Emanuel Steward: Ali is the greatest HW of all time, Wladimir is 8th

In international ATG rankings I think both klitschkos are up there very high Vitali the better fighter, Wlad maybe finishing with the more impressive streak In american rankings they're placed like #4076 and #4078 "Those damn nazis are ducking deontay **** dem nazis" Well Vitali has got 5 top 10 wins in his career. No HOFamers and certainly no ATGs on his list of wins. Hardly "ATG" material.

wlad is not at number 8 (his resume is too poor) mike tyson (if we actually compare resume for resume) is higher then wlad.........people are giving wlad too much credit for nothing.

It's a chronological list. It's based on when they fought. Jack Johnson fought from 1900-1920 or so. He comes before Ali who fought from 1960 - 1980 who comes before Wladimir Klitschko who fought from 1995 - ? I do that to avoid controversies about ranking. I'm simply saying I think these men are better than WK. Ah right. I was unsure of what you meant. sorry.

Hmm.. Intriguing list. How can you rate Ali #4 when his resume is quite clearly the strongest in heavyweight history? It's a chronological list. It's based on when they fought. Jack Johnson fought from 1900-1920 or so. He comes before Ali who fought from 1960 - 1980 who comes before Wladimir Klitschko who fought from 1995 - ? I do that to avoid controversies about ranking. I'm simply saying I think these men are better than WK.

I rate Wlad somewhere after Marciano... His competition was as if not less difficult than Rockys. You hear a lot about how Rocky had a easy career, with limited competition.... well what do you call Wlad competition? In my eyes at least he finish his career undefeated, not losing once to weak comp (unlike Wlad) Rocky beat some pretty good people. Joe Louis: People make it out as if Louis was completely out of it (the way Ali was when he fought Holmes). Louis was past prime (as Lenox Lewis) was past prime when he fought VK - which means he was still pretty damn good. Jersey Joe Walcott: Walcott was a Bernard Hopkins of his day (as was Archie Moore) and thought Marciano was a bum who didn't have a chance. He anticipated it to be a Hopkins - Pavlik fight. Ezzard Charles: Charles was no bum. He might have started out as middleweight (where did Pacquiao and Mayweather start out?) but had been a heavyweight for 5 years when he fought Marciano. Archie Moore: A true Bernard Hopkins fighting ranked fighters until his late 40s. He fought Ali 7 years after he faced Marciano. I don't have Marciano in the TOP 10 but he wan't a bum and he beat some very good fighters. Pavlik was shut out by Hopkins. Marciano KOed Walcott.

Steward said he has a "size" issue when ranking Wlad... Fortunately, he didn't watch Wlad's last fight...

I rate Wlad somewhere after Marciano... His competition was as if not less difficult than Rockys. You hear a lot about how Rocky had a easy career, with limited competition.... well what do you call Wlad competition? In my eyes at least he finish his career undefeated, not losing once to weak comp (unlike Wlad) Marciano only became relevant very late in his career, and didn't really beat any top fighter in their prime. Of course, Charles was a pretty good win and so was the first Walcott fight. But people also had him losing to La Starza I believe, and he was dominated by a past prime Walcott for 13 rounds before finding the best KO punch (probably) in heavyweight title fight history. This shouldn't take away from his legacy, but just add a little perspective. I don't think Wlad's resume is that far behind Marciano's, if at all.

Well, based on that, my list could make sense - but really I just put that together to illustrate how Manny described the division in the video. I get that. And at some point it's also redundant to compare fighters from 100 years ago to the current fighter. But Jack Johnson should definitely be high on all lists. I think Steward said 8 or 9. He probably didn't give it much thought at the time - and could probably have given a more in-depth reason behind it, had he been given more time.

no. chronological order. Hmm.. Intriguing list. How can you rate Ali #4 when his resume is quite clearly the strongest in heavyweight history?

Jack Johnson's resume includes some of the best fighters of all times. He beat Sam Langford (best resume in boxing history?) decisively, beat Jim Jeffries (top 20 atg heavy for sure), McVey, Ketchel, Fitzsimmons (ATG), Joe Jeanette (ATG heavy), Tommy Burns (breaking the colour barrier in boxing).. The guy's resume is stacked with quality and it's clearly better than Wlad's. The one problem there is with Johnson is that there's a lot of doubt about his wins due to fixes as well as he didn't fight the guys he should have been fighting later on in his career. Well, based on that, my list could make sense - but really I just put that together to illustrate how Manny described the division in the video.

