Your Top 10 Heavyweights Of All Time.

[chrisJS]

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.

IBO doesn't count and let's face it the WBO didn't really count as much back then especially at Heavyweight when it was all about the WBA, WBC, IBF. I think if it was just as easy to win as many trinkets back in Ali's day or Joe Louis' day they'd have even bigger stats. When they were champ you were undisputed so the reigns and stats are hard to compare. They'd have more titles, more defenses, more duration as champions and you know that.

Of course Frazier, Liston and Foreman would whup those guys. Look at the fights, look at the resumes. You also had Joe Louis at #10 when nobody has ever had a longer reign, nobody has ever made more defenses and nobody has been undisputed longer than him.

[Boxing Goat]

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.

After reading this post, it's clear you're trolling.

Dude come off it and get a grip. Klitschko has the 2nd longest title reign of all time, most title fights of all time and is tied for the most title fight wins. If you honestly think wins over LHW Charles and a dozen loss Walcott Trumps Klitschko's resume of beating two Olympic gold medalists and numerous BIG undefeated challengers over a decade all while criticizing fighters of the past for fighting at lighter weights, you're an imbecile.

TROLL or IDIOT. You pick.

[asgarth]

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.

He defeated a former WBC title holder and that counts as actually beating the WBC champion?
Why?

[Boxing Goat]

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

Secondly, That in and of itself is an 'unparalleled' accomplishment.
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.
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.

He didn't really beat that many heavies that compare to todays fighters. The average HW from his day was still around 220 lbs. And don't forget that Tyson was in the 220's as well. Mike was good but he is grossly overrated based on his stardom at the time. The truth is that his elite level career was kind of a flash in the pan and wasn't all that great in terms of who he beat.

[CubanGuyNYC]

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.

A good response, but I don’t think those reasons are good enough. Floyd Patterson, himself a small heavyweight, preceded Tyson as the youngest ever heavyweight champion. Patterson was only six feet tall, and had a much smaller frame. He also became the first heavyweight to regain the title after losing it — something Tyson never did. Youth and size are valid considerations for ranking on this list, but you need much more than that.

You allude to the main reason why I don’t think Tyson belongs that high in your last two sentences. I’ve said on many occasions that Mike Tyson, at his very peak, might’ve beaten any heavyweight that ever lived. But as you said yourself, Tyson's peak was short. In fact, it was a blink. His two best wins were an overmatched Michael Spinks and an over-the-hill Larry Holmes. After that, Tyson lost every big fight he was involved in. He even fell victim to possibly the biggest upset in boxing history. The “whys and wherefores” are immaterial. The fact is, they happened.

I don’t believe Tyson belongs on a top-ten heavyweights list, but I can see someone putting him at the bottom...maybe. What I can’t see is how he could possibly rate higher than Muhammad Ali, a man most boxing experts and fans have as the #1 heavyweight of all time, and is often cited as the #2 P4P, behind “Sugar” Ray Robinson.

[sugar ray lenrd]

[QUOTE=Mr Objecitivity;18574911]
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.

Sugar Ray Lenrd:
You gotta be kidding. You have it twisted sir, It was much easy to grab a world title in klitchko's era. Think about it, the more title holders the easy it is to become a champion. By klitchkos era standards Gerry Quary, Ron Lyle, Jimmy Young, Earnie Shavers, George Chuvalo, Oscar Bonavena, Carl Williams, Ray Merger, Gerry Cooney would have been World Champions. And that's just a few names of the top of my head.

[Mr Objecitivity]

IBO doesn't count and let's face it the WBO didn't really count as much back then especially at Heavyweight when it was all about the WBA, WBC, IBF. I think if it was just as easy to win as many trinkets back in Ali's day or Joe Louis' day they'd have even bigger stats. When they were champ you were undisputed so the reigns and stats are hard to compare. They'd have more titles, more defenses, more duration as champions and you know that.

Of course Frazier, Liston and Foreman would whup those guys. Look at the fights, look at the resumes. You also had Joe Louis at #10 when nobody has ever had a longer reign, nobody has ever made more defenses and nobody has been undisputed longer than him.

ABC alphabet titles really don't matter much to me. What matters more to me is who you beat, irrespective of whether you hold any alphabet titles. And beating the best available opposition from the top 10 / 5 ranking at a consistent basis proves one's greatness over a period of time. That's exactly what Wladimir Klitschko did and the belts are only there to show for it. That's all! Nothing more!

I think common sense would dictate that when there are more belts around, it's much more difficult to become the undisputed champion. It's much more difficult to win 5 titles independently from 5 different opponents to become undisputed than it is to win 2 belts to become the undisputed champion. Wladimir Klitschko objectively held just as many belts, if not more for a longer period of time than Muhammad Ali did.

