Rate These Heavyweights In Order Of Greatness.....

[JAB5239]

Giving a guy positive points for a clear loss it just sad. The SD was not deserved. As for Quarry, he was past it. How that's impressive is baffling. Definitely not remotely better than actually beating Paulino Uzcudun (x2), Young Stribling, and Steve *****. How dare you sir.

Not sure what fight you're referring to with the undeserved SD. Uzcudun was 34 and 35 and in the last 2 out of 3 fights of his career. Do you really want to talk "past it"? ***** is a decent win but Stribling was primarily a lightheavy who had few significant wins at heavyweight. My point is it is a whole lot more impressive (imo) to have a win a 3 losses that could have gone the other way against two top 5 fighters all time, than a win over a top 5 fighter and to have been annihilated in the rematch. If you think Max belongs ahead of Ken thats cool. I can respect your opinion without agreeing with it.

[RimmyDelicious]

Joe Frazier
Lennox Lewis
Harry Willis
Max Schmeling
Peter Jackson
Jim Jeffries
Ken Norton
Floyd Patterson

Lewis
Jeffries
Frazier
Wills
Jackson
Norton
Schmeling
Patterson

[Obama]

Not sure what fight you're referring to with the undeserved SD. Uzcudun was 34 and 35 and in the last 2 out of 3 fights of his career. Do you really want to talk "past it"? ***** is a decent win but Stribling was primarily a lightheavy who had few significant wins at heavyweight. My point is it is a whole lot more impressive (imo) to have a win a 3 losses that could have gone the other way against two top 5 fighters all time, than a win over a top 5 fighter and to have been annihilated in the rematch. If you think Max belongs ahead of Ken thats cool. I can respect your opinion without agreeing with it.

It's not just my opinion. No historian has Norton over Schmeling. And did you not notice the (x2) next to Uzcudun? He also beat him in 1929, two years before Paulino beat Max Baer. Not to mention the man retired near the top of his game while Quarry clearly did not. And Stribling achieved a #1 rating at HW in 1928 and a #2 rating in 1930. Schmeling was Stribling's first fight in 1931. The division wasn't exactly weak at this time either.

O yea, the undeserved SD was in reference to Holmes / Norton. Norton clearly lost. It'd make more sense to say Doug Jones beat Cassius Clay.

But as for your argument you're ultimately ignoring where each fighter was in his career. Ali was far from his prime and flat out over the hill in his last fight with Norton. Norton was prime for the whole damn series. Joe Louis was **** in his prime when he destroyed Schmeling while Schmeling was far from his. And if you want to claim Schmeling beat Louis before his prime, you can argue Schmeling was already past his at that point as well. Hell if you're going to call Uzcudun past it when Schemling beat him the last time than Schemling must have been too. Each guy was 12 years into their career.

BUT for whatever reason if you insist on over rating Norton's best wins, his resume just doesn't have depth. Schmeling's does. You can't name 12 respectable guys Norton beat. I can with Schemling tho:

Gipsy Daniels
Joe Sekyra
Johnny Risko
Paulino Uzcudun (x2)
Jack Sharkey
Young Stribling
Mickey Walker
Walter Neusel
Steve *****
Joe Louis
Ben Foord
Steve Dudas

4 hall of famers there. Ken Norton has 1. And without that one no one would even be talking about Ken Norton today. He'd just be another pretty good fighter with a glass jaw.

[Spartacus Sully]

Joe Frazier
Lennox Lewis
Harry Willis
Max Schmeling
Peter Jackson
Jim Jeffries
Ken Norton
Floyd Patterson

Jim Jeffries
Peter Jackson
Harry Willis
Joe Fraizer
Max Schmeling
Lennox Lewis
Floyd Patterson
Ken Norton

[sonnyboyx2]

Joe Frazier
Lennox Lewis
Harry Willis
Max Schmeling
Peter Jackson
Jim Jeffries
Ken Norton
Floyd Patterson

some very strange responses so far in response to the topic question ` in terms of greatness`

1/. Frazier - Won Fight of the Century, took part in the greatest Heavyweight trilogy of all times which included "The Thrilla in Manilla" dominant champion from 1967-72 winning `Fighter of the Year` twice and taking part in `Fight of the Year` 4 times.

