 61 bouts
Louis was 31/34 in 71 bouts
Marciano 11/11 in 49 bouts

Dempsey 1919

09-25-2007, 05:13 PM

-CANE-

09-26-2007, 03:57 AM

I agree, as I was just being nice. Tyson did fight the better opponents then most, BUT not all.

Here's some of the top Heavyweight Champions with the amount of top 10 boxers they fought and the average record of each Opponent.

Boxer- # Contenders – Total Bouts - Average Opponents record
 
Ali –------- 38/49 in 61 bouts –----------- 33.2 – 5.2 – 1.2
Louis-------43/54 in 71 bouts--------------38.1 – 10.2 – 2.6
Holyfield—--31/37 in 52 bouts-------------28.9 – 3.9 – 0.5 (Note: I have to up-date his last 2 opponents in this category)
Tyson------33/36 in 58 bouts--------------22.3 - 3.5 - 0.3
Lewis------23.26 in 44 bouts--------------25.1 – 5.2 – 0.5
Holmes----31/35 in 75 bouts--------------19.85 – 5.1 – 0.67
Foreman---23/27 in 81 bouts--------------20.78 – 7.54 – 1.0
Patterson---19/26 in 64 bouts-------------28.84 – 8.578 – 1.9
Liston------18/22 in 54 bouts--------------22.2 – 8.15 – 1.8
Marciano-—13/16 in 49 bouts-------------29.7 – 10.2 – 1.8

Note: Ali fought 38 different Top 10 contenders a total of 49 times, Louis fought 43 different Top 10 contenders a total of 54 times. I hope you understand that.

I also have most of these boxers like Ali, Louis & Rocky on the Top 10 contenders when they fought them.

Ali was 33/38 in 61 bouts
Louis was 31/34 in 71 bouts
Marciano 11/11 in 49 bouts

That would be good to see as well, who was in the top10 when they fought them. Also I'm sure you have a list of how many opponents they met were champions at one time or another, either ex,current or future that would be really good if you could provide that.

LondonRingRules

09-26-2007, 07:44 AM

Interesting BUT I have to disagree. Ali fought the much better opponents at the time they each fought them.

If you match up Ali's best against Tyson's best Ali's would come out on top. Try matching these guys and see for yourself.

1. Foreman 40-0-0 vs. Holmes 48-2-0
.

** Henry, I think you are talking past my point. I already put Ali ahead of Tyson in all time rankings.

You objected to my claim that Tyson would beat Ali at their bests and then provided your considered list of each opponents. Lot of work went into your list, very commendable and worthwhile but beside the point of what would happen if they met in the ring and completely out of context to the way their careers actually progressed.

Since they have to go head to head in a real match, and since they were both turning pro at the same age, that's what I did, a head to head match up with their careers. Ali starts off ahead as the Olympic gold medalist, but Tyson quickly supercedes him by a large margin both in competition and spectacle before the wheels start to fall off their wagons, forcing their layoffs.

Ali made his chops in his return, that is when he faces his strongest and most prime competition. But using numbers to define Ali won't work for this cowboy. I've seen most of his matches, and never has a fighter had more high profile matches with more controversial results that additionally favors him. Still, his first 3 matches into his comeback culminating in his first defeat ever against Frazier are compelling. His 1972 year was outstanding. To comeback against a Foreman is legend. The Thrilla a classic of 2 fading greats.

However, I would advise Ali and his handlers not to fight a peak Mike Tyson after Ali's layoff. That is not a fair fight since Ali didn't even want to rematch against Foreman. Not disimilar to matching 96-97 Tyson against Lewis or Foreman. Team Tyson didn't want those bouts for good reason and not fair to match that Tyson against a 26 yr old Ali at his peak.

Ali deserves to be matched when he was at his peak, the Terrell thru Folley fights, against 20-21 yr oldTyson at his peak, Thomas thru Spinks. Thus the head to head match up of their careers that I posted. Tyson is showing much more strength and less weakness at their best. That's my point.

