Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[The Iron Man]

** I never compared Lewis' chin to Ali. Ali could have been KOed by Cooper but for Dundee's ripped glove trick, was protected against Holmes, plus has been KDed at least 4x, though I would say 5 because Frazier knocked him down twice but was only given credit for 1.

Lewis has only been KDed twice, and got up the first time in better shape than when Holmes got up against Shavers. The other time he took the full count against Rahman but was up a few seconds later.

That Dundee thing has been extended in time, watch the fight it wasnt as long a breack as everyone claims it to be. Once again, Ali may have been knocked down 4 times but he wasnt knocked out! thats were chin comes in to it, you can be knocked down by being off balance or a well placed hit. How many times did lewis get off the canvas to carry on fighting?........

As for Lewis gettin up in a better condition than holmes dnt make me laugh, Number 1. Shavers hit much harder than McCall could dream of hitting. and Rahman for that matter. Number 2. Holmes got up and won the fight, Lewis Lost by KO from both punches, so its rediculous saying he get up in better shape cose he lost!! he got KOd Holmes got up and WON! i cant belive u really said that..people go on about Tyson Nuthuggers, here we have a Lewis Nuthugger

[StarshipTrooper]

That Dundee thing has been extended in time, watch the fight it wasnt as long a breack as everyone claims it to be. Once again, Ali may have been knocked down 4 times but he wasnt knocked out! thats were chin comes in to it, you can be knocked down by being off balance or a well placed hit. How many times did lewis get off the canvas to carry on fighting?........

As for Lewis gettin up in a better condition than holmes dnt make me laugh, Number 1. Shavers hit much harder than McCall could dream of hitting. and Rahman for that matter. Number 2. Holmes got up and won the fight, Lewis Lost by KO from both punches, so its rediculous saying he get up in better shape cose he lost!! he got KOd Holmes got up and WON! i cant belive u really said that..people go on about Tyson Nuthuggers, here we have a Lewis Nuthugger

Hey Iron Man! You have to remember too that this joker purely hates Ali and will say anything to try and discredit him. BTW, you are FAR from being a Tyson nuthugger. Like Versatile you are one of the few Tyson fans I've met who are rational and I can hold an excellent conversation with. As for Lewis, WelshDevilRob (my best friend in boxing chat btw) and I have had a running debate over how good Lewis really was. It has been cordial and reasonable from the start which are how these discussions should be!

Poet

[LondonRingRules]

Foreman's KO percentage before his exile was 89.1%; post exile it was 75.7%...tell me how that's practically the same.

** We're just going to have to disagree as to Holmes' effectiveness against a big strong 90s Foreman who showed good pace, offsetting jab, and mindboggling strength in punching and grappling. In short he either negates or has every advantage save youth.

Foreman's KO% in his comeback was 87% by the time they revived Moorer. His last 4 fights went to decisions after he turned 46 and had already achieved his goal, so I feel comfortable in repeating that he was KOing fighters at about the same rate. If you want to say he hung on to long and reduced his KO%, well, whatever. His final KO% was 84%, only down 5%, not a big deal to me.

[Wiley Hyena]