Majority of Joe Louis's reign were against opponents with losing records (more losses than wins in their records) and against sub heavyweights (opponents weighing less than 200 pounds). Modern heavyweights like the Klitschkos wouldn't even be allowed to defend their titles against such opponents. They'd be deemed mismatches but in Joe Louis's case, they aren't.

And I disagree! I think Ruslan Chagaev would beat Joe Frazier. I believe Alexander Povetkin would beat any of Muhammad Ali's opponents and Samuel Peter vs George Foreman would be a true 50/50 fight.

I've seen Joe Frazier's fights and he looks like a inferior version of Ruslan Chagaev. Not to mention, he is blind in one eye and is extremely one dimensional. He just ducks down, comes up with his head and throws a left hook and then repeat...... This is what he does for pretty much the whole fight.

1970's version of George Foreman really wasn't better than Samuel Peter in anyway. They were both power punchers with horrible technique.

[Mr Objecitivity]

He defeated a former WBC title holder and that counts as actually beating the WBC champion?
Why?

Who you beat > what title you hold.

I really don't care about ABC titles much.

[Mr Objecitivity]

He didn't really beat that many heavies that compare to todays fighters. The average HW from his day was still around 220 lbs. And don't forget that Tyson was in the 220's as well. Mike was good but he is grossly overrated based on his stardom at the time. The truth is that his elite level career was kind of a flash in the pan and wasn't all that great in terms of who he beat.

Mike Tyson can be 'grossly overrated' but also be 'grossly underrated' depending upon who is doing the rating. It's usually one extreme or another.

In one hand, you have people claiming Mike Tyson is the greatest fighter ever that would beat any human in history in one round.

On the other hand, you have others claiming Mike Tyson was nothing special and would pose no threat to other great heavyweight champs.

Both those positions are incorrect in my opinion. I choose to select the middle ground and give him the props he deserves without overrating him.

Mike Tyson competed in the heavyweight division during an era when athletic and / or skilled super heavyweights were becoming the norm. And he did better than any other boxer his size did in an era full of such heavyweights.

Guys like Tony Tucker and Frank Bruno are modern super heavyweights that Mike Tyson defeated for example. He always managed to hold his own against giants whilst he was significantly out-sized.

[Mr Objecitivity]

A good response, but I don’t think those reasons are good enough. Floyd Patterson, himself a small heavyweight, preceded Tyson as the youngest ever heavyweight champion. Patterson was only six feet tall, and had a much smaller frame. He also became the first heavyweight to regain the title after losing it — something Tyson never did. Youth and size are valid considerations for ranking on this list, but you need much more than that.

You allude to the main reason why I don’t think Tyson belongs that high in your last two sentences. I’ve said on many occasions that Mike Tyson, at his very peak, might’ve beaten any heavyweight that ever lived. But as you said yourself, Tyson's peak was short. In fact, it was a blink. His two best wins were an overmatched Michael Spinks and an over-the-hill Larry Holmes. After that, Tyson lost every big fight he was involved in. He even fell victim to possibly the biggest upset in boxing history. The “whys and wherefores” are immaterial. The fact is, they happened.

I don’t believe Tyson belongs on a top-ten heavyweights list, but I can see someone putting him at the bottom...maybe. What I can’t see is how he could possibly rate higher than Muhammad Ali, a man most boxing experts and fans have as the #1 heavyweight of all time, and is often cited as the #2 P4P, behind “Sugar” Ray Robinson.

What you have to understand is that after 1985, the heavyweight division significantly changed and revolutionized. In the sense that athletic and / or skilled heavyweights became bigger, taller and heavier in size on average and in extreme cases too. The likes of Floyd Patterson, Muhammad Ali and other pre-1980 heavyweights (with the exception of Larry Holmes perhaps) didn't prove themselves as much against modern athletic super heavyweights like Mike Tyson did. Those pre-1980 'heavyweights' would really be cruiser weights by modern standards and their accomplishments would be cruiser weight accomplishments by modern standards.

However, Mike Tyson is the only exception. He fought during the advent of modern super heavyweights and nobody who was as small as Mike Tyson in terms of height, reach and weight combined accomplished what he accomplished against modern athletic / skilled super heavyweights.

I personally don't think any version of Mike Tyson would be the favorite to beat many heavyweights head to head. Such as the Klitschkos for example. However, that's besides the point!

You could claim that he didn't have much 'longevity'. That is true! However, no other heavyweight his size had the longevity and success he had against modern athletic super heavyweight or in a division full of them.

There's a reason why no other boxer with Mike Tyson's height and reach ever had the success that Tyson had in the heavyweight division after he retired. That's what makes him truly special! He really had no business even fighting at heavyweight in the first place.