List your top 30 (super) heavyweights (201+ unlimited weight) of all time

[frankenfrank]

Dundee did not make the ropes loose.The ropes were for a 20 foot ring,and it was only a 16 foot ring.Please quit making up things.

Normally the ring is 20-24 feet for Championship fights.So there are no ropes for a 16 foot ring.Foreman wanted a small ring so Muhammad Ali would have trouble dancing,and it would make it easy for him to cut off the ring.

Dundee did not make the ropes loose,period.Please stop making "excuses" for poor old George who got a 16 foot ring,and a softly padded canvas so Ali could not dance.

Dundee talking about the ropes.I have heard him on several occasions talking about TIGHTENING the ropes.Here is just one qoute.



Well you know, when I heard I was going to be on your program—On the Ropes—I said to myself they’re going to ask me about the ropes in Zaire. (laughs) And I’m going to tell you, I tightened those stinking ropes at four o’clock in the afternoon but the fight wasn’t until 4am the next day. And you know what happened—the heat stretched the ropes. They were brand new hemp ropes. I didn’t want those ropes to be loose. People try to say that I designed the’ rope-a-dope’. I thought Muhammad was a dope to be on the ropes. If Foreman hit him with a forearm he would have went through the ropes. That ring was like six feet up in the air—he would have broke his back, the fight would have been all over but thank God it didn’t happen. He was so agile, and so quick, and so smart—he really did some good stuff.”

Dundee made the ropes loose by deliberately putting 20 ft. ring' ropes in a ring of 16 ft. which he knew well ahead will be the size.
Genius.
And then it really takes a nuclear fusion engineer to believe Dundee's words the heat loosening the ropes (in contradiction to what you wrote)
, Dundee never raised your argument , And Ali would have fully benefited from tight ropes by being spared by the referee ?

[Sugarj]

'McCall hit harder than Louis , Marciano , Fitzsimmons , Baer , Cleveland Williams and Ingemar Johnson . Harder than Tyson ? I don't know , I never claimed it , but this is another thing you assume about me , so your crystal ball could probably quote me stating it.'



Hi Again Frankenfrank,

This paragraph of yours shown above interested me.

I would have said that most of if not all the guys listed hit harder than McCall pound for pound.........but realistically I would have said that were punches recorded on a PSI punch measuring machine ( a bit like the one Ivan Drago hits in Rocky IV ) then I would have only expected Baer and Williams to produce better stats than McCall. Baer's right hand was absolutely lethal! There weren't many harder heavyweight punchers than Williams in the 50s/60s.


Joe Louis was one I struggled with........would his right land with more PSI than a much heavier McCall, who was admittedly heavy handed? Possibly. Would Louis's jab and left hook land heavier? Almost certainly.

But punching power is largely based around timing and accuracy than raw PSI. A physics master like yourself will know that its not all about Force being Mass x Acceleration.

I've never implied that you think McCall punches harder than Tyson. I only used the Holmes fights as a common opponent comparison seeing as poor Larry shipped both of their Sunday punches with drastically different results. Frank Bruno didn't think McCall hit as hard as Tyson for what its worth.

See if you can grab a copy of the McCall vs Akinwande fight. I think you'd enjoy it, it was a fave of mine from about ten years ago. I was delighted to see McCall win that one!

[frankenfrank]

'McCall hit harder than Louis , Marciano , Fitzsimmons , Baer , Cleveland Williams and Ingemar Johnson . Harder than Tyson ? I don't know , I never claimed it , but this is another thing you assume about me , so your crystal ball could probably quote me stating it.'



Hi Again Frankenfrank,

This paragraph of yours shown above interested me.

I would have said that most of if not all the guys listed hit harder than McCall pound for pound.........but realistically I would have said that were punches recorded on a PSI punch measuring machine ( a bit like the one Ivan Drago hits in Rocky IV ) then I would have only expected Baer and Williams to produce better stats than McCall. Baer's right hand was absolutely lethal! There weren't many harder heavyweight punchers than Williams in the 50s/60s.


