Why past fighters were greater and deserved to be ranked higher: heavyweight

[JAB5239]

Lot of controversy on these boards on who should be ranked higher between past and present greats. Got me to thinking and doing a bit of research. Mind you Im not trying to slam any fighter and only using the two examples I looked at to make this comparison.

Many on here would like us to believe fighters like Wlad or Lennox should be ranked higher than a Joe Louis or Ali. I disagree vehemently. Besides what I know about the actual fighters I've taken the time to look at their resumes and the biggest thing that stands out to me is how little todays comp has done after losing their title shots against their respective opponents. In Louis' era fighters kept fighting top fighters and kept themselves in the mix whether or not they were ever worthy of a title shot again or not. Today challengers seem to be one and done after they lose their title shot and are seldom facing other top fighters. In my opinion this should go towards the greatness of a fighters resume.

People like to throw around the phrase "bum of the month club". Have we actually taken the time to look at the resumes of many of todays top fighters and how their comp came into prominence? When ranking fighters Im of the opinion resume counts more than any fantasy aspect. Now I vdon't know if it holds true for all past fighters or even the top fighters today, but from what I've seen yesteryears fighters have more than earned their place while todays fighters are just (pardon the expression) the flavor of the month. Opinions welcome but please keep it civilized.

[Greatest1942]

Lot of controversy on these boards on who should be ranked higher between past and present greats. Got me to thinking and doing a bit of research. Mind you Im not trying to slam any fighter and only using the two examples I looked at to make this comparison.

Many on here would like us to believe fighters like Wlad or Lennox should be ranked higher than a Joe Louis or Ali. I disagree vehemently. Besides what I know about the actual fighters I've taken the time to look at their resumes and the biggest thing that stands out to me is how little todays comp has done after losing their title shots against their respective opponents. In Louis' era fighters kept fighting top fighters and kept themselves in the mix whether or not they were ever worthy of a title shot again or not. Today challengers seem to be one and done after they lose their title shot and are seldom facing other top fighters. In my opinion this should go towards the greatness of a fighters resume.

People like to throw around the phrase "bum of the month club". Have we actually taken the time to look at the resumes of many of todays top fighters and how their comp came into prominence? When ranking fighters Im of the opinion resume counts more than any fantasy aspect. Now I vdon't know if it holds true for all past fighters or even the top fighters today, but from what I've seen yesteryears fighters have more than earned their place while todays fighters are just (pardon the expression) the flavor of the month. Opinions welcome but please keep it civilized.

I agree 100% with what you say...Louis,Dempsey,SRR were greats who actually fought a lot, didnt duck anyone and were not protected like extinct species like today. And although it does not suit me to say it, it doesnt matter what some delusional, illread people think about them for the people in the know, actually are quite aware how good they were.

Boxing is a sport which has gone down, a real exception from other sports. IN man vs man sports where experience counts for everything it does matter if you get more fights or not. Todays fighters fight too less. Mayweather is obessed with having a clean record but he will never have the achievments nor the depth of resume of a SRR.

And the trainers. Todays fighters are better nourished and yes are bigger but are they better? How many great trainers are there? Louis was trained by Jack Blackburn a great lightweight, who trains todays turks? Dont believe this can make a difference ?

A 190-210 man can generate enough force to knock out any man. Look at George Foreman dropped by Young,Ali,Lyle how many times he went down against todays heavies. Today bigger means better, just being bigger will help you be Strong but not a better puncher. Louis,Dempsey while being 190-210 knew how to punch, boxed enough to have good ring experience and were strong enough to knock out any big heavy today. They routinely knocked out guys 40 -50 pounds heavier.

Just look at Ali who had a great body, would he have been better had he 20 more pounds of muscle and be upto 235? You should carry as much weight as your bone structure permits...IF more fighters struck to their actual weights boxing would be better off.

There is no substitute for actual fighting in the ring with varied type of boxers, facing adversary and overcoming it or learning enough to overcome it next time. And there is nothing like failure to steel you up , to wake you up and slap your fallacies on your face. Today these are sadly lacking as is the total quality, popularity(comparing to pre 50's). You become a better boxer by fighting a lot and fighting often and being trained by competent people in the nuances of fighting(Punching,blocking parrying btw parrying is extinct today no heavy knows how to use it) and overcoming your fallacies. They were greats because they met varied adversaries and overcame them

[JAB5239]

I agree 100% with what you say...Louis,Dempsey,SRR were greats who actually fought a lot, didnt duck anyone and were not protected like extinct species like today. And although it does not suit me to say it, it doesnt matter what some delusional, illread people think about them for the people in the know, actually are quite aware how good they were.

