Redefined Greatest Heavyweight Ever List

[Run]

I should have been more specific. When they Fought each other, Rid**** Bowe was better.

Whew. Because that bothered me. And I respect your sports info and knowledge....which is why.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[Ray Corso]

Joe Louis
M. Ali
Jack Dempsey
Rocky Marciano
G. Foreman
Larry Holmes
L. Lewis
E. Holyfield
M. Tyson
R. Bowe



top ten heavies, Foreman, Marciano and Dempsey are capable of beating anyone because of their two handed power and determination.
Ray.

[BigAlexSand]

Joe Louis
M. Ali
Jack Dempsey
Rocky Marciano
G. Foreman
Larry Holmes
L. Lewis
E. Holyfield
M. Tyson
R. Bowe



top ten heavies, Foreman, Marciano and Dempsey are capable of beating anyone because of their two handed power and determination.
Ray.

This I agree more with. I personally believe Marciano would have heat the likes of a prime Louis or Prime Ali. When Ali fought Frazier he was constantly being over powered and found difficulty hurting Frazier. Marciano had a granite chin and dynamite in his hands. Unlike Frazier, Marciano would have taken Ali out in the late rounds.

[soul_survivor]

This I agree more with. I personally believe Marciano would have heat the likes of a prime Louis or Prime Ali. When Ali fought Frazier he was constantly being over powered and found difficulty hurting Frazier. Marciano had a granite chin and dynamite in his hands. Unlike Frazier, Marciano would have taken Ali out in the late rounds.

marciano couldnt be more different to frazier

[Elroy1]

Joe Louis
M. Ali
Jack Dempsey
Rocky Marciano
G. Foreman
Larry Holmes
L. Lewis
E. Holyfield
M. Tyson
R. Bowe



top ten heavies, Foreman, Marciano and Dempsey are capable of beating anyone because of their two handed power and determination.
Ray.

Shocking list.

But the reason I commented was because of the ridiculous statement above.

Marciano and Dempsey had determination and 2 handed power so could beat anyone?

Marciano and Dempsey have not 1 single decent real HW win, let alone a KO of one, between them.

They could barely even box, just maulers.

And they are not even real HW's.

They are cruisers or sub-cruisers and cannot be compared at all to what we today call "HW".

Were any professional HW boxer somehow be allowed to face such a boxer as Marciano or Dempsey, they would knock them straight out, and walk through their punches as if it was a pillow fight.

And for all your self-promotion as a great trainer and evaluater, you actually include such boxers on a HW toplist?

Utter fool!

[M Bison]

Shocking list.

But the reason I commented was because of the ridiculous statement above.

Marciano and Dempsey had determination and 2 handed power so could beat anyone?

Marciano and Dempsey have not 1 single decent real HW win, let alone a KO of one, between them.

They could barely even box, just maulers.

And they are not even real HW's.

They are cruisers or sub-cruisers and cannot be compared at all to what we today call "HW".

Were any professional HW boxer somehow be allowed to face such a boxer as Marciano or Dempsey, they would knock them straight out, and walk through their punches as if it was a pillow fight.

And for all your self-promotion as a great trainer and evaluater, you actually include such boxers on a HW toplist?

Utter fool!

I seen the list of all time greats list etc where they'd rate people with points from different eras but what I don't understand is how in heck do they get this points system?
What factors are they taking into these ratings?

Honestly it kind of proves that these gigantic compiled lists that these historians spend all their time on appear to be nothing more than myth/fantasy without any realistic perspective being took into real thought it has no real reflection on how good they actually were, some of it is definitely undoubtedly exaggerated.
I'm not saying their weren't good fighters back then but I just don't believe for a second that the top ten list of all time should be of 8 Americans and only 1 Mexican and 1 Panamanian.

Some of the list I can believe that they made but a lot of it is just perpetuated nonsense which is just screaming of bias and lacking of any real backing evidence to why this list is the way it is.
Sort of like the heavyweight lists but the point is that the lists are just rubbish because we can say that this guy from the 30s was better than this guy from the 80s because we will never be able to prove it with both being able to fight its a pointless facade.