Joe Louis was one I struggled with........would his right land with more PSI than a much heavier McCall, who was admittedly heavy handed? Possibly. Would Louis's jab and left hook land heavier? Almost certainly.

Breathtaking is how they hit supermiddleweights and lightheavyweights with slim gloves , definitely lethal , which is why most of McCall's age fighters fight against fighters closer to their own size and use more padded gloves.

But punching power is largely based around timing and accuracy than raw PSI. A physics master like yourself will know that its not all about Force being Mass x Acceleration.

Me being able to quote the Shamen's CD word for word does not make me a certified physics master yet.

I've never implied that you think McCall punches harder than Tyson. I only used the Holmes fights as a common opponent comparison seeing as poor Larry shipped both of their Sunday punches with drastically different results. Frank Bruno didn't think McCall hit as hard as Tyson for what its worth.

Did I argue about who hit harder between these 2 ?

See if you can grab a copy of the McCall vs Akinwande fight. I think you'd enjoy it, it was a fave of mine from about ten years ago. I was delighted to see McCall win that one!

I will be glad to , but I don't think it's on youtube.

[Sugarj]

True, McCall's era of heavyweights was more closely matched in size. But it has little to do with what we were discussing in relation to punching power. Never mind.

As for Tyson vs McCall's punching power, correct.....you didn't argue it. But your earlier post implied to me that you were not too sure. You said 'harder than Tyson. I dont know?'.

Either way, I think we are just about done. But its been quite a ride with physics, The Shamen, Lady Gaga and that ATG Oliver McCall.

Laters...

[boxing boy]

Dundee made the ropes loose by deliberately putting 20 ft. ring' ropes in a ring of 16 ft. which he knew well ahead will be the size.
Genius.
And then it really takes a nuclear fusion engineer to believe Dundee's words the heat loosening the ropes (in contradiction to what you wrote)
, Dundee never raised your argument , And Ali would have fully benefited from tight ropes by being spared by the referee ?

Have you lost your mind? Dundee or any other trainer is not allowed to put up the ropes to a ring.Or mess with the canvas of the ring.

Did Dundee also make the canvas real soft so Ali couldn't dance?

Should I,like you, accuse Foreman's trainer making the canvas in the ring soft? The Ref Zack Clayton said the canvas was made of "soft padding" and that is why Ali couldn't and didn't dance.Plus the 16 foot ring.

You are grasping at straws stating Dundee put up the ropes.You are a moron my friend.Your also a liar,and will say anything to try and justify your wacked out opinion's.

[frankenfrank]

Have you lost your mind? Dundee or any other trainer is not allowed to put up the ropes to a ring.Or mess with the canvas of the ring.

Did Dundee also make the canvas real soft so Ali couldn't dance?

Should I,like you, accuse Foreman's trainer making the canvas in the ring soft? The Ref Zack Clayton said the canvas was made of "soft padding" and that is why Ali couldn't and didn't dance.Plus the 16 foot ring.

You are grasping at straws stating Dundee put up the ropes.You are a moron my friend.Your also a liar,and will say anything to try and justify your wacked out opinion's.

In your post quoting Dundee he admitted to having access to the ropes when he tried to tighten them , you admitted the simple overlooked fact
that the 16 ft. ring had 20 ft. ring's ropes. someone put those ropes in
that ring , causing the fight to play out as it was. Dundee and Don King
were in Ali's side , yes , it may have been King's first fight as Ali's promoter , but everyone (King , Dundee , Ali . the maffia , boxing gablers and the Nation of Islam included) had connections and influence
on the ring's preparation. The result was what we now know it was , it is not me to investigate what happened there , you are a biased brainwashed brainwashing imbecile pal and need to do some simple thinking about the facts yourself before accusing someone whom stated
the facts like myself at having any agenda other than the exposure of
truth and trying to make people aware of it.