Boxing is a sport which has gone down, a real exception from other sports. IN man vs man sports where experience counts for everything it does matter if you get more fights or not. Todays fighters fight too less. Mayweather is obessed with having a clean record but he will never have the achievments nor the depth of resume of a SRR.

And the trainers. Todays fighters are better nourished and yes are bigger but are they better? How many great trainers are there? Louis was trained by Jack Blackburn a great lightweight, who trains todays turks? Dont believe this can make a difference ?

A 190-210 man can generate enough force to knock out any man. Look at George Foreman dropped by Young,Ali,Lyle how many times he went down against todays heavies. Today bigger means better, just being bigger will help you be Strong but not a better puncher. Louis,Dempsey while being 190-210 knew how to punch, boxed enough to have good ring experience and were strong enough to knock out any big heavy today. They routinely knocked out guys 40 -50 pounds heavier.

Just look at Ali who had a great body, would he have been better had he 20 more pounds of muscle and be upto 235? You should carry as much weight as your bone structure permits...IF more fighters struck to their actual weights boxing would be better off.

There is no substitute for actual fighting in the ring with varied type of boxers, facing adversary and overcoming it or learning enough to overcome it next time. And there is nothing like failure to steel you up , to wake you up and slap your fallacies on your face. Today these are sadly lacking as is the total quality, popularity(comparing to pre 50's). You become a better boxer by fighting a lot and fighting often and being trained by competent people in the nuances of fighting(Punching,blocking parrying btw parrying is extinct today no heavy knows how to use it) and overcoming your fallacies. They were greats because they met varied adversaries and overcame them

And I also agree with you. But Im not talking h2h fights, but strictly resume where greatness can be argued factually. what do we hold in higher regard, fighter who came back and fought themselves back into the top ten against other ranked fighters or guys who lost and pretty much just fought pretenders and journeyman there after? I know which one makes for a better resume in my humble opinion.

Mind you I am not trying to single out any particular fighter as Im sure you can do this with many fighters from the past. It just stands to reason in my way of thinking.

[sonnyboyx2]

with todays modern technology it is simple for a fighter to watch all the fights of opponents before choosing wether to fight him or not, his trainer can study the fights and set-up a plan to disect his fighters opponents yet back in the 1920s-60s such a thing was not possible so fighters had to do it in the actual fight and the very best like SRR & Joe Louis would face various different styles yet have the ability to adapt in the ring and be successful against all comers.. Also todays champions do not have to defend their titles against the No1 contender within 90 days or be stripped of the title yet this was always the case right upto the mid 1990s.. David Haye should be forced to fight Wlad Klitschko, Floyd Mayweather forced to fight Manny Pacquiao or they should be stripped of all titles and demoted from the world ratings, i strongly feel that it is killing the sport that fighters can avoid fighting the best yet profess to be thee best.

[Boogie Nights]

Lot of controversy on these boards on who should be ranked higher between past and present greats. Got me to thinking and doing a bit of research. Mind you Im not trying to slam any fighter and only using the two examples I looked at to make this comparison.

Many on here would like us to believe fighters like Wlad or Lennox should be ranked higher than a Joe Louis or Ali. I disagree vehemently. Besides what I know about the actual fighters I've taken the time to look at their resumes and the biggest thing that stands out to me is how little todays comp has done after losing their title shots against their respective opponents. In Louis' era fighters kept fighting top fighters and kept themselves in the mix whether or not they were ever worthy of a title shot again or not. Today challengers seem to be one and done after they lose their title shot and are seldom facing other top fighters. In my opinion this should go towards the greatness of a fighters resume.

People like to throw around the phrase "bum of the month club". Have we actually taken the time to look at the resumes of many of todays top fighters and how their comp came into prominence? When ranking fighters Im of the opinion resume counts more than any fantasy aspect. Now I vdon't know if it holds true for all past fighters or even the top fighters today, but from what I've seen yesteryears fighters have more than earned their place while todays fighters are just (pardon the expression) the flavor of the month. Opinions welcome but please keep it civilized.

with the exception of maybe 2-3 posters here who are certified trolls, i dont know of any sane, educated boxing fan who supports facts claim that Klitschko, Lewis should be rated higher than Louis or Ali. If in fact that's the case, you're simply focusing your attention on the kind of fans you really shouldnt be wasting your time on, because their mind is already made up, which is fine because everyone is entitled to their opinion.

