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

[Omega-Red]

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.

The man defended his title against 5 men then retired, and you're wondering why some people think it's absurd to rank him above Louis who reigned for 12 years and defended his title 25 times? Ali is considered great because of WHO he beat, Louis because of how long he dominated. If you are going to give Marciano THAT much credit just for being undefeated, then Calzaghe and Ottke ought to be considered for spots over Hopkins and Pacquiao.

You can be a candidate for number 1 because of quantity (Louis) or because of Quality (Ali) but not simply because you were undefeated without having either of those things.

Take a look at these comparative stats posted by HHascup about the quality of Marciano's competition.



Ali fought 37 out of 61 opponents while they were in the top 10. He beat 32 of them 52.459%

Louis fought 35 out of 71 opponents while they were rated in the top 10. He beat 32 of them 45.07%

Rocky fought 11 out of 49 opponents while they were rated in the top 10. He beat all 11 of them 22.44898%

[NChristo]

Its great to see recognition for Larry, I voted Ali though.

20 years or so ago, we wouldn't have seen as many votes for Larry. Only now in retirement is he really being appreciated.

Yeah it's good too see him getting recognition, but ranking him over Ali ?.

[Sugarj]

Yeah it's good too see him getting recognition, but ranking him over Ali ?.

No, I ranked Ali number 1.

Larry Holmes often falls to my number two spot, Louis really has an equal shot there too. But to be honest, on Larry's A-game I could see him beating every other heavyweight the planet has seen. Granted, peak Tyson, Foreman, Bowe, Liston or Frazier would be ridiculously tough fights for him though.

On 'Champions Forever' Larry thought that his toughest match would have been Jack Johnson.

[NChristo]

No, I ranked Ali number 1.

Larry Holmes often falls to my number two spot, Louis really has an equal shot there too. But to be honest, on Larry's A-game I could see him beating every other heavyweight the planet has seen. Granted, peak Tyson, Foreman, Bowe, Liston or Frazier would be ridiculously tough fights for him though.

On 'Champions Forever' Larry thought that his toughest match would have been Jack Johnson.

You rank on head to head ability rather then resume ?.

He's top 10 regardless but I find that his resume isn't strong enough too rank him ahead of Louis or Ali and ranking head to head simply isn't enough in my opinion since it all comes down too 'fantasy fights' which isn't anything solid to be ranking on, resume always comes first.

[Sugarj]

You rank on head to head ability rather then resume ?.

He's top 10 regardless but I find that his resume isn't strong enough too rank him ahead of Louis or Ali and ranking head to head simply isn't enough in my opinion since it all comes down too 'fantasy fights' which isn't anything solid to be ranking on, resume always comes first.

Larry's resume isn't as good as Ali's or Louis's. But after that he has as good an argument as any. Lennox Lewis and Evander Holyfield have pretty good resumes....probably his next best on paper rivals. Johnson fought some excellent guys outside his title reign, but when you look at the title reigns/resumes of the likes of Dempsey, Marciano, Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Tyson, Bowe or either Klitschko.....it doesn't look too shabby.

Larry's title reign/resume, plus excellent performances in the losing fights when post prime to the likes of Holyfield do stand him in pretty good stead for a top 5 spot.

But yes, I do like to judge a boxers ability for myself. I've watched 000s of hours of Larry and am very impressed with his abilities. He seemed to have it all, excellent jab, speed, combinations, grace, defense, movement, chin, heart and distance stamina.

The late 80s get a bad press for being a weak heavyweight era. But I'd venture that the versions of Shavers, Weaver, Witherspoon, Bonecrusher Smith and Williams that showed up for title fights with Holmes might have been damned useful in other eras. Inconsistent as hell! But to my eyes on their title challenging nights quite a handful......

[Scott9945]

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.

You may have misunderstood my point. I wasn't referring to popularity as much as I was their reputation as a heavyweight champion. Holmes was somewhat underrated (and he sure cried about it plenty) and Lennox was scorned in the US as a weak chinned fraud. Oddly enough, it wasn't until he beat Tyson that Lewis started getting respect.

After his career has been over for a few years (and fans see who replaces him) Wladimir will be recognized for never ducking anyone and hardly losing a round for the last nine years. I'm convinced it will look much better in retrospect than it does now.

