Your Top 10 Heavyweights Of All Time.

[JimRaynor]

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Larry Holmes
5. George Foreman
6. Evander Holyfield
7. Rocky Marciano
8. Joe Frazier
9. Lennox Lewis
10. Jack Dempsey

Bonus 5: Sonny Liston, Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Mike Tyson, Wladimir Klitshcko (in order)

Every other fighter in my top 10 and even the honorable mentions defeated at least one hall of famer and with the exception of Liston they all defeated multiple. Lewis is down my list a little because he was KO'd by average fighters in his prime but he avenged them fairly quickly. Wlad had three bad losses, two of which came after he'd already established his championship credentials.

What all time great fighter did Jack Johnson or Jack Dempsey beat? While you're at it, why don't you list some spartans from Ancient Greece in your top 10 seeing as how you're going back to the beginning of time to compile your fighters.

Also, Larry Holmes and Marciano's wins against Ali and Louis are both equivalent on paper to Larry Donald's win over Evander Holyfield and Kevin Mc'Brides win over Tyson.


I guess what I am trying to say is, your list is ****, Lennox Lewis and W. Klitschko both deserve to be ahead of atleast of Marciano and Frazier.

[chrisJS]

What all time great fighter did Jack Johnson or Jack Dempsey beat? While you're at it, why don't you list some spartans from Ancient Greece in your top 10 seeing as how you're going back to the beginning of time to compile your fighters.

Also, Larry Holmes and Marciano's wins against Ali and Louis are both equivalent on paper to Larry Donald's win over Evander Holyfield and Kevin Mc'Brides win over Tyson.


I guess what I am trying to say is, your list is ****, Lennox Lewis and W. Klitschko both deserve to be ahead of atleast of Marciano and Frazier.

Dempsey has no wins over all-time greats but he beat some hall of famers (Sharkey, Carpienter, Willard for example) which was my original point. Johnson has defeated all-time greats such as Sam Langford, Stanley Ketchel (sure smaller but so were the heavies compared to now), Bob Fitzsimmons all clear all-time greats in addition to multiple others in the hall of fame. They also took part in bouts that transcended Boxing whereas Klit quite clearly didn't and really defeated next to nobody in the hall of fame.

I think your opinion on the matter is **** and perhaps you've based it on who you feel would beat who whereas I've judged based on their merits in their era's. Frazier beat much better competition. That's laughable to suggest that Klit would be ahead of him. Marciano too, sure you've pointed out an ancient Joe Louis but failed to mention wins over Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles. Those wins alone trump Klit's entire reign.

[Mr Objecitivity]

On what planet has Wladimir or Vitali accomplished more than Ali?

Let's see:

Wladimir Klitschko:

- Had remained the number 1, most dominant heavyweight champion in the world for a decade in the heavyweight division by fighting all the top opposition, beating them all and subsequently clearing the division up.

- Has more title defenses in REAL heavyweight bouts (when opponents weigh 200 pounds or above) compared to Muhammad Ali.

- Held more titles, for a longer period of time than Muhammad Ali.

- Fought a greater variety opponents from more countries than Muhammad Ali did.

- Barely lost a round in a decade of boxing in the heavyweight division.

As for Vitali Klitschko. Most of what I stated about Wladimir Klitshcko also applies to Vitali but to a lesser extent. He also cleaned up the division with his brother but fought fewer of the top opposition.

[Mr Objecitivity]

I don’t think I’d have Tyson on a top-ten list of greatest heavyweights at all. But you specified “in terms of accomplishments,” and then you place him at number four. What accomplishments would those be, and why place him so high? You have Ali two places lower at number six. I don’t get it.

Well for starters, he became the youngest undisputed heavyweight champion in history that has never been matched or surpassed.

Secondly, he is the only heavyweight in history that is shorter than 6 foot 0 inches in height, that managed to have as much success as he did against modern sized super heavyweights. That in and of itself is an 'unparalleled' accomplishment.

Cleaned up the heavyweight division in the late 1980's and became the number 1, dominant heavyweight champion of the world. Albeit, he didn't have much longevity and therefore didn't reign for too long. However, he still accomplished this feat for a short period of time.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Huh? Louis was 25-1 in title fights and Foreman was 6-3.