The problem is there seems to be lack of a healthy balance when it comes to rankings. You, as well as other posters, have slammed Klitschko brothers numerous times, and you may use an excuse that you were simply responding in kind to the 'trolls', but as ive mentioned before posters like that dont deserve the attention in the first place for you to entertain a biased opinion just for the sake of pissing them off.

Thing is, every fighter in every era has fought 'bums'. In fact when you really think it through, out of all the heavyweight champions, the names with the strongest resumes are ali and holyfield.

Ive written a whole summary about Jack Johnson on another website about his competition, (which after you break it down was nothing special, but Jack is special because he's Jack, and godforbid if anyone argues that) Dempsey captured the imagination of so many fans with his savagery that no one really looks in close into his resume, or his title reign. Out of Marciano's 49-0 there were probably 10 solid names, and the few heads on his record (Louis, Walcott, Charles) that elevated him to the ATG status were fighters who were not only old, but shot. Id pick pretty much anyone on the ATG top 10 lists to go undefeated through Rocky's resume. Holmes' competition was all right but again there's nothing awe about it, not to mention that he got a few close fights that could have been considered gifts, later in his career pre spinks.

Point being, you can criticise Klitschkos for their competition, but in truth there's very few, not really anyone, who measures up to ali, or holy in terms of solid competition. As for Louis, he comes in second after Ali on the rankings, which is fair, but his competiton was not the greatest. His years in the office, and the numbers of scalps on his belt are the things that make him deserving of his spot.

[Toney616]

Also todays champions do not have to defend their titles against the No1 contender within 90 days

I thought it was always every 12 months, when did it change?

[sonnyboyx2]

I thought it was always every 12 months, when did it change?

it changed in the mid 1990s before that a champion had to defend his title against the No1 contender within 90 days, now a fighter can defend against anyone he wishes and being No1 contender is fairly meaningless. today's champions choose their own opponents.. an example is Alan Minter HAD to defend against Marvin Hagler in 1980, Rid**** Bowe HAD to defend against Lennox Lewis in 1992

[bojangles1987]

Great points. It is a little pointless to match fighters head to head and determine who is greater that way, you rank them all time based on who they fought and how they did. With the advantages fighters have today that guys back then didn't, it's not fair to past fighters. So look at all the great fighters that because of the way the sport was run and structured back then had to constantly fight each other, an always earn their spots.

[VibesMan]

You'd get no argument from me that the talent pool was far deeper in eras gone by. Also that a willingness to fight each other was far greater.

I think one thing you fail to point out is the impact of money and marketing in todays game.

Keeping the "0" in the loss column equates not just to legacy but also earning ability in todays game. With that pressure, and remembering how tough
the game is, fighters are less likely to put in on the line and risk future earnings.

Hence Haye fights A Farce, Floyd fights JMM and so on and so on.

None of this is good for the fans but its how it works for many top names. Their careers builds up to one mega fight rather than it being the norm.

I honestly believe that the genuinely elite fighters of the modern era (80's onwards) at worst hold their own in bygone eras. I also beliveve that there are some size based advantage when coupled with skills. Whilst I'd always favour a Louis or a Dempsey with Lewis/Klit I wouldn't be betting the house on it.

Only my thoughts of course.

[Tyson.]

The 60/70s and 90s were the best eras for heavyweights. All other eras were terrible in comparison.

Ali, Foreman and Tyson are the greatest heavyweights of all time by far. Then you have the likes of Liston and Frazier. Liston, Frazier and Foreman were all ruined by Ali, this doesnt get acknowledged when people rank them.

Joe Louis did great for his era, but the greats from the 60/70s and 90s are better fighters. I cant see Joe Louis being that great in those eras but the greats from the 60/70s and 90s would all dominate his era with greater ease then he did.

If were rating fighters based on greatness due to dominance of their era. Surely that means Wlad is a top 10 heavyweight? I dont think hes top 10 because he wouldnt fare so well in a better era. We can hold that against Wlad but not Louis. Seems to be double standards for me.