Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[StarshipTrooper]

Any top-ten list that includes a Klitschko (especially Wlad) instantly loses any and all credibility.

Poet

[edgarg]

There's a certain "amnesia" in considering Rocky Marciano as a "great" In my opinion, he was one of the worst champions, made only 6 defences in 4 years, all well used over the hill fighters, who really had very little but their names left. I don't even consider the obvious Mafia influence.

The fights were generally good, being well matched, with their diminished skills, more or less reduced down to Marciano's low level. In their primes, none of them would lose to Marciano, he was just too unskilled. Liston, whom you feel had a weak resume, would have killed Marciano, look at Liston's 2 short brutal, brilliant fights against Cleveland Williams. Williams would have been charged with manslaughter, if he'd ever fought Marciano.

In my opinion, otherwise good, credible lists are made suspect by the inclusion of Rocky, (sometimes even as No. 1, or in the top 3, for heaven's sake).

My List is Louis, Johnson, Ali, Foreman, Holyfield, W. Klitschko, Lewis, Dempsey, Wills,
V.Klitschko.

And I'd really like to stick Mike Tyson in there somewhere, unbeatable at his best, disappointing when not motivated. I'd take out Dempsey.

It's not easy to make this list, and I venture to say that I could make out another list, with different fighters, which, if those on the two lists were pitted against one another in a round robin, the results might surprise us.

I discovered this page about a week ago, and, have read through EVERY post until the last one, and I can say, that I have never had such pleasure from email posts before. The writing, moderation, and positive expertise was a real pleasure to see.

However, the more recent posts seem to show the same sort of offensive opinion and criticism which was entirely lacking during the years of continuance. For me anyway, the daily posts are ruined by the villification and uncontrolled spewed out venom, mostly over a mere nothing.

I was very happy to find such a high level, pleasant -although differing- exchange of valid viewpoints. Soooo......... What now??

[StarshipTrooper]

And I'd really like to stick Mike Tyson in there somewhere, unbeatable at his best, disappointing when not motivated. I'd take out Dempsey.

It's not easy to make this list, and I venture to say that I could make out another list, with different fighters, which, if those on the two lists were pitted against one another in a round robin, the results might surprise us.

I discovered this page about a week ago, and, have read through EVERY post until the last one, and I can say, that I have never had such pleasure from email posts before. The writing, moderation, and positive expertise was a real pleasure to see.

However, the more recent posts seem to show the same sort of offensive opinion and criticism which was entirely lacking during the years of continuance. For me anyway, the daily posts are ruined by the villification and uncontrolled spewed out venom, mostly over a mere nothing.

I was very happy to find such a high level, pleasant -although differing- exchange of valid viewpoints. Soooo......... What now??

Putting a Klitschko in the top-ten is offensive to the intellect......especially when the person doing it is making semi-veiled (and venomous) aspersions on Marciano. BTW, no fighter is unbeatable so casting Tyson (who was by no means the GOAT even at his peak) in that light kills credibility as well.

Poet

[The Iron Man]

And I'd really like to stick Mike Tyson in there somewhere, unbeatable at his best, disappointing when not motivated. I'd take out Dempsey.

It's not easy to make this list, and I venture to say that I could make out another list, with different fighters, which, if those on the two lists were pitted against one another in a round robin, the results might surprise us.

I discovered this page about a week ago, and, have read through EVERY post until the last one, and I can say, that I have never had such pleasure from email posts before. The writing, moderation, and positive expertise was a real pleasure to see.

However, the more recent posts seem to show the same sort of offensive opinion and criticism which was entirely lacking during the years of continuance. For me anyway, the daily posts are ruined by the villification and uncontrolled spewed out venom, mostly over a mere nothing.

I was very happy to find such a high level, pleasant -although differing- exchange of valid viewpoints. Soooo......... What now??

