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

[NChristo]

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

What ?, Louis is more skilled then all of today's heavies and his combination punching is unmatched out of all heavies, how can you possibly say that Louis had a lack of skill ?, Billy Conn's style was just all wrong for him in the same way that Norton's style was all wrong for Ali.
Does it mean that Ali had a lack of skill ?.

Damn Frank, do you even read what you post ?

[Sugarj]

Hi Frankenfrank,

Its hard to deal with your last message in response to me because there is so many quotes and responses. Enough to make me think twice about responding......but here goes!

The list I gave you of smaller heavyweights beating bigger heavyweights is not exhaustive, its just a good few examples off the top of my head in rough chronological order that highlight that bigger and heavier does not always mean 'victor' in heavyweight terms. Some can be poked at sure, I'm only attempting to show you that the smaller guy can often upset the apple cart.

There have been plenty of big 'nearlies', to use your expression. I'd argue that McCline was one.

As for Joe Bugner, I've always thought of him as 6ft 5, but I wouldn't argue the case of him being 6ft 4. He was clearly one of the best technical boxers of the seventies with fantastic handspeed. Its laughable that you suggest that a what? 10 fight or so novice like Martin Rogan would beat the 1970s version of Bugner. If you want to submit a poll in NSB or the history section you would be laughed at. Have you watched the first Ali fight or the Frazier fight?

Oh and nice touch about Jersey Joe having lost to the much larger Abe Simon. Was that a piece of boxrec research? I'm glad your improving your knowledge. Poor Jersey Joe at this point was greener than a gnome's jacket! His peak came at least seven years later!!! Of course Abe Simon was beaten soundly twice by the much smaller Joe Louis (and you did say Louis had a 'lack of skill'. Amazing that he got past this much bigger guy twice!). But I did say that Jersey Joe may well have got stopped by a big powerful guy like McCline, so hell.....not much to add there.

Could I give you a decent argument or list of bigger guys beating smaller guys, probably. But as for what you say about each dominant champion being 'big for his era'.....no that is not true.

You cite James J Corbett, he had a bit of height (what? 6 ft/ 6ft 1) but was barely a light heavyweight in today's terms. There were plenty of much larger guys around (like O'Sullivan who was much heavier and muscled....and lost!), but the larger heavyweights back then could not absorb the ridiculous amount of 3 minute rounds back then with ease (the bigger guys today wouldn't either!), so Jim was forced to fight guys of a similar size. Not that he fought very often......what twenty times?

Fair point about Jeffries though, he was big for his day! But he only fought again 20 odd times and a post prime Corbett would have taken his title over a more modern championship distance. He was ahead after 20 rounds.

Jack Dempsey was a small heavyweight who you dont list.

Joe Louis was average size for his day, smaller than Baer and Carnera. But larger than Schmelling, Sharkey.

Charles/Walcott.....again small for their day.

Oh Marciano.....small for his day.

Patterson.....small for his day.

Liston was an average size and weight for his day.

Prime Ali had some good dimensions but was only 205-212Lbs in his prime (again average for his day).

Foreman was quite a big guy for his era.......Sadly beaten by smaller guys in Ali and Young!

You cite Holmes as a 'big guy for his era'! 6ft 3 and 212Lbs in the early 80s was below average for his era. DUH! Many of his earlier title challengers outweighed him!!!

As for my comment regarding the lack of talent in the division, it was directed at the last decade, not the 90s. The 90s and very early noughties had plenty of smaller talent. I did rate Tua and Byrd in their primes (about ten/twelve years ago). Chambers.......err hardly an ATG, passable talent and why did you say Frazier? Odd!

I've rated Vitali and Wlad for a few years now, notice I've not criticised them in any of my posts..........I'm not going to say that they are poor champions at all. They're both quite good at what they do. I rate Vitali higher due to his excellent chin and less passive mentality in the ring.

As for me doing a top 30.....let alone a top 70 for heavyweights. I was tempted to reply to Poet's thread. But to be honest you've attempted a list based on head to head percieved dominance and thrown in a few 'smaller' guys like Jeanette, Fulton, Langford and Wills who you have never seen fight......and probably wouldn't rate if you had because of their size!!! Why did you put them in? To please some proper historians?

I could attempt a top 30 based on legend and fill it with all manner of terrific names in some sort of order! But not head to head. As I've explained to you before you get to a point where everybody evens out, where is becomes almost exclusively down to styles. I'll be damned if I can arrange an order for the following six.....Foreman, Liston, Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis, Louis and Tyson. These guys would make up some of my top fifteen.....but they'd all lose to each other. The amount of thought required to producing a studious top 30 is ridiculous..........like your own list.