You serious?

George Foreman is more proven against opponents that are considered heavyweights by modern standard (boxers that weigh 200 pounds or more). This is why I ranked him higher.

[chrisJS]

Let's see:

Wladimir Klitschko:

- Had remained the number 1, most dominant heavyweight champion in the world for a decade in the heavyweight division by fighting all the top opposition, beating them all and subsequently clearing the division up.

- Has more title defenses in REAL heavyweight bouts (when opponents weigh 200 pounds or above) compared to Muhammad Ali.

- Held more titles, for a longer period of time than Muhammad Ali.

- Fought a greater variety opponents from more countries than Muhammad Ali did.

- Barely lost a round in a decade of boxing in the heavyweight division.

As for Vitali Klitschko. Most of what I stated about Wladimir Klitshcko also applies to Vitali but to a lesser extent. He also cleaned up the division with his brother but fought fewer of the top opposition.

I really can't believe I'd have to argue for Ali over any heavyweight not named Joe Louis.

If you are going to use those stats then you've got to hold it against him that he was never the one true undisputed heavyweight champion in the world. Number 1 yes, but never undisputed. Also factor in that Ali lost 3 years of his prime and defeated a hall of fame fighter in 1964 and then all the way in 1976. In between that he defeated 4 other hall of famers (of seven he defeated total). Even guys he defeated that didn't make the hall of fame like Quarry, Ellis, Williams, Terrell, Foley, Young, Chuvalo are basically better than ANY opponent Wlad defeated regardless of the different countries they came from.

In addition to that look at the eye test and Ali is clearly better. Ali in his prime years would never lose badly to Brewster and Sanders. Ali soundly defeated at least two of the consensus top 10 ever basically in their primes, some would argue 3. The Liston wins, regaining against Foreman, the Frazier series. I mean Wlad just can't touch that.

[JimRaynor]

Dempsey has no wins over all-time greats but he beat some hall of famers (Sharkey, Carpienter, Willard for example) which was my original point. Johnson has defeated all-time greats such as Sam Langford, Stanley Ketchel (sure smaller but so were the heavies compared to now), Bob Fitzsimmons all clear all-time greats in addition to multiple others in the hall of fame. They also took part in bouts that transcended Boxing whereas Klit quite clearly didn't and really defeated next to nobody in the hall of fame.

I think your opinion on the matter is **** and perhaps you've based it on who you feel would beat who whereas I've judged based on their merits in their era's. Frazier beat much better competition. That's laughable to suggest that Klit would be ahead of him. Marciano too, sure you've pointed out an ancient Joe Louis but failed to mention wins over Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles. Those wins alone trump Klit's entire reign.

Who?

You read about them in the late 19th century papers to establish your rankings?

Besides Ali, Frazier did not defeat anyone that Wlad didn't defeat, and especially didn't defeat anyone that Lennox Lewis didn't defeat.

The only laughable thing here is your ****ty list of top ten fighters.

[chrisJS]

Who?

You read about them in the late 19th century papers to establish your rankings?

Besides Ali, Frazier did not defeat anyone that Wlad didn't defeat, and especially didn't defeat anyone that Lennox Lewis didn't defeat.

The only laughable thing here is your ****ty list of top ten fighters.

You've never heard of those names yet you talk like your an authority on Boxing history? Sam Langford is considered by most historians to be one of the 10 best fighters ever. Stanley Ketchel is one of the greatest middleweights ever and Bob Fitzsimmons was the sports first three division champion. You said no all-time greats I gave you three undisputed ones. I'd say it's laughable you've never heard of them.

"Besides Ali, Frazier did not defeat anyone that Wlad didn't defeat, and especially didn't defeat anyone that Lennox Lewis didn't defeat."

What does this mean? They fought like 30-40 years apart. It's almost impossible they'd fight the same guys. When ranking in historical context it's useless using mythical matches. You've got to use what and whom they actually defeated as it's a better reference.

