EPIC VIDEO!!!! Top 20 Heavyweights Of All Time (HD) by REZNICK

[PEBBLES!]

[PEBBLES!]

I just downloaded it from youtube, incase it gets taken down, so if anyone wants me to upload to megaupload, shoot me a pm.

[prinzemanspopa]

Too high

Jack Dempsey(lower half of top twenty)
Joe Frazier(doesn't belong in the top ten)
George Foreman(lower half of top ten)
Rocky Marciano(lower half of top ten)


Too low


Evander Holyfield(top ten)
Mike Tyson(top ten)
Wladimir Klitschko(atleast near the top ten)





Other than that,it's a well-put-together video.

[studentofthegam]

good video. I just think Holyfield and Lewis would kill Liston.

[PEBBLES!]

SPOILER!



20. Floyd Patterson
19. Wladimir Klitschko
18. Max Schmeling
17. Sam Langford
16. Jersey Joe Walcott
15. Gene Tunney
14. Ezzard Charles
13. Jim Jefferies
12. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
10. Jack Dempsey
9. Sonny Liston
8. Joe Frazier
7. Jack Johnson
6. Lennox Lewis
5. George Foreman
4. Rocky Marciano
3. Larry Holmes
2. Joe Louis
1. Muhammad Ali



Frazier above Liston is a joke. Unlike Smokin' Fraud, Liston actually cleaned out a pretty good division.

Nevertheless, a decent list, and well-put-together video.

[j]

i could never make a real list i could stand by 100%. too many variables. too many rose colored lenses already affect the rankings of fighters past.


do we rank by records? ability and capacity? and how do we make proper parallels? how do we make proper comparisons? based on what?

you could have at least a half dozen different lists based on different aspects.

even then, would different fighters have certain match-up problems? how would that affect ur rankings? i couldnt see ali for example beating down a lewis or klitschko. just based on fair, neutral, perspective.

take the recent, and my boys, the GB packers as example. record-wise they were far from tops. and team wise, 16 people on injured/reserve, yet, here they are with a title to lose. how do rankings, expectations, and situational match-ups dictate that? doesnt seem like they did at all.

what we see as truth, is based on our own reasonable expectations. therefore it will never be completely accurate.`

but i do enjoy seeing lists. where my boy vitali!!??

[Alec900]

lennox at 6?really?

[KMFO]

i could never make a real list i could stand by 100%. too many variables. too many rose colored lenses already affect the rankings of fighters past.


do we rank by records? ability and capacity? and how do we make proper parallels? how do we make proper comparisons? based on what?

you could have at least a half dozen different lists based on different aspects.

even then, would different fighters have certain match-up problems? how would that affect ur rankings? i couldnt see ali for example beating down a lewis or klitschko. just based on fair, neutral, perspective.

take the recent, and my boys, the GB packers as example. record-wise they were far from tops. and team wise, 16 people on injured/reserve, yet, here they are with a title to lose. how do rankings, expectations, and situational match-ups dictate that? doesnt seem like they did at all.

what we see as truth, is based on our own reasonable expectations. therefore it will never be completely accurate.`

but i do enjoy seeing lists. where my boy vitali!!??

This^ Still, though, it doesnt take away from the coolness of the video!

[Rick Grimes]

lennox at 6?really?

I know. He should be top 5.

[Rassclot]

LMAO @ Ranking Tyson above Holyfield.

how does that make any sense?