No hard feelings, but if you feel I'm wrong please put it to poll.

[frankenfrank]

Hi Frankenfrank,

Its hard to deal with your last message in response to me because there is so many quotes and responses. Enough to make me think twice about responding......but here goes!

The list I gave you of smaller heavyweights beating bigger heavyweights is not exhaustive, its just a good few examples off the top of my head in rough chronological order that highlight that bigger and heavier does not always mean 'victor' in heavyweight terms. Some can be poked at sure, I'm only attempting to show you that the smaller guy can often upset the apple cart.

There have been plenty of big 'nearlies', to use your expression. I'd argue that McCline was one.

As for Joe Bugner, I've always thought of him as 6ft 5, but I wouldn't argue the case of him being 6ft 4. He was clearly one of the best technical boxers of the seventies with fantastic handspeed. Its laughable that you suggest that a what? 10 fight or so novice like Martin Rogan would beat the 1970s version of Bugner. If you want to submit a poll in NSB or the history section you would be laughed at. Have you watched the first Ali fight or the Frazier fight?

Bugner was a disgrace of a fighter . for a 6'4" man (6'5" according to you) ,
to be knocked down by a small HW like Frazier , stopped in 2 by another smally in Shavers (not really because of cuts , Shavers was abusing him all around the ring) and later exposed by Bruno (TKO1) .
He is one of the least skilled fighters of the 70's if anything , all of his "accomplishments" there (i.e. losing decisions against Ali and Frazier and decision wins over Mac Foster (10 rounds) and former MW Jimmy Ellis)
were due to his size. very not impressing.

Oh and nice touch about Jersey Joe having lost to the much larger Abe Simon. Was that a piece of boxrec research?

yes , does it take anything from it ?

I'm glad your improving your knowledge. Poor Jersey Joe at this point was greener than a gnome's jacket! His peak came at least seven years later!!! Of course Abe Simon was beated soundly twice by the much smaller Joe Louis

smaller , not much smaller

(and you did say Louis had a 'lack of skill'. Amazing that he got past this much bigger guy twice!).

not so hard to understand , Simon had even less skills , another reason why it
has no implications whatsoever about Louis' and other prehistoric fighters
ability against a modern superheavyweight.

But I did say that Jersey Joe may well have got stopped by a big powerful guy like McCline, so hell.....not much to add there.

Could I give you a decent argument or list of bigger guys beating smaller guys, probably. But as for what you say about each dominant champion being 'big for his era'.....no that is not true.

not every one , just the majority of the dominant champions.
but you did miss the word dominant in your relating to my reply despite repeating it.

You cite James J Corbett, he had a bit of height (what? 6 ft/ 6ft 1) but was barely a light heavyweight in today's terms.

still bigger than almost every one of his opponents , Sullivan was fatter than him , not much more muscular. and sullivan was just one of his opponents.

There were plenty of much larger guys around (like O'Sullivan who was much heavier and muscled....and lost!), but the larger heavyweights back then could not absorb the ridiculous amount of 3 minute rounds back then with ease (the bigger guys today wouldn't either!), so Jim was forced to fight guys of a similar size. Not that he fought very often......what twenty times?

Fair point about Jeffries though, he was big for his day! But he only fought again 20 odd times and a post prime Corbett would have taken his title over a more modern championship distance. He was ahead after 20 rounds.

Jack Dempsey was a small heavyweight who you dont list.

not for his days , he was smaller than maybe 2 of all of his opponents , that's it , he is a bad example of a dominant HW champion whom was smaller for his time , because he wasn't small for his time plus he ducked most of the dangerous (some of which were big) (black) contenders of his time.

Joe Louis was average size for his day, smaller than Baer and Carnera. But larger than Schmelling, Sharkey.

wrong again , Louis was big for his time , not the biggest , but much more than average. Max Baer was 0.5" inch taller than him , if you search his record then he had some 2.3 smaller opponents for each bigger opponent .

Charles/Walcott.....again small for their day.

not really , by their time , the top of the HW division were LHWs in our era's terms (including Marciano and Moore).

Oh Marciano.....small for his day.

One of the rare occasions in which you are correct , though not by much as explained in the reply above.

Patterson.....small for his day.

