Who do you feel should be in your top-10 heavweight ever list?

[Capaedia]

As I thought I had explained.. All a fighter can do is fight the best opposition in his own era. Many people believe Muhammad Ali's era is much stronger than Joe Louis' era. Yet, there are many who put Joe ahead of Muhammad perhaps because they believe Joe would have done just as well if he fought in another time period.

I guess it's a matter of opinion. I suppose you could speculate that Marciano would've lost had he fought in another era. But, it never happened so we'll never know for sure. The Klits era is known to be an extremely weak one. Yet, as dominant as they are they have suffered defeats at one point or another. I'm sure everyone agrees Mike Tyson was far superior to Buster Douglas and yet, he did suffer defeat in his heavyweight dominance at one point. So, I think the fact that Marciano's record still stands 60 years later definitely means something regardless of someones opinion that his wasn't the strongest era.

According to the late great Don Dunphy the top 3 heavyweights ever were Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, and Muhammad Ali. And, I happen to agree with him. I don't think theres anything wrong with that. But, I must say that each in the top 10 could possibly beat the other on any given night. They were all very great fighters.

He almost did lose. To La Starza and Charles, I find it hard to believe he wouldn't have picked up losses in a stronger era. Joe Louis is often put ahead of Muhammad because of his longevity and his record for defending THE title of his weightclass 25 times. That record still stands, and not just for heavyweight.

He also did it against the best, as I said, every man to reach #1 contender for a full quarter of a century. Weak era or not, Marciano was still fighting complete stiffs, in his prime.

Who cares how many guys he ran through without losing, if only a few of them were actually worth the time of day?

[StarshipTrooper]

01. Muhammad Ali
02. Joe Louis
03. Jack Johnson
04. Jack Dempsey
05. Larry Holmes
06. Sonny Liston
07. Evander Holyfield
08. George Foreman
09. Rocky Marciano
10. Mike Tyson
11. Joe Frazier
12. Harry Wills
13. Lennox Lewis

PS. I've always had Holmes in my top-5. Never could understand why he was so maligned other than that he wasn't Ali and those are impossible shoes to fill.

Poet

[them_apples]

Joe Louis went 58-1 against much better opposition. What does an undefeated record mean in comparison with fighting every man to reach #1 contender for a full quarter of a century? (Missing only two, due to the war)

Or taking the scalps of Frazier, Liston and Foreman, as Ali did?

what better opposition did he fight?

[them_apples]

I rank Foreman much higher than most because he had 2 successful careers and fought some seriously good competition.

Anyone who can do away with Frazier the way he did, smash an iron chinned chuvalo and in his old age battle a prime evander holyfield and make it competative, has got to be an ATG.

GF also was one of the toughest men physically and mentally ever to grace the ring.

[Capaedia]

what better opposition did he fight?

Schmeling, Carnera, Sharkey, Max and Buddy Baer, Braddock, Farr, Conn.

Along with Marciano's two best wins in Walcott and Charles.

It's really not up for debate.

He made 25 straight defenses of the heavyweight title, when there was only one, and he did so against every man who earned a shot. His title reign lasted almost twice as long as Marciano's career

[Mintcar923]

He almost did lose. To La Starza and Charles, I find it hard to believe he wouldn't have picked up losses in a stronger era. Joe Louis is often put ahead of Muhammad because of his longevity and his record for defending THE title of his weightclass 25 times. That record still stands, and not just for heavyweight.

He also did it against the best, as I said, every man to reach #1 contender for a full quarter of a century. Weak era or not, Marciano was still fighting complete stiffs, in his prime.

Who cares how many guys he ran through without losing, if only a few of them were actually worth the time of day?

Almost doesn't count.. He always found a way to win. Louis almost lost to Walcott the first fight if not for the gift decision. Any great fighter can have an off night.

I just can't understand all the hate for Marciano. There was another post on here that didn't even have him in the top-8. That is completely obsurd and borderline insane! Mike Tyson, Muhammad Ali and others all rate Rocky extremely high. But we're not going to believe them. We're going to believe you that it was just luck he coasted to 49-0 by fighting a bunch of stiffs as heavyweight champ of the world. Tell me, what more Marciano should have done to convince you he was an all-time great? Who should've he beat?? How many more wins should he have obtained???

I don't see how the Louis' alleged bum-of-the-month club era was that much superior to Rocky's. It may have been a little bit better but not that much. Marciano would've KO'd the Louis "bums," too. Also, he'd have done in Schmeling, Conn, Baer etc. as well IMO.

