Do you guys agree??

1.) Muhammad Ali 2.) Lennox Lewis 3.) Larry Holmes 4.) Joe Louis 5.) Rocky Marciano After that it becomes too hard to decide.

youre quicker than that other guy, thats for sure. im sure the hw had its share of flubbers. and let me pose this question, would a movie be better if it were 10 hours long ? or would a book be better if it had 20k pages ? 20+ rds....how many were boring/SLOPPY as fnck ? Well, what gives you the idea there were boring and/or sloppy rounds and fights? Boxing isn't like other sports where the most recent history has the most complexity, it's the opposite. The technical aspects of the sport are dying more than they are flourishing and evolving, for reasons that have been discussed before and for reasons that are covered on a historical level, I don't want to derail the thread though. Is a movie better if it's 10 hours long? Not necessarily, which is what I think your point is, but it can be, it can be an epic. Movies like Casablanca, BEN-HUR (original) The Godfather aren't "better" than, let's say, the 97 version of Godzilla because they are longer, they are better because of the content, acting, and significance involved. Personally, as a boxing fan, yes, more rounds = better because more boxing for me. There are exceptions to that of course, like for anything else. Boxing has always been prizefighting but prizefighting hasn't always been about divas and safety. You can still be a prizefighter and lust for blood, fear no one, duck no one. There is more than one way to the prize, not all are equally as honorable. When we look at boxing beyond film, all we have are historical accounts of newspapers and such. You might not want to put much weight into that, but if it's all we have, it's all we have. I'm going to treat such accounts as fact until there is solid evidence otherwise. There are things we do know: Fights were longer. Fighters were more conditioned. Fighters fought more often. Gloves were thinner. Safety wasn't as much of a concern as it is now. Champions had to be more active. There were waaaay more fighters than today. That definitely translates to harder competition all around, harder fighters, and many exciting fights through the early eras. There definitely woulda been less flabby "cans" in the game, and the ones that were around with any kind of success, you can bet they were real killers - you can't really judge a fighter by his appearance anyway. One of the longest recorded fights (recorded in history, not video) was 47 rounds. There might of been a few rounds "off" from either fighter, but my goodness, to be out there in that heat, on that day, watching 47 rounds of combat between two mortal men, that's awesome. No 69.99+ PPV today will give you that kind of mortal combat. Not one.

joe F. if you noticed, i placed joe L. quick and without reading up on them, what can YOU tell me about the guys from johnsons era ? They had incredible conditioning and were more active.No ducking back then either, no early stoppages.

Swap Tyson Fury with W Klitschko and that list looks immaculate. http://replygif.net/i/1196.gif

:haha::haha::haha: Lewis never got off the canvas to win a fight...he doesn't belong on any list...nor does that scary fragile Russian or whatever that shi.t is. What does getting off the canvas to win a fight have to do with literally anything?

Klitschko might be in the top 15, maybe 12. Number 4? lol

Ummmm Vitali Klitschko??? I think the consensus is that even though Vitali was one of the greatest head-to-head heavyweights and probably an overall better fighter than Wladimir, due the way his career played out (hiatus for injuries, came back and played second fiddle to his brother, transitioned into politics) he doesn't make top 10 resume lists. Head to head list would definitely not include guys like Frazier, Marciano, Johnson, who would fight anywhere from 1-3 divisions lower nowadays.

1 5 2 6 4 3 7 imho, joe and rocky dont make the cut. i dont know much about guys from johnsons era. You just admitted to not knowing that much about boxing history and yet according to you, Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano don't make the cut Lol

Just my opinion these are my top 10 greatest heavyweights 1. M. Ali 56-5 (1960 - 1981) 2. L. Lewis 42-2-1 (1989 - 2004) 3. J. Louis 66-3-1 (1934 - 1951) 4. W. Klitscko 64-4 (1996 - ) 5. L. Holmes 69-6 (1973 - 2002) 6. G. Foreman 76-5 (1969 - 1998) 7. E. Holyfield 44-10-2 (1989 - 2011) 8. J. Fraizer 32-4-1 (1965 - 1981) 9. R. Marcaino 49-0 (1947 - 1955) 10. J. Jackson 73-13-10 (1898 - 1945) The guys on the list I can agree to I guess. Probably edge out Marciano in favour of Liston or Dempsey. My list would look something like this: 1 Ali 2 Louis 3 Holmes 4 Foreman 5 Holyfield 6 Frazier 7 Liston 8 Lewis 9 Tyson 10 Klitschko Or something like that

Ummmm Vitali Klitschko??? Clearly doesn't have a spot anywhere near that list.

:haha::haha::haha: Lewis never got off the canvas to win a fight...he doesn't belong on any list...nor does that scary fragile Russian or whatever that shi.t is. Lennox is clearly one of the best heavy's ever

Ummmm Vitali Klitschko???

Swap Tyson Fury with W Klitschko and that list looks immaculate.

Yes brother Interesting that boxrec shows a different record...i wonder why the discrepancy.

Good list bro

J. Jackson? You mean jack johnson? Yes brother

Just my opinion these are my top 10 greatest heavyweights 1. M. Ali 56-5 (1960 - 1981) 2. L. Lewis 42-2-1 (1989 - 2004) 3. J. Louis 66-3-1 (1934 - 1951) 4. W. Klitscko 64-4 (1996 - ) 5. L. Holmes 69-6 (1973 - 2002) 6. G. Foreman 76-5 (1969 - 1998) 7. E. Holyfield 44-10-2 (1989 - 2011) 8. J. Fraizer 32-4-1 (1965 - 1981) 9. R. Marcaino 49-0 (1947 - 1955) 10. J. Jackson 73-13-10 (1898 - 1945) J. Jackson? You mean jack johnson?