And was not a dominant champion , and ducked almost every bigger or dangerous contender of his championship reign , and was put in his real proportions when faced Ali and Liston (not to mention the first Johansson fight , in which he was not even severely outsized)

Liston was an average size and weight for his day.

And was not a dominant champion , he beat only bum beaters and his only successful defense came against the man whom he won the title from , not to mention that man was not a legitimate HW.

Prime Ali had some good dimensions but was only 205-212Lbs in his prime (again average for his day).

Prime and not prime Ali was bigger than almost every one of his opponents .

Foreman was quite a big guy for his era.......Sadly beaten by smaller guys in Ali and Young!

Bad example like 90% of your examples .
Foreman was 0.5 inch taller than Ali , well , maybe 0.7 inch , what a difference ! and outweighed Ali by astounding 3.5 lbs !!

You cite Holmes as a 'big guy for his era'! 6ft 3 and 212Lbs in the early 80s was below average for his era. DUH! Many of his earlier title challengers outweighed him!!!

Holmes was big for his era , check before you post next time , your current post is so wrong , it takes 20 minutes to correct.

As for my comment regarding the lack of talent in the division, it was directed at the last decade, not the 90s. The 90s and very early noughties had plenty of smaller talent. I did rate Tua and Byrd in their primes (about ten/twelve years ago). Chambers.......err hardly an ATG, passable talent and why did you say Frazier? Odd!

Did not claim for a moment Chambers is an ATG , just that he has talent , why not ATG ? cause he is too small to achieve any meaningful thing at 201+ today.

I've rated Vitali and Wlad for a few years now, notice I've not criticised them in any of my posts..........I'm not going to say that they are poor champions at all. They're both quite good at what they do. I rate Vitali higher due to his excellent chin and less passive mentality in the ring.

As for me doing a top 30.....let alone a top 70 for heavyweights. I was tempted to reply to Poet's thread. But to be honest you've attempted a list based on head to head percieved dominance and thrown in a few 'smaller' guys like Jeanette, Fulton, Langford and Wills who you have never seen fight......and probably wouldn't rate if you had because of their size!!! Why did you put them in? To please some proper historians?

I claimed at the first post of my thread my list is not perfect.
But it is the best I ever seen and by far.
If you check Langford's and Jeannette's location , it is quite realistic and they
(especially Langford) proved themselves against much bigger men.
Fulton and Wills were far from being small , if you only knew it !

I could attempt a top 30 based on legend and fill it with all manner of terrific names in some sort of order! But not head to head. As I've explained to you before you get to a point where everybody evens out, where is becomes almost exclusively down to styles. I'll be damned if I can arrange an order for the following six.....Foreman, Liston, Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis, Louis and Tyson. These guys would make up some of my top fifteen.....but they'd all lose to each other. The amount of thought required to producing a studious top 30 is ridiculous..........like your own list.

No hard feelings, but if you feel I'm wrong please put it to poll.

You can put whatever you like to poll yourself. I know in this section I can not win a poll , but I have no objection if you make one , justice is not a matter of popularity .

[frankenfrank]

What ?, Louis is more skilled then all of today's heavies and his combination punching is unmatched out of all heavies, how can you possibly say that Louis had a lack of skill ?, Billy Conn's style was just all wrong for him in the same way that Norton's style was all wrong for Ali.
Does it mean that Ali had a lack of skill ?.

Damn Frank, do you even read what you post ?

Conn's style was all wrong for him , Walcott's , Charles , Marciano's were all wrong for him too . The man could be schooled by almost every good LHW !
Just think of what Sam Peter or a 2003-6 James Toney would have done to him .

[JAB5239]

Conn's style was all wrong for him , Walcott's , Charles , Marciano's were all wrong for him too . The man could be schooled by almost every good LHW !
Just think of what Sam Peter or a 2003-6 James Toney would have done to him .

..................

[Sugarj]

It takes too long to reply to your multiquoted posts Frankenfrank,

This'll be my last on this thread:

Bugner was prime in 73......not the early 80s when he lost to Shavers.

OR in the mid-late 80s when he lost to Bruno......and it was an 8th round TKO. Open your eyes more clearly when you go onBoxrec!

Would he have beaten Martin Rogan......yes!



Abe Simon outweighed Joe Louis by 50Lbs. What are you on? 'smaller but not much smaller'.


You cited Corbett as a dominant champion, not me! Three defenses, a win, a draw and a loss! Clueless!! In a 20 odd fight career.


