Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[them_apples]

based on achievements can't be to hard:

Ali -innovator for his time, made a great comeback
Louis (I don't like Louis but he had 25 title defenses so what the hell)
Lennox Lewis - best in his era
Holmes (he fought a lot of tough guys, needs recognition)
holyfield - don't like him but he has a decent record/acheivments
Tyson - best Prime
Foreman - He's famous for his power, enough said
Jack Dempsy
Gene Tunney : not for his record, but for what he introduced to boxing
10: blah ..no idea

This is my list of who I think made the biggest impression in boxing and achievements etc. It is not however, my list of who I think who would beat who, but solely based on what they gained. No, I don't think Joe Louis could beat Ali.

[Hawkins]

He get's a lot of recognition from me but I don't distort it that's all.
You seem to base your thoughts and opinions on who would beat who which is your perogative. But you don't give the old time fighters any recognition yourself. You always come up with the same point that today's fighters are fitter,stronger,bigger and better skilled and the old timers would get blown away. Which to a certain extent is true. But the majority of us take into account overall ability for the time they boxed in, their impact and also what they achieved. Just because someone has for instance Marciano ranked above Lewis (Which I don't by the way) you start saying that is ****** and Marciano could never have beaten Lewis and that particular person must be old and stuck in the dark ages which isn't true. Your seem to me to be very young and are misunderstanding what everyone is trying to do here.

Yea what you said is perfectly true, I was only stating the other side. But I agree.

Yes I do tend to not give older fighters a chance (other than a few) but only because a lot of the time Older fighters are getting overrated so much on this forum that its humorous..I mean come on.."Marciano vs Lewis who would win?" was one topic, this is where common sense kicks in. A 185 lb 5'10 slow slugger will not have a chance in hell against a faster, more powerful 245 6'5 Lennox Lewis regardless of how tough some people think the competition was back in the 50's.

There is a reason why we have weight divisions in boxing.
my 2 cents

I just think that when you compare different eras you do it based on skill. Like stated previously, a fighter of the earlier eras would benefit from all of the advancements of today. Likewise a fighter of today more than likely wouldn't be as big, strong or fast back in the previous eras. It's all subjective though, but I try to be as realistic as I can when I make rankings/comparisons.

But just like anyone else, we're all going to have favorites we defend.

Ultimately, comparing the new vs. the old is like comparing a 1967 Corvette to a 2001 ZR-1. Of course the ZR-1 would smoke the '67 Stingray because of the advancements of the industry. Boxing isn't much different thats why I try to do it on a level playing field of skill vs. skill.

Just my two cents.

Hawk

[them_apples]

@ hawkins, thats what everyone does though, most people on this forum are doing direct comparison's, which yes..is unfair.

[-CANE-]

based on achievements can't be to hard:

Ali -innovator for his time, made a great comeback
Louis (I don't like Louis but he had 25 title defenses so what the hell)
Lennox Lewis - best in his era
Holmes (he fought a lot of tough guys, needs recognition)
holyfield - don't like him but he has a decent record/acheivments
Tyson - best Prime
Foreman - He's famous for his power, enough said
Jack Dempsy
Gene Tunney : not for his record, but for what he introduced to boxing
10: blah ..no idea

This is my list of who I think made the biggest impression in boxing and achievements etc. It is not however, my list of who I think who would beat who, but solely based on what they gained. No, I don't think Joe Louis could beat Ali.

Thanks good list your top 7 is exactly as I have it. Just remember when you see these lists try not to be too quick to pass judgement as the majority of people work along these lines and it's not a reflection of who would beat who or a lack of recognition of certain fighters or favouring a certain era but a fair way of judging the greats and no matter how good you think Tyson was in his prime, you can think he was the best that's what your entitled but just be objective and look at the quality of oppostion he fought in his era and how well he did against them compared to other fighters in their era.

[LondonRingRules]

I have stated several times in the thread it was just champions. I couldn't fit the word champions in the title as it was Top 10 Heavies best to worst and there was no more room.

** Langford was the Mexican heavy champ at age 40 when blind, and the English and the colored heavy champ in his prime, the only titles he was allowed to fight for in spite of spanning 5 full divisions in his prime from lightweight to heavy during his career, starting with Gans and Walcott and going through to Willard, a period of 16 yr.

I couldn't find a better heavy, champion and fighter to drink to.....cheers now.......

[Hawkins]

@ hawkins, thats what everyone does though, most people on this forum are doing direct comparison's, which yes..is unfair.

Oh, I know. I just choose not to do that and take it a step further to make a more fair comparison. But lets face it, no matter what its all subjective to personal opinion and no one is above that. However, I do try to be as objective as I can when making a comparison of fighters from different times in history.

[-CANE-]

** Langford was the Mexican heavy champ at age 40 when blind, and the English and the colored heavy champ in his prime, the only titles he was allowed to fight for in spite of spanning 5 full divisions in his prime from lightweight to heavy during his career, starting with Gans and Walcott and going through to Willard, a period of 16 yr.

I couldn't find a better heavy, champion and fighter to drink to.....cheers now.......

You're right he was a phenominal fighter and he should have been given the chance to fight for the WORLD title. It's a shame and utterly disgusting that it was all down to the colour of his skin. I'm sure he could have been Champion if only given the chance.

[LondonRingRules]

Ultimately, comparing the new vs. the old is like comparing a 1967 Corvette to a 2001 ZR-1. Of course the ZR-1 would smoke the '67 Stingray because of the advancements of the industry. Boxing isn't much different thats why I try to do it on a level playing field of skill vs. skill.

Just my two cents.

Hawk

If you think 12 rd title fights, 10 oz gloves, 4 world title belts, steroids, and 30-40 career fights an advancement, then I got just what you need.

A brown 1993 Chevy Chevette with the Scooter trim option.

Cheers now...............

[Hawkins]

If you think 12 rd title fights, 10 oz gloves, 4 world title belts, steroids, and 30-40 career fights an advancement, then I got just what you need.

A brown 1993 Chevy Chevette with the Scooter trim option.

Cheers now...............

Not at all, that part of the game is a clear step in the wrong direction. However, the training techniques, nutrition, medicine and fitness have all seen significant advancements. Thats to what I was referencing.

[-CANE-]

If you think 12 rd title fights, 10 oz gloves, 4 world title belts, steroids, and 30-40 career fights an advancement, then I got just what you need.

A brown 1993 Chevy Chevette with the Scooter trim option.

Cheers now...............

I prefer the 15 rounds format myself they say it's for safety reasons and that's an advancement but I'm not so sure.

They say the gloves is for safety reasons and is an advancement but I disagree. More padding less knockouts and more pounding of the brain.

Just thought that's something we (well I, can't speak for anyone else) never think of when talking about power and who hit the hardest.

4 World title belts - Someone please sort this out and have one organization

Steroids must go on but I'm sure fighters get tested. Wonder if any of the champs fought using them.

Just thought Mike Tyson was like a caged tiger and went bonkers later in his career he must have been on the roids (Joke)

Longer careers would be great and less protection and less emphasis on being unbeaten