[Mr Objecitivity]

I really can't believe I'd have to argue for Ali over any heavyweight not named Joe Louis.

If you are going to use those stats then you've got to hold it against him that he was never the one true undisputed heavyweight champion in the world. Number 1 yes, but never undisputed. Also factor in that Ali lost 3 years of his prime and defeated a hall of fame fighter in 1964 and then all the way in 1976. In between that he defeated 4 other hall of famers (of seven he defeated total). Even guys he defeated that didn't make the hall of fame like Quarry, Ellis, Williams, Terrell, Foley, Young, Chuvalo are basically better than ANY opponent Wlad defeated regardless of the different countries they came from.

In addition to that look at the eye test and Ali is clearly better. Ali in his prime years would never lose badly to Brewster and Sanders. Ali soundly defeated at least two of the consensus top 10 ever basically in their primes, some would argue 3. The Liston wins, regaining against Foreman, the Frazier series. I mean Wlad just can't touch that.

Muhammad Ali by MODERN standard, is no more of a heavyweight than Oleksandr Usyk is. He probably wouldn't even be competing in the heavyweight division today.

Let's look at the following numbers:

- Muhammad Ali had THREE belts (WBA, WBC, RING) for 3+
years.

- Wladimir Klitschko had THREE belts (WBO, IBF, IBO) for
3+ years.
And FOUR belts (WBO, IBF, IBO, RING) for 2+ years (until
June 2011).
And FIVE belts (WBO, WBA, IBF, IBO, RING) for 1+ years (as
of October 2012)

This is no contest!

Yes, Wladimir Klitschko was never the 'undisputed champion'. But that was because there were more belts + more boxers from more countries competing = it was much more difficult to become the undisputed champion during the Klitschko era than it was during Ali's era.

Furthermore, politics are often obstacles that prevent unification fights from happening.

Either way, Wladimir Klitschko held More world titles for longer than Muhammad Ali or any other past heavyweight champion did.

Also, Wladimir Klitschko did actually beat former WBC title holders in Samuel Peter as an example. So in other words, Wlad is as good as an 'undisputed champion'. Even though he didn't hold the WBC title, he did defeat AT LEAST one of the WBC title holders.

On what basis are you claiming those mentioned boxers that Muhammad Ali beat are better than any of Wlad's opponent? If in a head to head sense, then I totally disagree.

Being inducted into the hall of fame isn't really impressive to me. Nor does it mean much to me. Simply because, boxers aren't usually inducted based on an objective criteria / system that evaluates them for their boxing record. Rather, it's mostly based on a popularity system. For all I care, Connor McGregor and James Bond could enter the hall of fame in just 3 fights but that'd mean ABSOLUTELY nothing to me!

As for the 'eye test'. Wladimir Klitschko barely lost a round in over half a decade during his prime (2006 - 2012). He defeated all types of opponents from various different countries with various different styles that were ranked the highest during the time he beat them. He also rarely got hit or touched.

The fact that he lost a few fights early on in his career doesn't mean much NEGATIVELY. He became much BETTER afterwards by learning from his losses.

I could just as easily state that Wladimir Klitschko in his prime would never be dropped by a 185 pound, light heavyweight / cruiser weight boxer in Henry Cooper and require a controversial time out to recover like how Muhammad Ali did.

I could just as easily also state that Wladimir Klitschko was good enough to keep his health intact after retiring, unlike Munammad Ali who suffered severe brain problems because he was inferior technically and defensively compared to Wladimir Klitschko.

George Foreman, Joe Frazier and Sonny Liston are overrated! What makes you think they're any better than the likes of Alexander Povetkin, Ruslan Chagaev or prime Samuel Peter? I'm not seeing anything that suggests those 3 opponents of Ali that you've mentioned, are better than the 3 opponents of Wladimir Klitschko that I just mentioned.

Nostalgia bias and geographical / racial / national bias simply doesn't influence my verdict.

[Boxing Goat]

George Foreman is more proven against opponents that are considered heavyweights by modern standard (boxers that weigh 200 pounds or more). This is why I ranked him higher.

Lol you can't rewrite history my friend.