What's Up With This Sites "Top 15 Heavyweights"??

Please reread what you have just wrote..."If a modern heavyweight grew up in the early 1900s he would have been just as small as Dempsey"...Now, you're telling me it depends WHEN a person is born as to how big they are going to be??? And you are calling me STUPID??? How big you are going to be is determined by your mommy and daddy ( which is what I'm sure you still call them to print such a fucking ignorant statement like that )...Now for your next ingenious line.."If Dempsey was born in modern times he would be a huge, tough badass and would have licked almost every fighter around."...Once again, I can't believe you can assess me as stupid and write such ignorant shit. So, if Dempsey was born in 1980 by the same parents he had in 1890, he would all of a sudden be much bigger and tougher?? BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! His folk's DNA would change over time enabling him to add 40 pounds of muscle? Actually, there's only 1 statement in your stupid rant that holds merit. "not to mention steroids"...YES! If Dempsey was around today AND ON ROIDS he MIGHT have a chance against someone as bad as John Ruiz! except nutrition matters too in fact in most western countries height and bodyweight steadily increased through history, and in the 20th century more than in any other previous age. Jack Johnson was called "the galveston giant", but he would not be today, because the average size of a human being has increased. also if marciano can be number number 3, why not dempsey at 4, similar size, dempsey would not cut though... I would not rate him that high, but it's definitely not ridiculous

"It's interesting that you put me in the league with those illustrious fighters , but I've proved since my career I've surpassed them as far my popularity. I'm the biggest fighter in the history of the sport. If you don't believe it, check the cash register." -Mike Tyson

Actually I respect such an opinion and I'm sure you're not the only one who has it! At least your opinion holds merit unlike the moron above. But...I do disagree. Holmes fought the best of his day but most will say his "day" lacked competition. Snipes, Weaver, and Cooney? Compared to Marciano's foes like Ezzard Charles, Walcott, Archie Moore! Neither had the greatest opposition during their reigns but I don't see any other top 10 fighters in Holme's resume!! On the same hand. Walcott was like 38 when Marciano fought him. Moore was a lightheavyweight. Charles was also long in the tooth. Not saying Cooney, Weaver and Snipes were better of course. But there ARE question marks over Marciano's best wins.

I know someone with a handle like Italian is gonna argue with me about this, but I don't believe Marciano should be ranked above Holmes. Holmes' competition was better. Actually I respect such an opinion and I'm sure you're not the only one who has it! At least your opinion holds merit unlike the moron above. But...I do disagree. Holmes fought the best of his day but most will say his "day" lacked competition. Snipes, Weaver, and Cooney? Compared to Marciano's foes like Ezzard Charles, Walcott, Archie Moore! Neither had the greatest opposition during their reigns but I don't see any other top 10 fighters in Holme's resume!!

I know someone with a handle like Italian is gonna argue with me about this, but I don't believe Marciano should be ranked above Holmes. Holmes' competition was better.

No offence, but you're making yourself sound pretty stupid here. Jack Dempsey may have had his faults but he was one of the toughest warriors ever to step into the ring. Your arguments about weight and size are just stupid. If a modern heavyweight grew up in the early 1900s he would have been just as small as Dempsey. There's such things as nutrition and conditioning which have improved by leaps and bounds since that time...not to mention steroids. If Dempsey was born in modern times he would be a huge, tough badass and would have licked almost every figher around. I give Ali a chance against him and probably Louis, as well, but that might be it. Please reread what you have just wrote..."If a modern heavyweight grew up in the early 1900s he would have been just as small as Dempsey"...Now, you're telling me it depends WHEN a person is born as to how big they are going to be??? And you are calling me STUPID??? How big you are going to be is determined by your mommy and daddy ( which is what I'm sure you still call them to print such a fucking ignorant statement like that )...Now for your next ingenious line.."If Dempsey was born in modern times he would be a huge, tough badass and would have licked almost every fighter around."...Once again, I can't believe you can assess me as stupid and write such ignorant shit. So, if Dempsey was born in 1980 by the same parents he had in 1890, he would all of a sudden be much bigger and tougher?? BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! His folk's DNA would change over time enabling him to add 40 pounds of muscle? Actually, there's only 1 statement in your stupid rant that holds merit. "not to mention steroids"...YES! If Dempsey was around today AND ON ROIDS he MIGHT have a chance against someone as bad as John Ruiz!