-CANE-

09-26-2007, 09:41 AM

** Henry, I think you are talking past my point. I already put Ali ahead of Tyson in all time rankings.

You objected to my claim that Tyson would beat Ali at their bests and then provided your considered list of each opponents. Lot of work went into your list, very commendable and worthwhile but beside the point of what would happen if they met in the ring and completely out of context to the way their careers actually progressed.

Since they have to go head to head in a real match, and since they were both turning pro at the same age, that's what I did, a head to head match up with their careers. Ali starts off ahead as the Olympic gold medalist, but Tyson quickly supercedes him by a large margin both in competition and spectacle before the wheels start to fall off their wagons, forcing their layoffs.

Ali made his chops in his return, that is when he faces his strongest and most prime competition. But using numbers to define Ali won't work for this cowboy. I've seen most of his matches, and never has a fighter had more high profile matches with more controversial results that additionally favors him. Still, his first 3 matches into his comeback culminating in his first defeat ever against Frazier are compelling. His 1972 year was outstanding. To comeback against a Foreman is legend. The Thrilla a classic of 2 fading greats.

However, I would advise Ali and his handlers not to fight a peak Mike Tyson after Ali's layoff. That is not a fair fight since Ali didn't even want to rematch against Foreman. Not disimilar to matching 96-97 Tyson against Lewis or Foreman. Team Tyson didn't want those bouts for good reason and not fair to match that Tyson against a 26 yr old Ali at his peak.

Ali deserves to be matched when he was at his peak, the Terrell thru Folley fights, against 20-21 yr oldTyson at his peak, Thomas thru Spinks. Thus the head to head match up of their careers that I posted. Tyson is showing much more strength and less weakness at their best. That's my point.

Ali in his prime, around the time he fought Williams vs Tyson in his prime, about when he fought Spinks would be a great fight while it lasted. As good as Tyson was then, Ali was simply too fast for him and would have taken Mike out somewhere after 10 rounds. It would have been interesting to see if it did happen how Tyson would have reacted, especially if he was taking a beating. Would he have reacted how he did against Douglas,Lewis and Holyfield or would we have seen a true warrior come out in the later rounds, still throwing combos, still trying to slip the punches and giving it his all, and whenever Ali bangs him with 4-5 punch combos would he have retaliated and gave as much back. I don't know the answer to this and neither does anyone else, but my guess is he reacts how he did later in his career in the defeats mentioned above. IMO he always lacked something upstairs in the mental confidence department unlike Holyfield and Lewis and Ali and Frazier who would seem to die trying.

The Iron Man

09-26-2007, 01:17 PM

Tbh i could see tyson winning this fight in their primes. But the re-match would result in a Ali win. Tyson was a pressure fighter which was needed to beat ali. Tyson in his prime was an expert at evading jabs so it would be difficult for Ali to hit him

hhascup

09-26-2007, 01:46 PM

Brassangel

09-26-2007, 01:59 PM

The keys to beating Ali:

-must be able to slip or parry/block the jab and strike at his right side quickly
-must be either explosive, or have a good jab of one's own
-must throw in quick bursts, as he can't dodge and throw at the same time
-don't allow him to establish a jab rhythm

Mike Tyson had all of these. It would not matter what kind of heart he had. The prime Mike Tyson wouldn't lose it just because he was being taunted by Ali. Cooper, Frazier, Norton, and to some extent, Foreman, all had success landing on Ali, and they didn't move very quickly. In fact, 3 of the 4 gave Ali the first few rounds of each fight, allowing him to set the pace. Tyson was exactly the opposite. He blew a lot of people's plans out of the water by literally running towards his opponent, thus negating side-to-side movement. If you watch, he moved in a lot quicker than Ali danced out. Furthermore, Tyson delivered quick combinations from multiple angles, something Ali didn't face against the fighters listed. They often telegraphed punches, throwing one at a time, which Ali could brace for or lean away from. If you watch the way Ali covers up when pressure, there's a nice little crease right up the center where, if someone is capable of throwing a good uppercut, might find the sweet spot. An uppercut is a lot harder to brace for than a hook, as it snaps the head backwards. Mike threw pretty good uppercuts, I hear.

