Comments Thread For: The Top 25 Heavyweights of All-Time – Top Ten

[crold1]

Worst, most uninformed post ever about heavyweights.

I laughed assuming it couldn't actually be serious.

[Pirao]

I keep reading all this negative feedback about EVANDER HOLYFIELD and I don't like it! He is arguably the TOUGHEST HEAVYWEIGHT OF ALL-TIME. That tells me you guys don't REALLY KNOW boxing, you just think you know. He lost the first fight against LEWIS but by that time, he was 36 and if LEWIS was as GOOD as you make him, he should have stopped the OLD MAN. In the rematch, he was cheated and the judges made up for the first meeting. He CLEARLY won the second encounter. ALL OF HIS LOSSES with the exception of the first BOWE fight, happened when he had nothing left. How many REAL LOSSES DID HE HAVE IS HOW YOU RANK HIM AND EVERYONE ELSE ON THIS LIST. FOREMAN couldn't beat him, HOLMES couldn't beat him, LEWIS couldn't beat him, LOUIS couldn't beat him!!!!! Think about that before you start talking like you know boxing because you clearly don't. Only ALI should be ranked higher than him. He was a MACHINE and a RARE BREED IDIOTS! GET IT RIGHT! For the record, I'm not so sure ALI would have beaten him either. It would have been anyone's fight. He was just as GOOD and in my opinion better because you didn't have to tell him to throw combinations or body shots. How many body punches did ALI throw his entire career? ALI was also a SUCKER for the left hook and we all know HOLYFIELD was the best HOOKING HEAVYWEIGHT as well. I'm done with this POST. LEWIS better be glad he fought an old version of my boy because HOLYFIELD would have most likely K.O.ed him in his PRIME.

Shut up nuthugger.

[Kris Silver]

Holyfield being at 6, ahead of Lennox Lewis ain't right.

[Tiozzo]

I keep reading all this negative feedback about EVANDER HOLYFIELD and I don't like it! He is arguably the TOUGHEST HEAVYWEIGHT OF ALL-TIME. That tells me you guys don't REALLY KNOW boxing, you just think you know. He lost the first fight against LEWIS but by that time, he was 36 and if LEWIS was as GOOD as you make him, he should have stopped the OLD MAN. In the rematch, he was cheated and the judges made up for the first meeting. He CLEARLY won the second encounter. ALL OF HIS LOSSES with the exception of the first BOWE fight, happened when he had nothing left. How many REAL LOSSES DID HE HAVE IS HOW YOU RANK HIM AND EVERYONE ELSE ON THIS LIST. FOREMAN couldn't beat him, HOLMES couldn't beat him, LEWIS couldn't beat him, LOUIS couldn't beat him!!!!! Think about that before you start talking like you know boxing because you clearly don't. Only ALI should be ranked higher than him. He was a MACHINE and a RARE BREED IDIOTS! GET IT RIGHT! For the record, I'm not so sure ALI would have beaten him either. It would have been anyone's fight. He was just as GOOD and in my opinion better because you didn't have to tell him to throw combinations or body shots. How many body punches did ALI throw his entire career? ALI was also a SUCKER for the left hook and we all know HOLYFIELD was the best HOOKING HEAVYWEIGHT as well. I'm done with this POST. LEWIS better be glad he fought an old version of my boy because HOLYFIELD would have most likely K.O.ed him in his PRIME.

I'm afraid Evander is exactly that : your boy. You're as bias towards him as some are towards the Klits. You really are embarrassing yourself.

[Tiozzo]

I laughed assuming it couldn't actually be serious.

It is obviously as serious as it can get I'm afraid.

[BSD]

This list is garbage. Joe Louis was the most dominant heavyweight in the history of the sport! No way would I put him at #2! Tyson dominated his era for a longer period than many of the guys in the top 10 of this list. He belongs in the top 10. The overall order of this list really seems random.

[tuxtucis]

Holyfield in his prime lost twice with Bowe (one ko) and once with former light heavy Moorer, had some troubles against 40 yo Foreman and Holmes...
It's difficult to see him 6th, specially if Bowe is 21 in this list...
Dempsey was a cruiserweight, but his best performances were against giants like Fulton, Willard and Firpo. At his best he would have crushed glass chinned Wlad Klitschko in less than 3 rounds and he should be rated more than 10th
Frazier had only one punch (left hook) and was a slow starter, so he should be rated lower than 7th...