Dempsey: Who were these big black men he avoided? Wills jumps to mind. But Johnson, Langford etc were too old. I dont doubt that there was some good talent out there, but fans weren't pushing for a match. Would you like to suggest anyone?


Louis:.....the average heavyweight challenger between 1935 and 1950 was between 190 and 200Lbs.......just like Joe Louis. Some were a bit lower, some were quite a lot higher. He was average size for his day, not big! End of discussion!


Patterson: Dont just boxrec his championship reign, Liston and Ali were the only two to outclass him in his entire career. He more than made up for The Johannson loss. You seem to forget the fights in which he did well against bigger guys like Chuvalo or Bonavena (when well past prime!).......and he was ahead I believe at the time of stoppage in 1972 against Ali. Ali praised him as the best boxer he ever fought!

Holmes: I thought I'd check this one. Boxrec has him being outweighed by 13 opponents of his prime (1978-85) title fights. That makes him below average for weight as I originally said. Plus as he got older the flab level went up too! Or do you start counting height instead of weight when it works for your arguments?


Fulton / Wills: Again, you resort to the height issue when the weights dont appear very high in today's standard. Fulton would have been very spindly at 6ft 6 and a little over 200Lbs. How it would have hurt you to see Dempsey KO him in one! Will's 6ft 2 and again just over 200Lb was big for the day.......but not compared to the Behemoths of today that you rate so highly!I have read extensively about these guys, but there is so little film......and I am more the type of guy to judge a fighter on what I can see. Even in flicker film.


Langford/Jeanette: I rate these guys in historic terms. But you clearly put them right next to Fulton and Wills as names to please historians. The fact that you've put them in one block of your list speaks volumes!


I haven't got the time to reply to another huge post. All the peace in the world matey. Just continue enjoying the sport! I guess thats the main reason were both here.

[frankenfrank]

It takes too long to reply to your multiquoted posts Frankenfrank,

It takes even more to make them after reading so many mistakes in your posts , so do you write in order to write without intention of reading the replies ?

This'll be my last on this thread:

Bugner was prime in 73......not the early 80s when he lost to Shavers.

Shavers 5 years older than Bugner , failed reply yet again , if Bugner was post prime against Shavers then Shavers was shot to death when he destroyed Bugner.

OR in the mid-late 80s when he lost to Bruno......and it was an 8th round TKO. Open your eyes more clearly when you go onBoxrec!

Would he have beaten Martin Rogan......yes!

no .

Abe Simon outweighed Joe Louis by 50Lbs. What are you on? 'smaller but not much smaller'.

So he was fatter , he was taller , had more muscle , but was probably also fatter by the time they fought.

You cited Corbett as a dominant champion, not me! Three defenses, a win, a draw and a loss! Clueless!! In a 20 odd fight career.

So I may have been wrong about it , but also remember the records from that era are incomplete . I am allowed one mistake to every 7 mistakes of yours , if it was a mistake at all.

Dempsey: Who were these big black men he avoided? Wills jumps to mind. But Johnson, Langford etc were too old. I dont doubt that there was some good talent out there, but fans weren't pushing for a match. Would you like to suggest anyone?

Bearcat Wright , Harry Wills .

Louis:.....the average heavyweight challenger between 1935 and 1950 was between 190 and 200Lbs.......just like Joe Louis. Some were a bit lower, some were quite a lot higher. He was average size for his day, not big! End of discussion!

Wrong measurement / calculation.

Patterson: Dont just boxrec his championship reign, Liston and Ali were the only two to outclass him in his entire career.

because he avoided the likes of Cleveland Williams , Zora Folley , when he was a champion :yep:.
And then also avoided Lyle , Doug Jones , Harlod Johnson , Mac Foster ,
Ken Norton and Joe Frazier . He chose much weaker opponents in Quarry and Ellis and lost to them as well as Ali (twice) and Liston (twice).
I guess Floyd Mayweather is called after him for his quacking ability :yep:.

He more than made up for The Johannson loss. You seem to forget the fights in which he did well against bigger guys like Chuvalo or Bonavena (when well past prime!).......and he was ahead I believe at the time of stoppage in 1972 against Ali. Ali praised him as the best boxer he ever fought!

I read it once , but didn't he say the same about Ellis , and it was before
he faced Norton , Young and Frazier wasn't it ?

Holmes: I thought I'd check this one. Boxrec has him being outweighed by 13 opponents of his prime (1978-85) title fights.