I don't know...I think that early versions of each fighter may favor Mike. In the second stages of their career(s), I'd give it to Ali.

-CANE-

09-26-2007, 02:05 PM

Tyson was one of the BEST 4 round boxers ever, that's why he had 23 first round knockouts. BUT if you took him into the later rounds, he wasn't the same fighter.

Ali would have used his speed in the early rounds to keep Tyson away from him, then he would have opened up and stopped Tyson somewhere after the 10th round. The only chance Tyson would of had was to go for an Early KO, and Ali had one of the BEST Chins ever.

Pretty much how I see this fight and a fight between PRIME Tyson and Lewis.

Henry any chance of seeing some more stats. I'd be interested in seeing how many fights the champions had against ex,current and future champions and their records against them. Also I'd like to see how many top10,5 and 3 contenders they fought while they were champ. If you have these stats I'd be grateful if you could post them.

hhascup

09-26-2007, 03:20 PM

Brassangel

09-26-2007, 04:11 PM

It was close, and Tyson was also very green at the time.

Ruddock and Douglas were both fighters who caught Tyson at a very opportune time in his career; he was bored, depressed, and lazy.

Tyson landed cleanly on Green throughout the fight, many shots even went towards the body early on. Again, he was still just a kid.

Ali's chin was great, but there's also some myth to the monster. If you observe the instances where he is caught cleanly on the chin (ie: Cooper, Frazier, Norton, for example), he was dizzied to the point of needing smelling salts, he was out on his feet against the second (and knocked down in the 15th round), and has his jaw broken against the third. I believe that he was very adept at maintaining balance, and recovering quickly; moreso than simply having a good chin. Even when Foreman managed to catch him on the chin, which didn't happen often, Ali covers up desparately and was dreaming on his feet. This should be a thread all on it's own: Ali's True Chin.

It was great, and your posts are wise and accurate, hhascup, I'm just trying to clarify what's often accepted as opposed to what's absolute.

hhascup

09-26-2007, 04:53 PM

hhascup

09-26-2007, 05:17 PM

Pretty much how I see this fight and a fight between PRIME Tyson and Lewis.

Henry any chance of seeing some more stats. I'd be interested in seeing how many fights the champions had against ex,current and future champions and their records against them. Also I'd like to see how many top10,5 and 3 contenders they fought while they were champ. If you have these stats I'd be grateful if you could post them.

Here's some of them I have on hand:

Ali fought 38 and won 33
Louis fought 34 and won 31
Walcott fought 25 and won 12
Patterson fought 23 and won 14 with 1 draw
Liston fought 12 and won 8
Marciano fought 11 and won all 11
Foreman fought 11 and won 8

Because some Heavyweight Champions beat the same opponent more then once, try matching Ali's Top Opponents against any other Heavyweight Champion.

<o></o>
Boxers that Ali BEAT that were rated #3 or above at one time or another:

1. George Foreman (CH) 40-0-0 vs.
2. Joe Frazier (CH) 30-1-0 vs.
3. Joe Frazier (CH) 32-2-0 vs.
4. Sonny Liston (CH) 35-1-0 vs.
5. Sonny Liston (CH) 35-2-0 vs.
6. Ken Norton (1) 30-1-0 vs.
7. Ken Norton (1) 37-3-0 vs.
8. Floyd Patterson (CH) 43-4-0 vs.
9. Floyd Patterson (CH) 55-7-1 vs.
10. Jerry Quarry (1) 37-4-4 vs.
11. Jerry Quarry (1) 43-5-4 vs.
12. Oscar Bonavena (2) 46-6-1 vs.
13..Jimmy Ellis (2) 30-6-0 vs.
14. Zora Folley (1) 74-7-4 vs.
15. Ernie Terrell (1) 38-4-0 vs.
16. George Chuvalo (3) 34-11-2 vs.
17. George Chuvalo (3) 66-17-2 vs.
18. Ron Lyle (3) 30-2-1 vs.
19. Earnie Shavers (3) 54-5-1 vs.
20. Joe Bugner (3) 43-4-1 vs.
21. Joe Bugner (3) 51-6-1 vs.
22. Bob Foster (CH) 49-5-0 vs.
23. Mac Foster (1) 28-1-0 vs.
24. Karl Mildenberger (1) 49-2-3 vs.
25. Archie Moore (LH-CH) & (1) 184-22-11 vs.
26. Jimmy Young (1) 17-4-2 vs.
27. Cleveland Williams (3) 65-5-1 vs.
28. Doug Jones (2) 21-3-1 vs.
29. Henry Cooper (2) 27-8-1 vs.
30. Henry Cooper (2) 33-11-1 vs.
31. Leon Spinks (CH) 7-0-1 vs.