[JAB5239]

Try to make it based on H2H , not legacy , cultural influence , not popularity , not the quality of act in Sylvester Stalone movies , not on manners nor on PPV and ticket sales. Just the ones whom may have prevailed in actual H2H confrontations in the ring. Size matters , weight classes were invented for a reason.
Everyone can be a smartass and to criticize someone else's list.
Don't do it before you have a top 30 , preferably even more of your own which is a testimony to some alternative of your own before you discredit a list you don't really have a clue of how to improve.

Here is mine :

1. Vitali Klitschko
2. George Foreman
3. Mike Tyson
4. Muhammad Ali
5. Lennox Lewis
6. Larry Holmes
7. Wladimir Klitschko
8. Oliver McCall
9. David Tua
10. Evander Holyfield


11. Tony Tucker
12. Rid**** Bowe
13. James Douglas
14. Joe Louis
15. Joe Frazier
16. Chris Byrd
17. Sultanakhmed Ibragimov
18. Nikolay Valuev
19. Sam Peter
20. Jameel McCline

21. Ross Puritty
22. Lamon Brewster
23. Dominick Guinn
24. James Smith
25. Ray Austin
26. Lance Whitaker
27. Joe Mesi
28. Michael Grant
29. James Toney
30. Donovan Ruddock


31. Frank Bruno
32. Tim Witherspoon
33. Gerrie Cooney
34. George Chuvalo
35. Oscar Bonavena
36. Ron Lyle
37. Jimmy Young
38. Ken Norton
39. Jerry Quarry
40. Earnie Shavers

41. Charles Liston
42. Sam Langford
43. Joe Jeannette
44. Harry Wills
45. Fred Fulton
46. Rocky Marciano
47. Jack Johnson
48. Jack Dempsey
49. Max Baer
50. Max Schmelling

51. Orlin Norris
52. Chris Arreola
53. Michael Spinks
54. Michael Moorer
55. Oleg Maskaev
56. Hassim Rahman
57. Corrie Sanders
58. John Ruiz
59. Kirk Johnson
60. Corey Sanders

61. Martin Rogan
62. Matt Skelton
63. Danny Williams
64. Jesse Fergusson
65. Ray Mercer
66. Eric Esch
67. Brian Nielsen
68. Audley Harisson
69. Mike Hunter
70. ****y Ryann


71. Michael Sprott
72. Jimmy Ellis
73. Floyd Patterson



I claim this list is not perfect.
There may be changes in it.
But it is about how it is.

So many things wrong here I don't even know where to begin. Good God Frankie, how can you call yourself a boxing fan. You're a fan of fighters, accomplishments is what makes them great.

[frankenfrank]

So many things wrong here I don't even know where to begin. Good God Frankie, how can you call yourself a boxing fan. You're a fan of fighters, accomplishments is what makes them great.

It was based upon accomplishments but also upon ability.
It does not take a genius to know that if Jameel McCline knocked down almost every top contenders of his : Byrd , Peter , Grant , Briggs , Cole , Boswell , and then consider Marciano went down against Moore and Walcott and did not convincingly win against Ted Lowry and Roland LaStarzza , combine it with the facts Marciano was a LHW whom had a lowest pro weight of 178 (simply never tried to make 175) to McCline's lowest of 252 , Marciano at 5'10" to McCline's 6'4" and it does not take a genius to know McCline would have abused him.
True , he was less charismatic , less personal charm , less of a movie star
persona , and was not even the most dominant fighter of his time
(Byrd and Peter got gift decisions against him) , but if one could get them
both in the ring , it takes a lunatic to predict a Marciano victory.
The main criteria (and by far) of the sorting was the simple question of a H2H confrontations in the ring , quantity and quality of achievements both. Now Quality also means a win over a big man will count more in average than a win over a smaller man , very simple.
every one in this list could have beaten a prime Julio Cesar Chavez , Pernell Whitaker and Nicolino Locce , so ? and if some HWs actually achieved that feat , should it have elevated them in HW H2H lists ?
so now review Joe Louis , Rocky Marciano's , Sony Liston's and many others' career as well , and rank them where they should be : CW , LHW and SMW lists , where they belong and where they can get their appropriate respect of being placed in top 15 lists , just don't bring such achievements into consideration of H2H fights between them and actual real superheavyweights whom would have moped the floor with them , if to be honest.