So he was better conditioned , in terms of lean mass , he was never far outscaled .

That makes him below average for weight as I originally said. Plus as he got older the flab level went up too! Or do you start counting height instead of weight when it works for your arguments?

Height counts even more , of course I count it.

Fulton / Wills: Again, you resort to the height issue when the weights dont appear very high in today's standard. Fulton would have been very spindly at 6ft 6 and a little over 200Lbs. How it would have hurt you to see Dempsey KO him in one! Will's 6ft 2 and again just over 200Lb was big for the day.......but not compared to the Behemoths of today that you rate so highly!

But he was (still) big for his day , which the argument is about.

I have read extensively about these guys, but there is so little film......and I am more the type of guy to judge a fighter on what I can see. Even in flicker film.

Sometimes there are stories behind the film which the film does not necessarily reveal , especially films from those days.

Langford/Jeanette: I rate these guys in historic terms. But you clearly put them right next to Fulton and Wills as names to please historians. The fact that you've put them in one block of your list speaks volumes!

Maybe I should have ranked them a little lower , I claimed my list was not perfect , and they did stop much bigger men.

I haven't got the time to reply to another huge post. All the peace in the world matey. Just continue enjoying the sport! I guess thats the main reason were both here.

Keep enjoying the sport , I also care about the extensive truth.

[frankenfrank]

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.

I will now have some improvements in it :
Ibeabuchi enters at #11 , Bowe swaps with Tucker , Puritty swaps with McCline , Fulton goes out , Shavers and Norton swapped , Povetkin enters at #66 , Greg Page enters at 36 and Orlin Norris goes up to 35 :



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

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

31. Donovan Ruddock
32. Frank Bruno
33. Tim Witherspoon
34. Gerrie Cooney
35. Orlin Norris
36. Greg Page
37. George Chuvalo
38. Oscar Bonavena
39. Ron Lyle
40. Jimmy Young


41. Jerry Quarry
42. Earnie Shavers
43. Ken Norton
44. Charles Liston
45. Sam Langford
46. Joe Jeannette
47. Harry Wills
48. Rocky Marciano
49. Jack Johnson
50. Jack Dempsey

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

61. Corey Sanders
62. Martin Rogan
63. Matt Skelton
64. Danny Williams
65. Jesse Fergusson
66. Ray Mercer
67. Alexander Povetkin
68. Eric Esch
69. Brian Nielsen
70. Audley Harisson


71. Mike Hunter
72. ****y Ryann
73. Michael Sprott
74. Jimmy Ellis
75. Floyd Patterson
76. Bert Cooper
77. Buster Mathis Jr.
78. Marvis Frazier

[Sugarj]

The only mistake I've made is to contradict myself on my own refusal to make another reply Frankenfrank. I have not got any facts wrong in any of my posts to you. I've not made any historic errors unlike yourself.

You've had a go at discrediting some examples i gave in respect of smaller guys beating larger guys but I did say the list was 'not exhaustive'. It was what it was.....a list of smaller heavyweights who beat larger heavyweights. Its easy to have a go at a generic list. If it was a list of big guys beating smaller challengers a decent historian or boxrec warrior (like yourself) could offer criticism.

As for Bugner.......do I need to repeat myself? His prime was 73.....not 82, nine years later! It doesn't matter that an older Earnie Shavers beat him. Hell Earnie peaked in 77....later than Bugner despite being older. Boxers primes can come and go irrespective of age. One damaging fight can render a fighter shot! The best Shavers is better than the best Bugner in the same light that the post prime Shavers was better than the post prime Bugner.

But the peak Bugner would beat many in your list. Its laughable that you would argue otherwise in the case of novice pro Martin Rogan.

Right! Dempsey's potential challengers: I listed Wills so why you listed him again I dont know. As for Wright.......I can honestly say in all my reading I've never come across him being listed as a potential challenger for Dempsey's title. I cant recall a fight even being suggested. in the early 20s a win over an ancient Langford or a post prime Fulton would have hardly ignited the public's interest!

Joe Louis: What do you mean wrong measurement/calculation? He was average in size and weight for his day. If you take all his challengers weights add them up and divide by what? 25 I've got a feeling that 190-200Lbs would be the rough average. Height too, I'd guess the average would work out at around 6ft-6ft 1. End of subject!

