Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[Nick Name]

Marciano isn't better than Joe Frazier in ANY category except possibly chin. Frazier is bigger, faster, stronger, has better footwork, had stamina and heart equal to Marciano, and hit every bit as hard.

Frazier had a great left hook but his right didn't cope with it. Marciano had knockout power in both hands. The only advantage Frazier had on Marciano was his size.

[Nick Name]

How does Marciano beat Ali after he goes tooth and nail with La Starza.

AHAHAH LaStarza... Dude clinched Marciano all the way until he ran into his right hand and was knocked through the ropes... "tooth and nail"... Come on, what match are you talking about?

And you seem to be forgetting, firstly: that was not a prime version of Ali and secondly he avenged both losses twice.

That's very honorable for him, comeback is what makes one boxer a champion... That doesn't change the fact that he made two big mistakes, and they came after he had talked crap to (I'd even say "underestimated") his opponents. Marciano hit harder than both Norton and Frazier, he'd have made Ali pay his own mistakes at a higher price than Norton or Frazier.

Holmes doesn't have a better resume than Ali...

He made more title defenses, and faced dangerous boxers (Shavers, Norton, Berbick, Spinks) as well, none as big as Frazier and Foreman but he did notable things Ali didn't do such as beating prime Ray Mercer at the age of 43... He also virtually ended Ali's career. In a rather brutal fashion I'd say. That fight could have been avoided.
20 consecutive title defenses... We're talking about world titles in the heavyweight division. That means he didn't make one mistake for 7 years against top contenders. That's one hell of a resume.

I'll give you this: Ali had the chance to face the best at their peak. he didn't always win, but he had that chance and took it. That stands alone as a great thing. Marciano didn't have that chance to feed his own legend. But he beat nonetheless opponents that would have given hard times to any champion (Charles, Walcott and Moore). And he beat all of them (more than once), without mistakes, without lapses of style: that is the best resume a boxer could get. I only put Joe Louis above Marciano because of his record of defenses (25) and also for the quality of the opposition. That's good logic to me. The rest is up for imagination.

[Barn]

AHAHAH LaStarza... Dude clinched Marciano all the way until he ran into his right hand and was knocked through the ropes... "tooth and nail"... Come on, what match are you talking about?

Maybe the first one which was close on all the judges scorecards, you know. The split decision?

That's very honorable for him, comeback is what makes one boxer a champion... That doesn't change the fact that he made two big mistakes, and they came after he had talked crap to (I'd even say "underestimated") his opponents. Marciano hit harder than both Norton and Frazier, he'd have made Ali pay his own mistakes at a higher price than Norton or Frazier.

That was a past prime Ali though and he avenged both losses twice, winning the series...

He made more title defenses, and faced dangerous boxers (Shavers, Norton, Berbick, Spinks) as well, none as big as Frazier and Foreman but he did notable things Ali didn't do such as beating prime Ray Mercer at the age of 43... He also virtually ended Ali's career. In a rather brutal fashion I'd say. That fight could have been avoided.

The ****tier version of Norton than Ali beat, He lost to Spinks. Wow Trevor Berbick really shouting out HOF names here. Ali also beat Shavers, not getting dropped in the process. Maybe you don't remember?

20 consecutive title defenses... We're talking about world titles in the heavyweight division. That means he didn't make one mistake for 7 years against top contenders. That's one hell of a resume.

Top contenders in a weaker era than Ali. And I've already pointed out the Ali contenders stat.

I'll give you this: Ali had the chance to face the best at their peak. he didn't always win, but he had that chance and took it. That stands alone as a great thing.

He won the series against Frazier and Norton while past prime. Liston, Foreman etc etc.

Marciano didn't have that chance to feed his own legend. But he beat nonetheless opponents that would have given hard times to any champion (Charles, Walcott and Moore). And he beat all of them (more than once), without mistakes, without lapses of style: that is the best resume a boxer could get.

More like didn't have the chance to lose once in a while like Ali. Yeah those guys are hard fights for anyone but, Charles is not nearly stopping Ali with a half torn off nose, nor is Walcott outboxing him. Yeah he beat "all of them" former LHW/CW, or washed up greats. Nice resume.

I only put Joe Louis above Marciano because of his record of defenses (25) and also for the quality of the opposition. That's good logic to me. The rest is up for imagination.

At least you're consistent.

[SBleeder]

I think we're simply wasting our time.

Nick, if you're going to insist that there is "logic" in ranking Marciano ahead of Ali, despite the fact that Ali had over three times the number of successful title defenses, beat twice the number of hall of famers, and was a vastly more versatile and skilled fighter, who was nearly unhittable in his prime...

And regarding defense... Ali was down four times in his career, a career that spanned 541 rounds, for an average of one knockdown every 135 rounds.