[Sugarj]

Hi Frankenfrank,

The strange thing is, the heavyweight division seems to forever throw up smaller heavyweights beating much bigger heavyweights. It always has:

Dempsey over Firpo, Willard

Baer over Carnera

Louis over Simon, Buddy Baer

Conn very nearly beat Louis.

Charles and Marciano over even an old Louis was a shock to some!

Ali over Terrell, Bugner (its a shocker that Bugner isn't in your top 73, but Martin Rogan is!!!!)

Frazier over Bugner

Leon Spinks over Ali

Young over Foreman

Holmes over Cooney

Michael Spinks over Holmes

Tyson over Tucker, Ruddock

Holyfield over Bowe (albeit only once)

Byrd over Vitali (even allowing for the shoulder injury)

Brewster over Wladimir

Haye (also not in your list at a glance! ) over Valuev

There are dozens more.

I agree that McCline may well have been a tough fight for Marciano, his dimensions plus his power could well prove tough for many of the smaller heavyweight champions. But thats not to say that for example Jersey Joe Walcott wouldn't make him look like an amateur. He may have been completely outworked by Ezzard Charles. He may have walked into a savage left hook from Floyd Patterson. Or McCline may have stopped them all, we dont know! But I dont think McCline is much better than many of the other larger heavyweight champions/contenders from history.

Maybe its the mysticism of the heavyweight division as to why the smaller, heavyweights seem to do well, but it has only been recently (the last 15 years) where the big boys have started to show a consistent dominance.......and it is down to the sheer lack of talent elsewhere in the division! It is no coincidence I fear that the last fifteen years encompasses the vast viewing of heavyweight fights for you, which is why you rate Rogan, Harrison, Sanders or Whitakker in your top 70.

Hell, that a fossil of Holyfield can still go the distance with the likes of Valuev says alot. Either way, lets watch how this new wave of smaller heavyweights does. I've got a feeling that Haye, Adamek and Povetkin might do quite well over the next few years......they might not beat a Klitschko. But I wouldn't bet against it!

Bowe, Lewis, Vitali and Wlad are/were good champions. Big, strong, powerful and athletic..........no doubt. On a skills basis they might not be Ali, Holmes or Louis, but they'd likely acquit themselves well in any era. But it doesn't mean that all their larger counterparts would do well against the better smaller champions in history though.

Size and weight does help to a degree. But for every benefit there is a hindrance. A bigger, heavier man may hit harder, be stronger in the clinches or come with a likely longer reach and height. But on the negative, he'll likely be slower of hand and foot or less likely to have as strong a workrate or sheer athleticism.

[frankenfrank]

Hi Frankenfrank,

The strange thing is, the heavyweight division seems to forever throw up smaller heavyweights beating much bigger heavyweights. It always has:

Dempsey over Firpo, Willard

they did not know how to fight under the rules of boxing.

Baer over Carnera

Louis over Simon, Buddy Baer

Conn very nearly beat Louis.

you could bring some more 100 nearlies .
It was a mere proof of Louis' lack of skill.

Charles and Marciano over even an old Louis was a shock to some!

considering the Conn , Schmelling and the Walcott fights , it is hard to see why.

Ali over Terrell, Bugner (its a shocker that Bugner isn't in your top 73, but Martin Rogan is!!!!)

Bugner would have lost to Rogan just as well.
And he is a bad example for small beating big because he was a mere 1 inch taller than Ali , had much less experience and talent , and had a mere 5.5 lbs weight advantage , which were extra fat.