The Iron Man

09-26-2007, 06:02 PM

ForemanCrossArm

09-26-2007, 06:04 PM

I think you've got to look at the boxer during his prime first, then career. Even then, I feel pre-title career is more important than post-title. The climb up the mountain is always harder and more impressive than the fall, slow slide, whatever you want to call it down the mountain.

That's why I will always have Sonny Liston and Joe Frazier so high. Liston was basically the champ YEARS before he even fought (the ducking) Patterson. Frazier won the Gold Medal (While he was HURT, no less) and still started out his pro career (as damaged goods, no less) at basically the bottom and had to fight his way up all the way until the (first) Ali fight!

My Updated Post WWII List Is:
1 - Joe Louis
2 - Sonny Liston
3 - Joe Frazier/Ali
5 - George Foreman/Rocky
-step down-
7 - Tyson/Holmes - Both dominated a weak (IMHO) decade for HW boxing. Holmes would be swapped with Foreman had he gotten to 49-0, and he might've, scorecards aside.. Tyson, had he continued his run in the early/mid-90's and beaten Holyfield and Bowe (Buster look-a-like) you could probably swap him with Foreman. But as it is, Foreman was dominant yet did it for a whole career and Rocky actually did get to 49-0 and that is what seperates those two from these two.
9 - Holyfield/Lennox - Top fighters of the 90's, no REALLY dominant runs (not even counting Lennox's late one, he was so old, you really HAVE to question the competition at that point). The era of 90's HW's is probably better than the 80's, but Holmes and Tyson both looked much better doing what they did then compared to Holyfield/Lewis in the 90's. I think Holyfield could stand alone at 9 with one more title, move into a tie at 7th with 2, 5th with 3, and if he gets all 4 belts (I DOUBT it) then I honestly would put him above Ali/Frazier!

The Iron Man

09-26-2007, 06:08 PM

Sonny Liston #2? hmm only had the one title and only 2 defences of his title, throwing away the second Ali fight, technically probably the worst of the greats. I think number 2 is waay too high for him. I have him at 12 or 13. Btw whats the second half of your list?

ForemanCrossArm

09-26-2007, 06:21 PM

Like I said, he should've had the title much sooner.. He threw both Ali fights, and that keeps him from being #1. But, if you know anything about what he did, about how good he was, about how amazing he was physically.. It's hard to have him any place other than #1 or #2. The guy is as much myth as he is actual fact. He has more "legend" to him than any of the other ATG's, anyone wanna' argue that?

14" fists, a reach that ranges from 84"-94" inches, an emotionless devil-like face, scars from being whipped like a slave on his back, stature almost like a gorilla (that is not racist at all, just an observation from pictures of him, his arms are so much longer than his torso and so big that they really almost look like legs), plus the fact he had like a 2 foot dick. hahaha

ForemanCrossArm

09-26-2007, 06:25 PM

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/03/26/delliston_wideweb__470x272,0.jpg
This picture sums up Liston. The only part of his entire body that is actually really tensed are his cheeks from breathing out, that's it! That is what you should notice first. Then you really appreciate the power he had that could HURT Patterson with a blow that was only 15% there at the time of the picture!

This is the (short-lived) greatness of Sonny Liston.