Marciano was down twice in 241 rounds, an average of one knockdown every 120 rounds.

[Nick Name]

Maybe the first one which was close on all the judges scorecards, you know. The split decision?

I haven't seen that fight... I'll check it out if I find it around. Anyway LaStarza was a tough upcoming fighter who stood 37-0 at the time, he was a slick clincher and sure knew the craft... Rocky won the fight anyway, and made quick work of him in the rematch. It's not easy boxing against grabbers and clinchers. Ali also had a split decision victory over Norton, that's not a shame. A victory is still a victory.

The ****tier version of Norton than Ali beat, He lost to Spinks. Wow Trevor Berbick really shouting out HOF names here. Ali also beat Shavers, not getting dropped in the process. Maybe you don't remember?

Ali faced better opposition thanks to the Foreman and Frazier fights, but Holmes balanced that by doing 20 consecutive title defenses and beating strong prime fighters when he was past his 40's.

Top contenders in a weaker era than Ali. And I've already pointed out the Ali contenders stat.

Alo faced the best opposition any heavyweght has ever faced. That's why I gave him the third place on an all.time list.
1. The heavyweight fighter who made more consecutive title defenses than anyone (Joe Louis)
2. The only unbeaten heavyweight champion, and we're talking about 49-0, not 20 or so (Marciano)
3. The heavyweight who had to face the tougher opposition. (Ali)
That's a good criterium to me.

More like didn't have the chance to lose once in a while like Ali. Yeah those guys are hard fights for anyone but, Charles is not nearly stopping Ali with a half torn off nose, nor is Walcott outboxing him. Yeah he beat "all of them" former LHW/CW, or washed up greats. Nice resume.

The nose has quite a fragile structure and it's easy to break. Also, black people's nose is less prominent and therefore less exposed to punches. Props to Rocky for winning the fight with a nose like that. You got to admit he had an inner strenght that no one had in the history of boxing. Also I don't see Norton or Frazier winning over Marciano.

[Nick Name]

Nick, if you're going to insist that there is "logic" in ranking Marciano ahead of Ali, despite the fact that Ali had over three times the number of successful title defenses, beat twice the number of hall of famers, and was a vastly more versatile and skilled fighter, who was nearly unhittable in his prime...

Well if you don't like the term"logic" then call it "criterium"... If the number of title defenses is a good criterium to rate one fighter higher than another, than Holmes must be rated higher than both Ali and Marciano... Would you rate Larry Holmes higher than Marciano?
Also, if beating the highest number of hall-of-famers is a rating criterium, then Ezzard Charles (who beat 9 hall of famers), Sam Langford (11) and Joe Louis (8) are all to be rated higher than Ali... Also Jack Johnson defeated 7 hall of famers, who do you rate higher, Johnson or Ali? And anyway, the hall of fame is just a recognition based on the people's opinion, there are sure boxers who deserve to be in the hall of fame and aren't inducted, it's like the Oscars: there are lots of mediocre movies that won the Oscar and great movies that didn't win.
Also, Marciano was a better fighter than Ali: he was hit less often, he had more punching power, stamina and focus. Ali was better on handspeed and footwork, but his defense was irresponsible at best, he used to talk to his opponent in the ring, tease him and then lose the fight! Ali used to take punishment on himself for the sake of showboating, when the first and most simple rule of boxing that the referee repeats on every fight is "protect yourself at all times"... How can a fighter who underrates this basic and simple rule of boxing be considered a better fighter than Rocky Marciano? In the first Frazier fight, Ali spent precious energy talking to Frazier, he lost stamina and was knocked down in the 15th round... Was that smart to you? On second thought, was that even professional? He lost that fight like a kid. You just cannot call Ali a better fighter than Marciano when Marciano never did any of that ****. Fighting Rocky with an attitude like that, Ali woulda been caught FLUSH by Rocky and you can imagine what that would mean.

And regarding defense... Ali was down four times in his career, a career that spanned 541 rounds, for an average of one knockdown every 135 rounds.

Marciano was down twice in 241 rounds, an average of one knockdown every 120 rounds.

That's an interesting figure: Ali stood 15 rounds more than Marciano without going down despite his five losses. He just stood up and took punches...

I think we're simply wasting our time.

Why do you keep writing then? You have time to waste?

[Barn]

I haven't seen that fight... I'll check it out if I find it around.

Don't think it's on film, easy to find anyway.

Anyway LaStarza was a tough upcoming fighter who stood 37-0 at the time, he was a slick clincher and sure knew the craft... Rocky won the fight anyway, and made quick work of him in the rematch.

Ali stopped Frazier convincingly the third time, beat him the second time.
And again, past prime Ali. Prime Marciano.

It's not easy boxing against grabbers and clinchers. Ali also had a split decision victory over Norton, that's not a shame. A victory is still a victory.