Frazier over Bugner

Leon Spinks over Ali

11 years of age advantage to a mere 2" of height , and then consider the rematch .. you proved nothing yet again.

Young over Foreman

Holmes over Cooney

Michael Spinks over Holmes

Tyson over Tucker, Ruddock

Holyfield over Bowe (albeit only once)

not really , and then consider the other 2 fights.

Byrd over Vitali (even allowing for the shoulder injury)

Brewster over Wladimir

Haye (also not in your list at a glance! ) over Valuev

There are dozens more.

I doubt it , but there are hundreds of contra examples , you just brought some exceptions , a few of what you brought were bad examples , and I explained why.

I agree that McCline may well have been a tough fight for Marciano, his dimensions plus his power could well prove tough for many of the smaller heavyweight champions. But thats not to say that for example Jersey Joe Walcott wouldn't make him look like an amateur.

like he made Abe simon look like an amateur ?

He may have been completely outworked by Ezzard Charles.

He may have knocked Charles above the ring's ropes into the fifth row of the crowd.

He may have walked into a savage left hook from Floyd Patterson.

Now way.
In Patterson's case , I think he would have reached the sixth row of the crowd.

Or McCline may have stopped them all, we dont know!

Charles would have been the only one whom could lose a decision to McCline of those you mentioned.

But I dont think McCline is much better than many of the other larger heavyweight champions/contenders from history.

I wonder how many of them could repeat McCline's achievements against
Grant , Whitaker , Cole , Briggs , Peter and Byrd .

Maybe its the mysticism of the heavyweight division as to why the smaller, heavyweights seem to do well, but it has only been recently (the last 15 years) where the big boys have started to show a consistent dominance.......

Very wrong. Almost every dominant HW champion of history was a big guy for his era : Corbett , Jeffries , Louis , Ali , Foreman , Holmes , Lewis and now the Klitschkos and Valuev just until recently.
Now wait for Dimitrenko and Helenius to wait for the Klitschkos to either retire
, or fade badly and then to take over.

and it is down to the sheer lack of talent elsewhere in the division!

Byrd , Tua , Chambers and Frazier lacked talent ?

It is no coincidence I fear that the last fifteen years encompasses the vast viewing of heavyweight fights for you, which is why you rate Rogan, Harrison, Sanders or Whitakker in your top 70.

I already claimed my list is not perfect , and I may rank them a little lower (or higher) in the future , but you haven't posted even a top 30 , while you discredit my top 70 .
I wonder which names would have appeared in your never to be published top 70.

Hell, that a fossil of Holyfield can still go the distance with the likes of Valuev says alot.

Valuev simply didn't want to be remembered as the man to have put Holyfield into some sort of coma.
He said himself how he trained for that fight : shadow boxing and a little of something else.

Either way, lets watch how this new wave of smaller heavyweights does. I've got a feeling that Haye, Adamek and Povetkin might do quite well over the next few years......they might not beat a Klitschko. But I wouldn't bet against it!

They all wait for the Klitschkos to retire , and then they will avoid Helenius.

Bowe, Lewis, Vitali and Wlad are/were good champions. Big, strong, powerful and athletic..........no doubt. On a skills basis they might not be Ali, Holmes or Louis, but they'd likely acquit themselves well in any era. But it doesn't mean that all their larger counterparts would do well against the better smaller champions in history though.

Of course not all , most of them , just like most of the smaller men , severely lacked in talent.

Size and weight does help to a degree.

To a big degree.

But for every benefit there is a hindrance. A bigger, heavier man may hit harder, be stronger in the clinches or come with a likely longer reach and height. But on the negative, he'll likely be slower of hand and foot or less likely to have as strong a workrate or sheer athleticism.

true , but it is still better than worse for him , fact.
Now tell me Vitali lacks workrate and Wlad lacks athleticism .