2/. Patterson - Formerly youngest ever Heavyweight Champion and dominant between 1956-62 voted `Fighter of the Year` in 1960 took part in 2 `Fights of the Year`..described by Muhammad Ali as "The best boxer i ever fought".. Patterson fought everyone losing several controversial decisions.. exceptional fighter!

3/. Jeffries - Exceptional fighter who only engaged in 21 pro fights yet was undisputed Heavyweight Champion beating the very best opposition in the World, knocking out Jackson, Corbett (twice), Sharkey, Ruhlin & Fitzsimmons.. A tremendous physical speciman who broke the ribs of 3 world title opponents... Sam Langford the great light-heavyweight fighter, advertised in newspapers his willingness to fight any man in the world, except Jim Jeffries.

The next 5 boxers was never dominant or ruled the division beating the top contenders like the above 3 champions nor was they considered "Fighter of the Year or took part in Fight of the Year due to their style of fighting and reluctance to face the best.

4/. Lewis
5/. Norton
6/. Wills
7/. Jackson
8/. Schmeling

[JAB5239]

It's not just my opinion. No historian has Norton over Schmeling. And did you not notice the (x2) next to Uzcudun? He also beat him in 1929, two years before Paulino beat Max Baer. Not to mention the man retired near the top of his game while Quarry clearly did not. And Stribling achieved a #1 rating at HW in 1928 and a #2 rating in 1930. Schmeling was Stribling's first fight in 1931. The division wasn't exactly weak at this time either.

O yea, the undeserved SD was in reference to Holmes / Norton. Norton clearly lost. It'd make more sense to say Doug Jones beat Cassius Clay.

But as for your argument you're ultimately ignoring where each fighter was in his career. Ali was far from his prime and flat out over the hill in his last fight with Norton. Norton was prime for the whole damn series. Joe Louis was **** in his prime when he destroyed Schmeling while Schmeling was far from his. And if you want to claim Schmeling beat Louis before his prime, you can argue Schmeling was already past his at that point as well. Hell if you're going to call Uzcudun past it when Schemling beat him the last time than Schemling must have been too. Each guy was 12 years into their career.

BUT for whatever reason if you insist on over rating Norton's best wins, his resume just doesn't have depth. Schmeling's does. You can't name 12 respectable guys Norton beat. I can with Schemling tho:

Gipsy Daniels
Joe Sekyra
Johnny Risko
Paulino Uzcudun (x2)
Jack Sharkey
Young Stribling
Mickey Walker
Walter Neusel
Steve *****
Joe Louis
Ben Foord
Steve Dudas

4 hall of famers there. Ken Norton has 1. And without that one no one would even be talking about Ken Norton today. He'd just be another pretty good fighter with a glass jaw.

I have to concede you make very good points. But remember, this is MY opinion. Losses or not, I put more stock into the 3 Ali fights and the one with Holmes (a fight that could have gone either way) than a win over a green Joe Louis and the rest of the names you've provided. While Ali may not have been at his best, he was better than a young Louis or any other fighter on Max resume. Same for Holmes. That is why I slightly rate him ahead of Schmeling. Now if Schmeling had even been competitive with Louis in the rematch I might have a different opinion, but that didn't happen. You will undoubtedly say this was an old Schmeling who was past his best, and you would be right that he was near the close of his career. But in the recent months before the Louis rematch he just comfortably defeated two of the men (Foord and Dudas) who you have used to strengthen his resume. In my mind you can't be shot and still defeating top fighters, which leads me to believe the first Louis fight was an aberration because Louis was young, ****y and didn't train the first time around.