The Iron Man

09-26-2007, 06:50 PM

They may be true but they dont qualify him for being a great, mayb he had a long reach but tyson had a rediculous neck. He may have been a relaxed fighter but these dont really qualify you to b an ATG, he achivements are pretty average if u look, one time champ, one defence. I dnt believe he threw both fights, he treid to cheat and win in the first fight, he was just out classed. There have been many great physical specimens, Tyson and Foreman come to mind, and as for being the biggest legend thats foolish. 1 in 10 people will know who he is 10 in 10 will know Tyson or Ali even Foreman. Ask people who was the most ferocious fighter they wont say Liston. His impact on the sport wasnt massive either. He technically wasnt as gifted. Btw can i see the rest of your list?

hhascup

09-26-2007, 07:03 PM

I totallt agree, however the rematch would result in a different outcome imo, if not the rematch the 3rd fight. As i believe it would be sports greatest rivalry if they were around at the same time. Ali himself said he wouldnt get up if tyson hit him!! if he could catch him tho

Tyson was asked once about Sugar Ray Robinson being the Greatest Pound for Pound Boxer Ever. He said, Robinson was Great, BUT the Greatest is left for only One Man, and that was Muhammad Ali.

Most people were beaten before the opening bell rung when they boxed Tyson and Liston, Ali wouldn't be. He would be too smart for both of them. Remember the most aggressive Heavyweight Ever was Joe Frazier and he couldn't stop Ali in over 40 rounds.

Here's Nat Fleischer's All-Time List of the Most Aggressive Boxers Ever:

1. Henry Armstrong
2. Joe Frazier
3. Harry Greb

-CANE-

09-26-2007, 07:05 PM

Here's some of them I have on hand:

Ali fought 38 and won 33
Louis fought 34 and won 31
Walcott fought 25 and won 12
Patterson fought 23 and won 14 with 1 draw
Liston fought 12 and won 8
Marciano fought 11 and won all 11
Foreman fought 11 and won 8

Because some Heavyweight Champions beat the same opponent more then once, try matching Ali's Top Opponents against any other Heavyweight Champion.

<o></o>
Boxers that Ali BEAT that were rated #3 or above at one time or another:

1. George Foreman (CH) 40-0-0 vs.
2. Joe Frazier (CH) 30-1-0 vs.
3. Joe Frazier (CH) 32-2-0 vs.
4. Sonny Liston (CH) 35-1-0 vs.
5. Sonny Liston (CH) 35-2-0 vs.
6. Ken Norton (1) 30-1-0 vs.
7. Ken Norton (1) 37-3-0 vs.
8. Floyd Patterson (CH) 43-4-0 vs.
9. Floyd Patterson (CH) 55-7-1 vs.
10. Jerry Quarry (1) 37-4-4 vs.
11. Jerry Quarry (1) 43-5-4 vs.
12. Oscar Bonavena (2) 46-6-1 vs.
13..Jimmy Ellis (2) 30-6-0 vs.
14. Zora Folley (1) 74-7-4 vs.
15. Ernie Terrell (1) 38-4-0 vs.
16. George Chuvalo (3) 34-11-2 vs.
17. George Chuvalo (3) 66-17-2 vs.
18. Ron Lyle (3) 30-2-1 vs.
19. Earnie Shavers (3) 54-5-1 vs.
20. Joe Bugner (3) 43-4-1 vs.
21. Joe Bugner (3) 51-6-1 vs.
22. Bob Foster (CH) 49-5-0 vs.
23. Mac Foster (1) 28-1-0 vs.
24. Karl Mildenberger (1) 49-2-3 vs.
25. Archie Moore (LH-CH) & (1) 184-22-11 vs.
26. Jimmy Young (1) 17-4-2 vs.
27. Cleveland Williams (3) 65-5-1 vs.
28. Doug Jones (2) 21-3-1 vs.
29. Henry Cooper (2) 27-8-1 vs.
30. Henry Cooper (2) 33-11-1 vs.
31. Leon Spinks (CH) 7-0-1 vs.

Thanks alot Henry, makes interesting reading. I hate to keep asking but whenever you have the rest, especially Lewis,Holyfield and Tyson would love to see them. Ali's list is very impressive, however how did Doug Jones ever get to no.2?