[Dave Rado]

By Cliff Rold - His ability to beat larger men translates well in comparisons to other eras; it’s not hard to imagine Dempsey running someone as timid as today’s Wladimir Klitschko right out of the ring. [Click Here To Read More]

Sorry I'm late to the party, but I just had to respond to that bit.

Dempsey couldn't get past Tunney's jab (except during one brief moment of carelessness), so I don't see how he could get past Wlad's, which is far more powerful than Tunney's, and just as quick and accurate. I think his jab is widely under-rated - it's improved dramatically in the last few years, and is now every bit as good as Holmes' and Liston's jabs were, IMO - and because he has a greater height and reach than they did, he can use it even more effectively than they could to keep the fight on the outside. He's also a world class clincher nowadays, and between his jab, his clinching, and his one-punch power (the latter of which forces opponents to be very wary about opening up against him), it's extremely difficult for a short fighter to land even a single clean punch on him these days.

Willard and Firpo didn't have anything like the quality of jab or overall skills that the Manny Steward-tutored version of Wlad has.

If you're taking about the version of Wlad up to and including the Peter fight, I'd go along with your comment, but not the current version. He's as different now from the version of himself who lost to Sanders and Brewster as Pacquiao is from the version of himself who lost to Torrecampo.

IMO, Chambers is fast and skilful enough to have been at least a fringe contender in any era in boxing history - I think he's as good as Jimmy Young was, for instance. But he never came close to winning even a minute of a round against Wlad. Young was never dominated so decisively. And Chambers had already proved he has no problems against tall fighters per se, as he'd easily beaten Dimitrenko, who is 6′ 7″.

I think people under-rate Wlad because he's boring to watch, and they allow wishful thinking to colour their judgement. People don't like the idea that such a boring fighter could be one of the greatest of all time in terms of who would beat whom. But I think the version of Wlad who beat Chambers would have destroyed Dempsey and would have a reasonable chance against any heavyweight in history in a fantasy match-up.

[crold1]

Sorry I'm late to the party, but I just had to respond to that bit.

Dempsey couldn't get past Tunney's jab (except during one brief moment of carelessness), so I don't see how he could get past Wlad's, which is far more powerful than Tunney's, and just as quick and accurate. I think his jab is widely under-rated - it's improved dramatically in the last few years, and is now every bit as good as Holmes' and Liston's jabs were, IMO - and because he has a greater height and reach than they did, he can use it even more effectively than they could to keep the fight on the outside. He's also a world class clincher nowadays, and between his jab, his clinching, and his one-punch power (the latter of which forces opponents to be very wary about opening up against him), it's extremely difficult for a short fighter to land even a single clean punch on him these days.

Willard and Firpo didn't have anything like the quality of jab or overall skills that the Manny Steward-tutored version of Wlad has.

If you're taking about the version of Wlad up to and including the Peter fight, I'd go along with your comment, but not the current version. He's as different now from the version of himself who lost to Sanders and Brewster as Pacquiao is from the version of himself who lost to Torrecampo.

IMO, Chambers is fast and skilful enough to have been at least a fringe contender in any era in boxing history - I think he's as good as Jimmy Young was, for instance. But he never came close to winning even a minute of a round against Wlad. Young was never dominated so decisively. And Chambers had already proved he has no problems against tall fighters per se, as he'd easily beaten Dimitrenko, who is 6′ 7″.

I think people under-rate Wlad because he's boring to watch, and they allow wishful thinking to colour their judgement. People don't like the idea that such a boring fighter could be one of the greatest of all time in terms of who would beat whom. But I think the version of Wlad who beat Chambers would have destroyed Dempsey and would have a reasonable chance against any heavyweight in history in a fantasy match-up.

If Dempsey fought Wlad off a three year layoff, I think it would be tough. Any other time, I think he could turn the panic attack Brewster caused and make it an outright cardiac arrest. Tunney also used his feet and Wlad, while well balanced, is no where near as elusive.

[Dave Rado]

If Dempsey fought Wlad off a three year layoff, I think it would be tough. Any other time, I think he could turn the panic attack Brewster caused and make it an outright cardiac arrest.

I really don't think he's the same fighter who lost to Brewster, any more than Pacquiao is the same fighter who lost to Torrecampo. I agree Dempsey would have beaten that version of Wlad, but I don't agree about the current version.

Tunney also used his feet and Wlad, while well balanced, is no where near as elusive.

IMO, he's elusive in a different way. He takes very few clean punches these days.