1. Ali 2. Louis 3. Foreman 4. Holmes 5. Lewis 6. Frazier 7. Holyfield 8. Wlad 9. Marciano 10. Liston/Johnson Something like that... Jack Johnson's resume includes some of the best fighters of all times. He beat Sam Langford (best resume in boxing history?) decisively, beat Jim Jeffries (top 20 atg heavy for sure), McVey, Ketchel, Fitzsimmons (ATG), Joe Jeanette (ATG heavy), Tommy Burns (breaking the colour barrier in boxing).. The guy's resume is stacked with quality and it's clearly better than Wlad's. The one problem there is with Johnson is that there's a lot of doubt about his wins due to fixes as well as he didn't fight the guys he should have been fighting later on in his career.

Is that list supposed to go in order? no. chronological order.

I rate Wlad somewhere after Marciano... His competition was as if not less difficult than Rockys. You hear a lot about how Rocky had a easy career, with limited competition.... well what do you call Wlad competition? In my eyes at least he finish his career undefeated, not losing once to weak comp (unlike Wlad)

You're jesting, right? Yes, but the poster should at least get his name right.

Jack Johnson...

You rate Liston and Johnson above Frazier? I think Liston is quite overrated to be honest. I can agree with at the moment - Foreman, Holmes, Lewis, Frazier, Ali, Louis being above Wlad (not in that order). That would make him 7th. Arguably you could have someone else above him, which would place him right about 8th, just as Manny Steward said. However, usually your career is viewed more kindly after you are gone...so that's why I could see Wlad getting closer to the top 5 (not necessarily breaking into it), if he has more longevity and some more top 10 wins. In terms of resume's these guys are clearly greater than Wlad. In no particular order: Foreman Frazier Ali Holmes Lewis Holyfield Louis Johnson ... And probably Bowe and Marciano as well. Then we can talk about guys like Tyson, Dempsey, Liston, Fitzsimmons (not all heavyweights), Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles etc who didn't all fight at heavyweight exclusively, but more or less all have standout wins over quality opposition at heavyweight, which is the one thing Wlad is lacking. He doesn't really have an outstanding win or performance for that matter - let alone heaps of them like the guys in the top 5 have. I would put him between 10-15 at this moment in time, and unfortunately, it doesn't look like there's anyone out there that can help him improve on that. H2H is a different matter entirely though.

Forgot to include Liston in the post above. Liston basically cleared out the division before fighting Floyd Patterson. It's pretty clear that Cus D'Amato postponed fighting Liston as long as possible. And, as it turned out he was right. Liston annihilated Patterson both times they fought. Yeah Liston only successfully defended his title once - but he beat Foley, Cleveland Williams, Eddie Machen and others. Cleveland Williams would have been a great match-up with WK. I think he was miles ahead of anyone that WK has fought. 1. Ali 2. Louis 3. Foreman 4. Holmes 5. Lewis 6. Frazier 7. Holyfield 8. Wlad 9. Marciano 10. Liston/Johnson Something like that...

Sorry but Joe Johnsons prime was in the early 1910's, losing his title to Willard in 1915 (I believe.) Joe was a monster but to be honest, Joe is not a top 10 heavyweight, top 20 yes but not top 10. We're quibbling here but his prime probably started in 1905 or so. That's about when he should have fought for the title but was denied the chance because of the color of his skin. By 1910 when he fought for Jeffries Johnson was in his early 30s. I don't know how good Jack Johnson was. The film s**ks. But, as said earlier, there were a lot of very good boxers and trainers who placed him right up with Joe Louis. If Joe Louis is a TOP 2 heavyweight of all-time then why would Jack Johnson be lower than TOP 5 or TOP 10?

Who's this Joe Johnson that you speak off? You're jesting, right?

Emanuel Steward is one of the few boxing technicians gods... I always trust his words... Manny was great and truthful...