[Mintcar923]

[QUOTE=Capaedia;12323284]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



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.



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.

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



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...

I can't believe Tommy left out a lot of big names in the history of the sport. But, I guess thats is opinion and he's entitled to it. As I spoke of in another post the late great Don Dunphy who is recognized as the legendary "voice" of boxing had a very similar viewpoint to me regarding the top 3 heavys ever. He rated Ali, Louis, and Marciano at the very top. I also recall him saying that each of the three could probably beat the other on any given night. He called the sport for what was it, 50+ years. Did he not know what he was talking about??

I'm sorry but I just do not see how Marciano had the weakest era and thats why he was able to set the record that he did. Granted, Ali did have the strongest era. I think the problem here is that we have two different viewpoints on the situation. I look it as as though Marciano was clearly the most dominant of his time, cleaned out the division, then retired before he got old and shot. It was a damn near perfect career and he could not have achieved more given his opportunities. I respectfully disagree with you when it comes to if Rocky fought in the Louis era. I really do believe in my heart that even if he fought in the that time he'd have been destined to be the only undefeated heavyweight champion in history.

Although I understand Larry Holmes was a great fighter due to his talent and longevity.. I never really thought his era as champ was nearly as strong as an Ali's. So I'm curious now, you seem quick to knock Marciano but what names on Holmes record were so good? After all, he made it to 48-0 but does he deserve the accolades for doing so?

[jackson8]

Joe Louis had it all, he is the definition of what a great champion should be.

[Capaedia]

I can't believe Tommy left out a lot of big names in the history of the sport. But, I guess thats is opinion and he's entitled to it. As I spoke of in another post the late great Don Dunphy who is recognized as the legendary "voice" of boxing had a very similar viewpoint to me regarding the top 3 heavys ever. He rated Ali, Louis, and Marciano at the very top. I also recall him saying that each of the three could probably beat the other on any given night. He called the sport for what was it, 50+ years. Did he not know what he was talking about??

What I'm saying is that you're skewing it with individual opinions. For every individual that you name, I could name another that says differently.

Here's the article where I got my opinion. It is worth a read as are most Monte Cox articles

I'm sorry but I just do not see how Marciano had the weakest era and thats why he was able to set the record that he did. Granted, Ali did have the strongest era. I think the problem here is that we have two different viewpoints on the situation. I look it as as though Marciano was clearly the most dominant of his time, cleaned out the division, then retired before he got old and shot. It was a damn near perfect career and he could not have achieved more given his opportunities. I respectfully disagree with you when it comes to if Rocky fought in the Louis era. I really do believe in my heart that even if he fought in the that time he'd have been destined to be the only undefeated heavyweight champion in history.

Going to just respect your opinion there

Although I understand Larry Holmes was a great fighter due to his talent and longevity.. I never really thought his era as champ was nearly as strong as an Ali's. So I'm curious now, you seem quick to knock Marciano but what names on Holmes record were so good? After all, he made it to 48-0 but does he deserve the accolades for doing so?

His career didn't end when he got beaten by Michael Spinks. Had it ended then, he would be rated below Marciano.

He does have Shavers, Norton, Berbick, Snipes, Cooney, Witherspoon, Marvis Frazier, Bonecrusher Smith and Williams prior to losing though, all good contenders. But obviously none as good as wins over Moore, Charles and Walcott.

It doesn't make much difference anyway, I do not care much about losses and undefeated streaks when ranking fighters.

[Sugarj]

You may have misunderstood my point. I wasn't referring to popularity as much as I was their reputation as a heavyweight champion. Holmes was somewhat underrated (and he sure cried about it plenty) and Lennox was scorned in the US as a weak chinned fraud. Oddly enough, it wasn't until he beat Tyson that Lewis started getting respect.

After his career has been over for a few years (and fans see who replaces him) Wladimir will be recognized for never ducking anyone and hardly losing a round for the last nine years. I'm convinced it will look much better in retrospect than it does now.

Maybe Wlad's reign will look better decades from now. I'd agree with you, he hasn't lost many rounds in 9 years (perhaps just a couple to Haye).

Its just that the more celebrated greats had a legacy of great fights. I can't see my grandchildren sitting down watching Wlad title defenses in years to come......and I fear that might hurt his legacy a bit.