Floyd Patterson: Do you honestly think Zora Folley would beat Patterson? I dont....lucky punch aside! Cleveland Williams would have got a shot at Patterson if he had beaten Liston, he had two chances. We all know Floyd was carefully managed. I've got no argument with you there. You are wrong about him choosing Ellis and Quarry as easy touches. They were all in the elimination tournament for next champ......all these fights were very close, Floyd didn't choose them! Have you watched them? If old Patterson could do that well against prime Ellis/Quarry, just imagine what prime Patterson from 13 years previous would have done! Time to rethink your list there! Boxrec only tells results....not the full story. Lyle and Norton were pretty much novices before Floyd retired in 72!!! Also, Ali fought Frazier first time before fighting Patterson the second time. As for the Ali quote about Patterson, I'm pretty sure he maintained that after he retired. I'd argue Holmes was the best boxer Ali faced (but we all know Ali was clearly nowhere near 'right' and very post prime for that fight in 1980).

As for your argument about Fulton/Wills being big for their day. No that is not what the argument is about. You created this thread.....about head to head matchups/supremacy.

As for your quote about the stories behind the films......I've read the stories......I've watched the films. You're playing catchup with Boxrec!

[frankenfrank]

The only mistake I've made is to contradict myself on my own refusal to make another reply Frankenfrank. I have not got any facts wrong in any of my posts to you. I've not made any historic errors unlike yourself.

You've had a go at discrediting some examples i gave in respect of smaller guys beating larger guys but I did say the list was 'not exhaustive'. It was what it was.....a list of smaller heavyweights who beat larger heavyweights. Its easy to have a go at a generic list. If it was a list of big guys beating smaller challengers a decent historian or boxrec warrior (like yourself) could offer criticism.

As for Bugner.......do I need to repeat myself? His prime was 73.....not 82, nine years later! It doesn't matter that an older Earnie Shavers beat him. Hell Earnie peaked in 77....later than Bugner despite being older. Boxers primes can come and go irrespective of age. One damaging fight can render a fighter shot! The best Shavers is better than the best Bugner in the same light that the post prime Shavers was better than the post prime Bugner.

But the peak Bugner would beat many in your list. Its laughable that you would argue otherwise in the case of novice pro Martin Rogan.

Right! Dempsey's potential challengers: I listed Wills so why you listed him again I dont know. As for Wright.......I can honestly say in all my reading I've never come across him being listed as a potential challenger for Dempsey's title. I cant recall a fight even being suggested. in the early 20s a win over an ancient Langford or a post prime Fulton would have hardly ignited the public's interest!

Joe Louis: What do you mean wrong measurement/calculation? He was average in size and weight for his day. If you take all his challengers weights add them up and divide by what? 25 I've got a feeling that 190-200Lbs would be the rough average. Height too, I'd guess the average would work out at around 6ft-6ft 1. End of subject!

Floyd Patterson: Do you honestly think Zora Folley would beat Patterson? I dont....lucky punch aside! Cleveland Williams would have got a shot at Patterson if he had beaten Liston, he had two chances. We all know Floyd was carefully managed. I've got no argument with you there. You are wrong about him choosing Ellis and Quarry as easy touches. They were all in the elimination tournament for next champ......all these fights were very close, Floyd didn't choose them! Have you watched them? If old Patterson could do that well against prime Ellis/Quarry, just imagine what prime Patterson from 13 years previous would have done! Time to rethink your list there! Boxrec only tells results....not the full story. Lyle and Norton were pretty much novices before Floyd retired in 72!!! Also, Ali fought Frazier first time before fighting Patterson the second time. As for the Ali quote about Patterson, I'm pretty sure he maintained that after he retired. I'd argue Holmes was the best boxer Ali faced (but we all know Ali was clearly nowhere near 'right' and very post prime for that fight in 1980).

As for your argument about Fulton/Wills being big for their day. No that is not what the argument is about. You created this thread.....about head to head matchups/supremacy.

As for your quote about the stories behind the films......I've read the stories......I've watched the films. You're playing catchup with Boxrec!

Probably Patterson would have beaten Folley but he still avoided him.
Bugner was a fighter the caliber of Collin Wilson :yep: , maybe slightly better ,
A cannon fodder and he would not have made #80 in my list.
He merely went the distance against Ali in a losing effort , which probably was
his greatest (or second greatest) achievement , despite being 8 years younger and taller .. yet he lost the decision , and even smaller Shavers would have always destroyed him .
As for the rest of your post , you simply repeated your mistakes in your previous posts which I corrected one to one , but you ignored it because you don't like multiquoted text which is the way to deal with so many mistakes.