History's true top ten

Consideration of history's top ten heavyweights cannot be based simply upon one's notion of who could beat who because any dominant heavyweight in his prime could beat any other dominant heavyweight in his prime on any given, or lucky, day.
The issue requires consideration of the following factors, with equal emphasis on each: 1. Impact upon the culture; 2. Impact upon the sport; 3. Length of championship reign; 4. Win/Loss record; 5. Strength of the competition of the subject's era; and 5. Overall talent.
Accordingly, history's top ten are:
10. Evander Holyfield. Undersized body but oversized heart, and one of the greatest chins in boxing history. In his prime, Holy could have competed with any fighter of any era. And, he handily whipped Tyson;
9. George Foreman. One of the most powerful punchers the sport has ever seen. Regained a belt in his 40s;
8. Larry Holmes. Length of reign and win/loss record place Holmes in the top ten despite a rather ordinary level of competition;
7. John L. Sullivan. The great bareknuckler who first popularized the fight game in the United States;
6. Jack Johnson. One of the greatest defensive fighters ever seen. He won the true "fight of the century" against the aging iron man, Jim Jeffries, thus crossing the cultural color line to the benefit of the sport and the country;
5. Jack Dempsey. The most ferocious fighter of the 20th century and America's first sports "superstar." Babe Ruth thought Dempsey was a god;
4. Rocky Marciano. Retired as undefeated champion. Enough said;
3. Muhammad Ali. Charismatic stylist and a great talent. He won multiple championships and undeniably left his mark on the culture and the sport;
2. Joe Louis. Longest championship reign in history. Hemingway said of Louis, "He was the greatest fighting machine that ever strapped on gloves."
1. James J. "The Boilermaker" Jeffries. In his prime, Jeffries was never beaten or even knocked down. He retired as the undefeated champion of the world. Six years later he came out of retirement for one fight only, and incurred his only loss to a prime Jack Johnson in the "fight of the century" and then permanently retired. At 6' 3" and 225 lbs, Jeffries was regarded as the quickest and most powerful fighter ever seen during or before his era. He had great stamina and could withstand punishment, often going over 25 rounds in fights with 3 ounce gloves (no pillowfights here, folks). He took all comers and beat all the greats of his era. At one time, he offered to fight Fitzsimmons, Corbett, and Sharky in the same night, and they refused. After his fight against Jeffries, Jack Johnson said, "Jeffries is the greatest fighter of all time." The fact is that during his prime, nobody was ever as dominant and unbeatable as Jim Jeffries.

[mickeyb]

I can see what your saying Wiley Hyena but Boxing used to be the no'1 sport in America and old time fighters have a higher legendary status than modern fighters. Also you have so many belts nowadays the average person on the street wouldnt have a clue who Chagaev or Ibragimov are, where as everyone and their dog could have named Primo Carnera when he was champ, in todays market he'd barely make the back pages of yesterdays news.

I also can't totally agree with your "we cant base it on who can beat who" comment, ok we will never know if Tyson could have beaten Dempsey or Louis but we can all have an opinion based on our knowledge from what we've seen of them. Therefore i dont agree with your top ten. Fair play on your opinions and list, each to their own, but Jeffries and Sullivan cant be in there on hear say, your only going on what you've read. They are worth a mention but cant seriously be considered in a top 10.

Hemmingway and Babe Ruth?? what does it matter what they think? They never laced up a pair of gloves.

Bloke down my local pub says Lennox Lewis was the best so must be true !! and Lennox Lewis beat every man he ever faced so why is he not in there?

[Wiley Hyena]

Wylie's reply

Thank you Britt for your response, and it is well taken. However, I think we are comparing oranges to apples here. I'm talking about the most important fighters for the HISTORY of boxing. Could Lennox beat John L. Sullivan? That's a fair question, and some might pick Lennox. Although, Lennox would never in his life know what it must be like to fight a 50 round fight without gloves. To dismiss Sullivan and Jeffries from the top ten in favor of a Lennox Lewis, is like saying George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are less important to U.S. history than Jimmy Carter! Of course Lewis compares with Holyfield in a heads up matchup. Lewis was a dominant fighter and one of my personal favorites. But, Holyfield won multiple championships and Lewis did not. Therefore, Holy is entitled to the number 10spot.
Ironically, number 10 is quite a bit more difficult to settle on than number 1. Jim Jeffries is an easy pick for number one. Only Joe Louis has the stats and the record to commend himself in comparison with Jeffries, but then again...the 3 ounce gloves.... Number 10, however, comes with a host of considerations and regards many modern fighters such as, Joe Frazier. I cannot abjectly disagree with those with different 10s as the course of history will eventually tell with the passage of time, however numbers 9-1 are solid in stone. That is until another true great arrives on the scene.