LaStarza wasn't as good as Norton or Frazier though.

Ali faced better opposition thanks to the Foreman and Frazier fights, but Holmes balanced that by doing 20 consecutive title defenses and beating strong prime fighters when he was past his 40's.

Toughest opposition is the main criteria, does Joe Calzaghe rank high on your ATG list for past prime wins and title defences?

Alo faced the best opposition any heavyweght has ever faced. That's why I gave him the third place on an all.time list.
1. The heavyweight fighter who made more consecutive title defenses than anyone (Joe Louis)
2. The only unbeaten heavyweight champion, and we're talking about 49-0, not 20 or so (Marciano)
3. The heavyweight who had to face the tougher opposition. (Ali)
That's a good criterium to me.

It's about who you beat not the piece of jewellery you are wearing when you do it. And again, you place so much on title defences in your reasoning for having Louis at #1, then have Marciano above Ali. Despite Ali having 4 times as many defences and more consecutively than Marciano, and you justify this by saying "Marciano is unbeaten." Again, screams Joe Calzaghe or Floyd Mayweather fanboy.

The nose has quite a fragile structure and it's easy to break. Also, black people's nose is less prominent and therefore less exposed to punches. Props to Rocky for winning the fight with a nose like that. You got to admit he had an inner strenght that no one had in the history of boxing. Also I don't see Norton or Frazier winning over Marciano.

I'm pretty certain black people have naturally larger noses...
"Lets rank him higher for inner strength." Ali fought with a broken jaw, he had guts too you know.

Rocky beats Norton KO3 in my opinion due to Norton not taking good to being backed up , however Frazier TKO's Rocky. More skilled, bigger.

[Barn]

Well if you don't like the term"logic" then call it "criterium"... If the number of title defenses is a good criterium to rate one fighter higher than another, than Holmes must be rated higher than both Ali and Marciano... Would you rate Larry Holmes higher than Marciano?

You're mixing criteria and not sticking to the same for your list as I pointed out earlier. It's all to suit your agenda. Also, you're from Italy which explains a bit.

Also, if beating the highest number of hall-of-famers is a rating criterium, then Ezzard Charles (who beat 9 hall of famers), Sam Langford (11) and Joe Louis (8) are all to be rated higher than Ali... Also Jack Johnson defeated 7 hall of famers, who do you rate higher, Johnson or Ali?

Johnsons HOF wins consisting of pre prime, washed up or lighter fighters. Ali's legitimate good Heavyweights. HOF is just a term it can be used to band all of them in it. There are levels in the Hall of Fame. Do you rank a win against Henry Armstrong at FW the same as a win against Barry McGuigan at FW?

Also, Marciano was a better fighter than Ali: he was hit less often, he had more punching power, stamina and focus. Ali was better on handspeed and footwork, but his defense was irresponsible at best, he used to talk to his opponent in the ring, tease him and then lose the fight! Ali used to take punishment on himself for the sake of showboating, when the first and most simple rule of boxing that the referee repeats on every fight is "protect yourself at all times"... How can a fighter who underrates this basic and simple rule of boxing be considered a better fighter than Rocky Marciano? In the first Frazier fight, Ali spent precious energy talking to Frazier, he lost stamina and was knocked down in the 15th round... Was that smart to you? On second thought, was that even professional? He lost that fight like a kid. You just cannot call Ali a better fighter than Marciano when Marciano never did any of that ****. Fighting Rocky with an attitude like that, Ali woulda been caught FLUSH by Rocky and you can imagine what that would mean.

I suppose you could say Rocky was hit less if it was actually true. Same it wasn't. Ali's stamina was maybe just as good as Rocky's. Only marginally worst at the best. Fair enough Rocky had more punching power but, he wasn't as fast, accurate or as clever with his.

When did Ali talking in the ring ever make him lose the fight, and when did he take punishment for the sake of showboating?

Stop talking like Rocky was a textbook fighter, he was far from it.

Your last point is irrelevant unless you come up with some evidence for my above question.

That's an interesting figure: Ali stood 15 rounds more than Marciano without going down despite his five losses. He just stood up and took punches...

So he had a better chin than Rocky then, more heart? Using the logic you've used throughout this debate then I think I can make claims like this.

Muhammad Ali TKO12 Rocky Marciano.

Deal with it.

[matrichuploader]

Muhammad Ali / Cassius Clay is the Best Heavyweight

Mike Tyson is the Best Puncher of all time.

[TAC602]

As there is little a HW can do to advance his pound-for-pound status, I tend to put more emphasis on Ability/Skills/H2H.

01. Muhammad Ali
02. Joe Louis
03. George Foreman
04. Larry Holmes
05. Sonny Liston
06. Lennox Lewis
07. Mike Tyson
08. Joe Frazier
09. Rocky Marciano
10. Jack Johnson