Top 10 Heavyweights of all times.

[LacedUp]

Johnson never done anything special in my opinion.

He has the names but they are all flawed. In before someone argues "you can do that with anybody's resume". Maybe, but not to the extent you can with Johnson's.

He has good wins against the decent contenders of the time but there's little more that I can see apart from that.

People bring up names like McVea and Jeanette but at this point, although they did mature to become very good fighters they were very, very green and the wins quite frankly don't count for much.

People then mention Langford. Although Langford is a Top 5 P4P ATG, this win is useless because Johnson outweighed Sam by 30 odd pounds and then ran like a little girl for years from a more mature Langford.

He wins the HW title outweighing Burns by a good 25 pounds and defended this title against less than spectacular opposition, not fighting the more mature versions of Jeanette and McVey also, who definitely deserved a shot over the people Johnson fought at the time.

Decent pre-title run against some good contenders. Long-winded period of holding the title and avoiding anyone who presented a decent challenge. The story of Jack Johnson, in my opinion.

See this is where it gets interesting. Johnson beat the lineal champion. Something Wlad never did. He beat a couple of good fighters, some of those you mentioned Bob Fitzsimmons also. And the common excuse for anti-johnson fans is that he was sometimes bigger than his opponents. However, correct me if I'm wrong - doesn't Wlad usually have a 2½+ height advantage, often weighs in 20-30 pounds heavier than his opponents?

All of the things you mentioned can be said for Wlad also. He has never beaten a legitimate champion, or someone who has gone on to beat another legitimate contender after losing to Wlad. His best wins are Byrd, Haye, Peter & Chagaev. As much as I like Haye, in the grand scheme of things, none of these fighters are ATGs.

Their period as champion has lasted around the same length, but Johnson fought 100+ times. In my opinion there's no doubt that Johnson is firmly a top 5 atg.

[LacedUp]

taking out resumes and just ranking them strictly on their analytical talent in their prime potential in a one off fight:

1. Ali
2. Lennox
3. Holmes
4. Foreman
5. Holyfield
6. Tyson
7. Louis
8. Frazier
9. Vitali
10. Bowe

Anybody who has any fighter in the top 10 who they did not see fight or have any film footage on PLEASE KINDLY GTFO with that bull****.

There's video footage of virtually any heavyweight champion in history.

[JAB5239]

haha, great!

Not that Wlad would ever beat prime, great, GOAT Rahman that KOed Lennox

Probably not since he couldn't beat Sanders.

[Simurgh]

Probably not since he couldn't beat Sanders.

This was so unpredictable.

Ok.. lets not troll the thread - it's not about Wlad.

[Roy Jones Jnr]

Don't have time to write down my full top 10 but what i will say is i would definitely have Tyson in my top 10.

I know the usual standard on this forum is to go against the grain and be all cool and bring up Tyson's resume but if you want to do that then we could do that against a good few of these old timers who half the people place in their lists on name alone.

Tyson in his prime (cliche i know) was something special. He may not have the names but what we saw with our own two eyes is enough for me. He was a phenomenon, and at his very best H2H would beat many of the names on peoples list.

Just my opinion though. I know many people choose to go on resume alone and that's fair enough but for me resume isn't the be all and end all of a fighter. It plays a big part but when you're talking about Mike fcking Tyson, i think we can safely say just how great he was even if he doesn't have so and so's name written on his resume.

[ShamrockXpress]

he was however from at least three divisions below him at natural prime weight.

He was no smaller than Holyfield and if you go back from the modern era he was bigger than Frazier, Ali etc.

[Barn]

Johnson is contentious as top five, which is why I had to lower him.

But you also need to factor in that, had there been no colour line, Johnson would have taken the title in his twenties, not thirties, and have dominated for twice as long as he did. If he had been white, he'd have had the longest reign in history until Louis came along. This reign would also be marred by the colour line that Johnson prevailed with, mind you. Its a great shame he did that, his reign suffers in that its a partial world title like Sullivans and Corbetts.

But he was fighting the whole of white America when he fought, and not for white America, and he was extremely dominant in doing so, which must figure for something.

I don't really need to factor in anything. I'm taking what he's done, not what he could have or would have done.

[Simurgh]

Don't have time to write down my full top 10 but what i will say is i would definitely have Tyson in my top 10.

I know the usual standard on this forum is to go against the grain and be all cool and bring up Tyson's resume but if you want to do that then we could do that against a good few of these old timers who half the people place in their lists on name alone.

Tyson in his prime (cliche i know) was something special. He may not have the names but what we saw with our own two eyes is enough for me. He was a phenomenon, and at his very best H2H would beat many of the names on peoples list.

Just my opinion though. I know many people choose to go on resume alone and that's fair enough but for me resume isn't the be all and end all of a fighter. It plays a big part but when you're talking about Mike fcking Tyson, i think we can safely say just how great he was even if he doesn't have so and so's name written on his resume.

You are absolutely right. Tyson in his very prime would be a big trouble for just about any HW that ever lived. I have him in my top10, no doubt about it.

[Barn]

See this is where it gets interesting. Johnson beat the lineal champion. Something Wlad never did. He beat a couple of good fighters, some of those you mentioned Bob Fitzsimmons also. And the common excuse for anti-johnson fans is that he was sometimes bigger than his opponents. However, correct me if I'm wrong - doesn't Wlad usually have a 2½+ height advantage, often weighs in 20-30 pounds heavier than his opponents?

All of the things you mentioned can be said for Wlad also. He has never beaten a legitimate champion, or someone who has gone on to beat another legitimate contender after losing to Wlad. His best wins are Byrd, Haye, Peter & Chagaev. As much as I like Haye, in the grand scheme of things, none of these fighters are ATGs.

Their period as champion has lasted around the same length, but Johnson fought 100+ times. In my opinion there's no doubt that Johnson is firmly a top 5 atg.

Bob Fitzsimmons was literally 1 trillion years old and Jack Johnson even admitted in an interview that it was a nothing victory.

I don't really mind if he beat the "lineal" champion or not. If he was crap and 170lbs , he's still crap and 170lbs whether the "lineal" label is attached or not.

Yes Wlad had a weight advantage but it's less effective. A 30lb advantage over a 150lb fighter is much more of an advantage than the same weight advantage over a 220lb fighter.

Not to mention Johnson actually fought whole weight-classes above opponents, at least Wlad is fighting HW's.

Ultimately, Wlad has dominated the best fighters of his era in clear and decisive fashion and has effectively cleaned it out. Johnson never dominated his era, he didn't fight the best.

Also, fighting 100 fights means nothing if a reasonable amount of them were nobodies.

[Barn]

Probably not since he couldn't beat Sanders.

I don't like this argument.

Jack Johnson couldn't beat Hank Griffin or Marvin Hart, people don't play those cards in H2H match ups.