[Wiley Hyena]

Wylie's reply

Thank you Britt for your response, and it is well taken. However, I think we are comparing apples to oranges here. I'm talking about the most important fighters for the HISTORY of boxing. Could Lennox beat John L. Sullivan? That's a fair question, and some might objectively pick Lennox. Although, Lennox would never in his life know what it must be like to fight a 50 round fight without gloves. To dismiss Sullivan and Jeffries from the top ten in favor of a Lennox Lewis, is like saying George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are less important to U.S. history than Jimmy Carter! Of course Lewis compares with Holyfield in a heads up matchup. Lewis was a dominant fighter and one of my personal favorites. But, Holyfield won multiple championships and Lewis did not. Therefore, Holy is entitled to the number 10spot.
Ironically, number 10 is quite a bit more difficult to settle on than number 1. Jim Jeffries is an easy pick for number one. Only Joe Louis has the stats and the record to commend himself in comparison with Jeffries, but then again...the 3 ounce gloves.... Number 10, however, comes with a host of considerations and regards many modern fighters such as, Joe Frazier. I cannot abjectly disagree with those with different 10s as the course of history will eventually tell with the passage of time, however numbers 9-1 are solid in stone. That is until another true great arrives on the scene.

[LondonRingRules]

Hey Iron Man! You have to remember too that this joker purely hates Ali and will say anything to try and discredit him.
Poet

** Ah, the Don't Know it Poet goes on the rag again. Time for a hormone adjustment dearie.

Ali was one of the bravest most talented ring warriors ever, but he don't walk on water and he's already married sweetie. Give it up.

[them_apples]

yea some people like the view the fighters of their time as gods...

Could Lennox beat John L. Sullivan? That's a fair question, and some might pick Lennox. Although, Lennox would never in his life know what it must be like to fight a 50 round fight without gloves.

Thats not even a question, boxing was so undeveloped back then that even a lightweight nowadays could probably walk rings around John L. Sullivan. I'm so sick of people over hyping old fighters like Johnson and Sullivan, these guys wouldn't last a second in the ring with Lewis, foreman, holy field, Tyson...

[Wiley Hyena]

Wylie's reply to Them Apples

Thank you for your response Them Apples. In reply, let me say that I'm not "hyping" the oldtimers. I'm just telling it like it is, or was. Furthermore, I'm not talking about who could beat who in the modern day 12 round pillowfight. I'm talking about boxers who were the most important to the history of boxing. It's ridiculous to take our modern day "heroes" and try to compare them to fighters of an earlier era because the sport is always evolving. Today's boxing is not the boxing of the 1950s, nor is it the boxing of the 1850s. But as to your statement "boxing was so undeveloped back then", any historian of the sport knows that simply is not true. Boxing started in the 1700s and many evolutions have occurred since that time. Simply put, to be successful in a 50 round bareknuckle match it's easy to see that styles and methods would evolve that would be totally foreign and unsuccessful in today's game. Conversely, it's also easy to see that the styles and methods of today's game would fail in a bareknuckled (or 3 ounce gloved) event of virtually unlimited duration.
Having said this however, one cannot help but wonder how the spoiled and overprotected modern day athlete would hold up against true men of grit. This is not to say that modern boxing cannot be gritty, for it surely is from time to time, and when a good fight does break out, boxing is still the best sport of all. But let's face it, the game has gone soft even compared to what it was 25 years ago because, in part, of the feminization of our society and from efforts to protect the fighters from debilitating injury (ie..abolishing the 15 round fight). And with it, the fighters of today are generally softer, and seem to be much more concerned with self-preservation and making a buck than really proving who is the baddest of the bunch. One may argue that this is a good thing, and from the perspective of the fighter it may be. But, from the perspective of the viewer (or "consumer") this trend may not be such a good thing. Whether for better or worse, it's just a fact that the human organism incurs a peculiar primal satisfaction in human conflict...ie...brutality. Take the brutality out of boxing, and those inside the game are forced to artificially create spectacles in order to attract attention and make money. Does this situation unfortunately sound familiar to you?