[Capaedia]

Almost doesn't count.. He always found a way to win. Louis almost lost to Walcott the first fight if not for the gift decision. Any great fighter can have an off night.

That's what gives me no doubt that Marciano would've picked up losses in most other eras.

I just can't understand all the hate for Marciano. There was another post on here that didn't even have him in the top-10. That is completely obsurd and borderline insane! Mike Tyson, Muhammad Ali and others all rate Rocky extremely high. But we're not going to believe them. We're going to believe you that it was just luck he coasted to 49-0 by fighting a bunch of stiffs as heavyweight champ of the world.

*Ahem* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Have you ever seen Tommy Hearns' list of the best fighters ever? It's quite a laugh. Just because someone is a boxer, doesn't mean their opinion means more than anyone elses.

Also you're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about luck. What I did say was that he fought a lot of stiffs. There is nowhere near as much substance to those 49 wins, as there are to the records of Louis and Ali, even if they picked up losses.

Tell me, what more Marciano should have done to convince you he was an all-time great? Who should've he beat?? How many more wins should he have obtained???

I never said he wasn't an all time great. Your qualifying him for #1 heavyweight based on what he did in a very poor era, doesn't make sense.

Most of his wins don't mean ****, although he has some very good wins at the very end of his career. That's what fighters should be judged on, who they beat, and not how many. It isn't his fault that he didn't have great competition, but that doesn't mean that we should pretend he did.

I don't see how the Louis' alleged bum-of-the-month club era was that much superior to Rocky's. It may have been a little bit better but not that much. Marciano would've KO'd the Louis "bums," too. Also, he'd have done in Schmeling, Conn, Baer etc. as well IMO.

Firstly, the 'bum of the month' club is a ****** term. While he made them look like bums, these men were actually ranked contenders. The term was invented by a journalist, and unfortunately, it stuck.

You don't see how the best fighters from between 1935-1951, might be better than the best fighters from 1949-1954?

[Mintcar923]

That's what gives me no doubt that Marciano would've picked up losses in most other eras.



*Ahem* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Have you ever seen Tommy Hearns' list of the best fighters ever? It's quite a laugh. Just because someone is a boxer, doesn't mean their opinion means more than anyone elses.

Also you're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about luck. What I did say was that he fought a lot of stiffs. There is nowhere near as much substance to those 49 wins, as there are to the records of Louis and Ali, even if they picked up losses.



I never said he wasn't an all time great. Your qualifying him for #1 heavyweight based on what he did in a very poor era, doesn't make sense.

Most of his wins don't mean ****, although he has some very good wins at the very end of his career. That's what fighters should be judged on, who they beat, and not how many. It isn't his fault that he didn't have great competition, but that doesn't mean that we should pretend he did.



Firstly, the 'bum of the month' club is a ****** term. While he made them look like bums, these men were actually ranked contenders. The term was invented by a journalist, and unfortunately, it stuck.

You don't see how the best fighters from between 1935-1951, might be better than the best fighters from 1949-1954?

I love Tommy Hearns! Who is in Tommy's ATG list, anyway? Not only boxers have listed Rocky at the top of the food chain you know. It sure seemed as though you were knocking him in your earlier post and implying as though he only coasted to 49-0 because he was only fighting stiffs. Come on! It's been friggin almost 60 years!! You are saying it doesn't mean s**t? It isn't his fault that he didn't have the greatest competition ever, SO WHY FAULT HIM?

Jersey Joe Walcott was older but still formidable when he beat him. Ezzard Charles was a damn good fighter. Don ****ell was a very tough guy. So you're just assuming that the guys in the Louis' era would've beaten Rocky cause they were supposedly ranked higher due to someones opinion? You can speculate all you want. But, I really can't think of anyone in Joe's time that would have soundly defeated the Rock. Do you really think the Billy Conns or the Max Schmelings would have beaten him? I sure as hell don't. Long spans don't necessarily mean everything. How long were Liston and Bowe champs? Yet, some regard them as top-tier ATG's.

Furthermore, people believe the 80's were weak. The 2000's were supposed to be even weaker according to some. Now its supposedly even weaker than that. Nobody's been skillful or lucky enough to outdo Marciano's unbeaten record AT ANY TIME IN THE WHOLE HISTORY OF BOXING. The question is will a heavyweight ever come on the scene and surpass it? It sure doesn't look like it. Even in an era as pathetically weak as the one right now. The only man who's ever come close to beating it is Larry Holmes. And, you cannot ask for a much better fighter than Larry. Thats damn-well gotta mean something.

