Most dominant!

[habZ]

rocky didnt lose a match....

[fistlegend]

yes, but how long did his reign last for not too long

[salsanchezfan]

Though I'm a big fan of Rocky's, I wouldn't pick him. Whenever you hear someone talk about him and his career, it's alsways in terms of how he overcame this injury (the split nose against Charles, for example), or "refused to accept defeat" (when he was behind on points vs, Walcott). That does not exactly speak to a truly dominant fighter. That's the description of a guy who overcame obstacles and persevered, and ended up with his hand raised at the end.

I'm not trying to say Rocky wasn't great, of course he was, and he fought anyone around available to him. He didn't HAVE to fight Lastarza a second time, for example. He could've got around it. His record is certainly impressive, and he deserves a lot of credit. But there's no way he had the air of absolute domination Louis had. He just came too close to defeat too many times for that to be possible.

[butterfly1964]

i gotta say tyson cause no one was even near to him in his prime. he hardly ever got hit and his combos and defense were suberb.he completly dominated the hw division. he did it so bad alot of ppl didnt wanna get the ppv's cause they were afraid it was a waste of money cause tyson knocked his opponents out so quickly.there wernt really ne writers for the douglas fight cause they thought it was jus going to be a quick knockout. and ppl actually thought he was invincible

um, ali in his prime hardly got hit either.

[butterfly1964]

everyone says louis, but if ali's title had not been stripped in 1967, he would have held the title longer and had more title defenses.

[Verstyle]

um, ali in his prime hardly got hit either.

quit quoting what i said kid. your starting to annoy the **** outta me. i havnt ever given u any bad karma but im startin to think i should cause u look for what i said. i probably know more about boxin then u do.and when tyson fought in his early days they always said his chin hasnt been test. hmmmmm i wonder why cause his defense was superb. and if im not mistaken ali got knocked down early in his career.

[+= El Jefe=+]

the guy who never lost Rocky Marciano,
mike tyson also dominated everyone he faced for a while

[butterfly1964]

quit quoting what i said kid. your starting to annoy the **** outta me. i havnt ever given u any bad karma but im startin to think i should cause u look for what i said. i probably know more about boxin then u do.and when tyson fought in his early days they always said his chin hasnt been test. hmmmmm i wonder why cause his defense was superb. and if im not mistaken ali got knocked down early in his career.

but in ali's prime, he never was even close to getting knocked down. his haed movement was just too fast. maybe tyson's was too but if you say tyson was because of that then you have to come up with more proof than that because ali was lightning fast also.

p.s.
i already have bad karma so one more isn't gonna make a difference.

[VERSION1 (V1)]

Although I have Ali as the best heavy ever, Louis dominated the division like no one before or since.

could not have said it better

[butterfly1964]

i would have to say muhammad ali. people would say joe louis because of his impressive record, but many people are overlooking one fact here. ali was stripped of his title when he was in prime condition for boxing. we never got to see an ali from 1967-70. he would have blazed a trail in boxing that the world has never seen. i believe there was nobody that had a chance of beating ali during that period. and the way i see it, ali lost some of his speed he would never get back. that was his most important asset. because of this he lost to frazier and norton in the 70s. so the way i see it, ali, if not for the layoff, would have had the title from 1964 to 1978! that is fourteen years, two more, or in some cases three more than joe louis. also during 1966, he had 5 fights. who's to say that he could not have continued this pace throughout his lost prime years! in '67 he had two, one in feb. and one in march. that leaves 9 more months. had the title not have been stripped, oscar "ringo" bonavena would have been his next victim in probably may or june. that still leaves six months for a possible two fights in that year which makes up five fights in 1967. so, lets add this up. 5 years (1966-70, his prime years) times 5 fights is 25 plus the 10 that he had in 75-77, plus more that he would have had in 71-74, (probably an average of three equals 12). not to mention that his speed would not allow him to lose to leon spinks in 1978 lol! plus the two he had in 1965. he probably would have retired after the spinks fight.

1965 = 2 defenses
1966 = 5 defenses
1967 = 5 defenses
1968 = 5 defenses
1969 = 5 defenses
1970 = 5 defenses
1971 = 3 defenses
1972 = 3 defenses
1973 = 3 defenses
1974 = 3 defenses
1975 = 4 defenses
1976 = 4 defenses
1977 = 2 defenses
1978 = 1 defense
2+5+5+5+5+5+3+3+3+3+4+4+2+1=50 title defenses!
+ the 20 fights prior = a 70-0-0 record, 14 years as champion (1964-1978) in a 18 year career (1960-1978), and 50 title defenses, all records!

So, basically if you subtract the u.s. government stripping his title, you have, unarguably the undefeated and undisputed greatest of all times, and the most dominant, not louis.