[Elroy1]

Even if these are lists of "subjective greatness" or whatever the hell that is taken to be, I am fine with having Marciano or Dempsey on a toplist if they rate them for that.

But not a "HW" toplist that includes current boxers. Because the very definition of what it means to be a HW has changed several times, and it is only in the last 25 years that the average weight of the boxers in the HW division has become greater than the CW limit! Before the inception of CW, the HW division INCLUDED the CW division.

Therefore it's obvious that CW sized fighters like Ali, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey etc etc have combination records of CW and HW which MUST be separated for comparison purposes.

When you present their records split in this way it becomes OBVIOUS that they were not HW's as described today.

It's obvious that compared to their REAL equivalents, the cruisers, even Ali is slow.

It's obvious that the modern cruisers are far more athletc. That they are far more skilled.

Toplists like this with no basis in reality and the myth that the current era is a weak era break down with these simple undeniable statements...

Not only the Klitschko's, but any of their better opponents, and some of their not so better opponents too, would line up every past pre Holmes era champion and all of their opponents, every one of their pre 80's ATG favourites featured on these toplists, and KNOCK EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM OUT or otherwise clown them, without fail!

AND

If any of Wladimir Klitschko's better opponents were to actually face the same opponents as any of these ATG's actually faced, the fans would be thoroughly disgusted at cherry picking such a weak opponent! Let alone if WK himself faced them!

Everybody knows it! It's a "no-brainer"

So when they say "it's a **** era" How so? By what criteria?

[LacedUp]

This I agree more with. I personally believe Marciano would have heat the likes of a prime Louis or Prime Ali. When Ali fought Frazier he was constantly being over powered and found difficulty hurting Frazier. Marciano had a granite chin and dynamite in his hands. Unlike Frazier, Marciano would have taken Ali out in the late rounds.

Marciano would have stopped Ali?

That's good.

[LacedUp]

i couldnt personally rank JJ higher up, he was skillful from what I've read and the odd bits of footage show he was quick but a spoiler, more Wlad than Ali or Patterson. In all honesty, it's harder for me to rank heavies pre-Dempsey as they were often very crude and lacked the size or power of guys that came later. I know Dempsey was a puncher but he had immense power, power that could stop the biggest to come since.

Well, there are quite a few videos of Jack Johnson's fights, but my reasoning for ranking him highly is a mix of resume, skills, longevity, out of the ring persona et al.

He was a great champion and a good man.

[Elroy1]

Let me assure you that I personally watched enough fights of the so called "golden age of heavyweight boxing" (the 1960s and 1970s) to be UTTERLY UNIMPRESSED.

Those boxers were NOTHING SPECIAL.

The greatness of heavyweights of the 1960s and 1970s is an ILLUSION FABRICATED by the iconization industry, fame factory, mythology mill of the USA in the 1960s and 1970s the lack of global competition (the Soviet bloc was FORBIDDEN to box professionally)

The heavyweight boxing of the "golden age" was mainly a local contest comparable to the European heavyweight title (EBU) nowadays. All the achievements in those times are either pretty worthless or at least highly doubtful.

The golden boys had far less power than modern American boxers, they were much slower, they were less muscular and athletic than modern boxers.

There is NOTHING remotely impressive about these "golden boys". It's 90% hype and 10% truth.

In fact you could take nearly all of the myths of the good-old-time fetishists and expose them for what they are: Ridiculous exaggerations. Whether it's Sonny Liston's supposedly "phenomenal jab" or "Muhammad Ali's reflexes" or whatever… it's all lies or blatant exaggerations.

Sonny Liston's jab was one of the slowest you'd ever see. Ali's reflexes are non-existent (he gets hit even by the slowest punches). It's all mythology.

Half of Klitschkos opponents would have ruled the 1970s. Sam Peter would be undisputed world champ. Chris Arreola, too. Tony Thompson would an be awe inducing giant. Eddie Chambers and David Haye would be the fastest boxers the world has ever seen. Just to name a few random boxers off the top of my head from recent times.

I would like to hear some of the JUSTIFICATIONS for some of these toplists compiled! That would be more worthy than the worthless compilations of them which contain boxers who either have no business being on a HW toplist, or a toplist at all!