So what are you gonna say next? Well, its because Larry never fought no-one but an over-the-hill Muhammad Ali and a Norton who was well past it?? Tyson came somewhat close at 37-0. But, I suppose thats cause he never fought anyone that good in his prime, either. I rest my case...

[Capaedia]

I love Tommy Hearns! Who is in Tommy's ATG list, anyway?

1: Muhammad Ali

2: Joe Frazier

3: Thomas Hearns

4: Roberto Duran

5: Wilfred Benitez

6: Sugar Ray Leonard

7: Mike Tyson

8: Floyd Mayweather

9: George Foreman

10: Marvin Hagler

Not only boxers have listed Rocky at the top of the food chain you know. It sure seemed as though you were knocking him in your earlier post and implying as though he only coasted to 49-0 because he was only fighting stiffs. Come on! It's been friggin almost 60 years!! You are saying it doesn't mean s**t? It isn't his fault that he didn't have the greatest competition ever, SO WHY FAULT HIM?

It seems that way, because you're ranking him above Louis and Ali. He just doesn't belong there. In a forum dedicated to boxing history, you're the only one to have voted for him. You're pretty keen to appeal to authority and the majority opinion. Do you really think more people have him at the top than people have Ali?

You're getting emotional and misrepresenting what I'm saying, allow me to summarize what I'm actually saying.

Marciano is an ATG
Marciano is not top #5 at heavy
Marciano went 42-0 against very few good opponents, and then topped it off with 7 very good wins

I'm not faulting Marciano for not having great competition. You're doing the opposite.

He doesn't have as many good or great wins as Ali. He didn't have a long, dominant title run like Louis did. All he has that they don't, is an undefeated streak.

Jersey Joe Walcott was older but still formidable when he beat him. Ezzard Charles was a damn good fighter. Don ****ell was a very tough guy. So you're just assuming that the guys in the Louis' era would've beaten Rocky cause they were supposedly ranked higher due to someones opinion? You can speculate all you want. But, I really can't think of anyone in Joe's time that would have soundly defeated the Rock. Do you really think the Billy Conns or the Max Schmelings would have beaten him? I sure as hell don't. Long spans don't necessarily mean everything. How long were Liston and Bowe champs? Yet, some regard them as top-tier ATG's.

It doesn't matter that it was just 'someones opinion'. Louis beat so many more top ranked, and recognizable names, former champions e.t.c. that there is really no discussion that his opposition was better and more consistent. Even spread out over a longer period.

Also I've never heard of someone regarding Bowe as a top-tier ATG outside of Youtube. Liston is an anomaly in this regard because the best part of his career was actually BEFORE he got a shot at Patterson (which he only got because Patterson personally wanted it, Cus D'Amato wanted to keep him well away from Liston). The opposite is true for Marciano.

And yes. I think Conn would have outboxed Marciano, and I think Max Baer would have TKO'd him.

[quote]Furthermore, people believe the 80's were weak. The 2000's were supposed to be even weaker according to some. Now its supposedly even weaker than that. Nobody's been skillful or lucky enough to outdo Marciano's unbeaten record AT ANY TIME IN THE WHOLE HISTORY OF BOXING. The question is will a heavyweight ever come on the scene and surpass it? It sure doesn't look like it. Even in an era as pathetically weak as the one right now. The only man who's ever come close to beating it is Larry Holmes. And, you cannot ask for a much better fighter than Larry. Thats damn-well gotta mean something.[quote]

Sure. It means something. But not as much as you're implying.

So what are you gonna say next? Well, its because Larry never fought no-one but an over-the-hill Muhammad Ali and a Norton who was well past it?? Tyson came somewhat close at 37-0. But, I suppose thats cause he never fought anyone that good in his prime, either. I rest my case...

Cute, predicting what I was going to say to try and discredit me before I said it.

No, Larry had plenty of good names before losing to Spinks. Most people are aware of that...

[Sugarj]

That's happening with Lennox Lewis and I predict it will happen wih Wladimir Klitschko too.

Not as much for Wlad. With Larry, so many of his fights were entertaining, indeed artistic to watch, even his close run battles or losing efforts!!

Lennox was often criticised for being boring when he was fighting, but looking back, there were some very exciting nights..........Bruno, Ruddock, Golota, Grant, Briggs, Botha, Rahman 2 & Klitschko amongst many others.

But with poor Wlad, the only exciting fights I can think of are those that he lost or nearly lost......Brewster, Sanders and the close first affair with Sam Peter. He isn't the guy to build up a dvd collection of is he? I can't knock his effectiveness............he barely got hit to the head at the weekend and that is usually the case. The problem is, when Ali or Holmes were similarly outclassing foes.....it at least looked entertaining or artistic.