I agree with the list totally, but i`d put Patterson over Tyson, had more heart and desire and got to win fights!

Basically, all I can say to this is....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!.."Take it from someone who's not entirely ignorant" and "you'll be foolish and wrong regardless"...Damn, did you really write that shit? what an egomanical MORON you are! And only the old-timers rank Dempsey as high as you are. How old are you, 95?? Today's #10 ranked Light Heavy would beat Dempsey's ass!! Talk about crude plodders! Dempsey got his ass beat by such world beaters as " Fireman" Jim Flynn, John Lester Johnson, and Willie Meehan! Who the hell were these guys, cavemen??? When he finally met someone his weight who could actually box, he was exposed for being the one-dimensional plodder that he was! Realistically speaking, this guy shouldn't even chart. John Ruiz would probably beat his ass if he were alive today! Buh-Bye... No offence, but you're making yourself sound pretty stupid here. Jack Dempsey may have had his faults but he was one of the toughest warriors ever to step into the ring. Your arguments about weight and size are just stupid. If a modern heavyweight grew up in the early 1900s he would have been just as small as Dempsey. There's such things as nutrition and conditioning which have improved by leaps and bounds since that time...not to mention steroids. If Dempsey was born in modern times he would be a huge, tough badass and would have licked almost every figher around. I give Ali a chance against him and probably Louis, as well, but that might be it.

Originally I was gonna let this pathetic thread fall by the wayside, but I saw it one too many times. Take it from someone who's not entirely ignorant, or what insiders like to call, "correct". If Rocky Marciano would not be obliterated by anyone on that list, than Jack Dempsey wouldn't be. If you doubt it then why don't you try reading ANYTHING EVER WRITTEN ABOUT JACK DEMPSEY. There's a reason they called him the Giant-Killer. There's a reason that four out of six losses and two out of eight draws were to fast, good movers the same size as himself. There's a reason he was only stopped once in an 81 fight career. It's not because he could easily be overpowered. Size is absurdly overrated. And you're very poorly informed. Call me biased if you want, but you'll be foolish and wrong regardless. Basically, all I can say to this is....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!.."Take it from someone who's not entirely ignorant" and "you'll be foolish and wrong regardless"...Damn, did you really write that shit? what an egomanical MORON you are! And only the old-timers rank Dempsey as high as you are. How old are you, 95?? Today's #10 ranked Light Heavy would beat Dempsey's ass!! Talk about crude plodders! Dempsey got his ass beat by such world beaters as " Fireman" Jim Flynn, John Lester Johnson, and Willie Meehan! Who the hell were these guys, cavemen??? When he finally met someone his weight who could actually box, he was exposed for being the one-dimensional plodder that he was! Realistically speaking, this guy shouldn't even chart. John Ruiz would probably beat his ass if he were alive today! Buh-Bye...

Originally I was gonna let this pathetic thread fall by the wayside, but I saw it one too many times. Take it from someone who's not entirely ignorant, or what insiders like to call, "correct". If Rocky Marciano would not be obliterated by anyone on that list, than Jack Dempsey wouldn't be. If you doubt it then why don't you try reading ANYTHING EVER WRITTEN ABOUT JACK DEMPSEY. There's a reason they called him the Giant-Killer. There's a reason that four out of six losses and two out of eight draws were to fast, good movers the same size as himself. There's a reason he was only stopped once in an 81 fight career. It's not because he could easily be overpowered. Size is absurdly overrated. And you're very poorly informed. Call me biased if you want, but you'll be foolish and wrong regardless.

Walcott and Charles are way too high on that list. Tyson is way too low for someone who's had so much historical significance. Lewis was a great champion with consistent title runs, but he honestly didn't have much of an impact in boxing and if he never existed I don't think there'd be much of a difference in the sport today.

That's a better list IMO (I'd put Johnson in there somewhere though), but rather than judging who would beat who out of those boxers, it's more a question of what they accomplished in their era. Jersey Joe at 6 is stupid. And Ezzard Charles would be higher p4p than he would in the all time top heavies.