Firstly, thanks for the kind words and for posting your list. This thread used to be very active and usually debates were made in good taste and people just agreed to disagree, with something as individual as a top 10 list its hard to convince someone they are wrong anyway! What we usually found is people have the same 10 fighters just in a different order.

It is interesting to see both the Klitschko's in your list, do you care to explain why you rate them over fighters that you have missed out, that are commonly found on other peoples lists, such as Holmes, Tyson, Frazier and Marciano?

[edgarg]

Putting a Klitschko in the top-ten is offensive to the intellect......especially when the person doing it is making semi-veiled (and venomous) aspersions on Marciano. BTW, no fighter is unbeatable so casting Tyson (who was by no means the GOAT even at his peak) in that light kills credibility as well.

Poet

It's all a matter of opinion, you have yours, I have mine. The word "venom" or "venomous" was first used by me, don't copy.

As Tyson was murderously successful during his rise and peak, beating all the other champions, not merely beating them, but crushing them, I prefer to stick to the facts of the matter. During this period, he fought the best available opponents, including champions, and never lost......therefore he was unbeatable.

[edgarg]

It's all a matter of opinion, you have yours, I have mine. The word "venom" or "venomous" was first used by me, don't copy.

As Tyson was murderously successful during his rise and peak, beating all the other champions, not merely beating them, but crushing them, I prefer to stick to the facts of the matter. During this period, he fought the best available opponents, including champions, and never lost......therefore he was unbeatable.

By the way, and I should have included it in my letter above, what is the significance of the the 4 feeding bottles at the beginning of the post.

As a decoration, they leave much to be desired.

[StarshipTrooper]

It's all a matter of opinion, you have yours, I have mine. The word "venom" or "venomous" was first used by me, don't copy.

As Tyson was murderously successful during his rise and peak, beating all the other champions, not merely beating them, but crushing them, I prefer to stick to the facts of the matter. During this period, he fought the best available opponents, including champions, and never lost......therefore he was unbeatable.

Opinions are like azzholes: The wrong people have them and they're all full of ****.

Tyson was dominant in a weak era of Heavyweights: Fat boys, coke addicts, and other assorted detritus that won't make a top-5 contenders list in a decent era.....and that includes the belt holders her fought (Trevor Berbick anyone?). Any fighter who generates a lot of offense looks spectacular when fighting tomato cans and other assorted weak-sisters which is why they consistantly get overrated. These ARE the facts of the matter: If you aren't considering the quality of the era Tyson fought in than you're being intellectually dishonest. You're ignoring the facts rather than sticking to them......cherry picking your "facts" doesn't feed the bulldog.

Poet

[edgarg]

Opinions are like azzholes: The wrong people have them and they're all full of ****.

Tyson was dominant in a weak era of Heavyweights: Fat boys, coke addicts, and other assorted detritus that won't make a top-5 contenders list in a decent era.....and that includes the belt holders her fought (Trevor Berbick anyone?). Any fighter who generates a lot of offense looks spectacular when fighting tomato cans and other assorted weak-sisters which is why they consistantly get overrated. These ARE the facts of the matter: If you aren't considering the quality of the era Tyson fought in than you're being intellectually dishonest. You're ignoring the facts rather than sticking to them......cherry picking your "facts" doesn't feed the bulldog.

Poet

What a venemous diatribe. I mentioned the excellent exchanges for the first couple of years, and the rotten deterioration lately.

So do you think that you might exert yourself somewhat, anf FORCE yourself to communicate in a friendly and polite manner.

I myself, although always shunning oscenities and four letter words, have more than a sufficient command of language to hold my own in ANY "exchange of words", [as I used to physically in my ring days].....even without a thesaurus.

But I don't want to be involved in any slanging match, just because I think .....for instance....that Gene Krupa is, historically a better drummer than Buddy Rich.

[StarshipTrooper]

What a venemous diatribe. I mentioned the excellent exchanges for the first couple of years, and the rotten deterioration lately.

It isn't venomous when it's the truth.

So do you think that you might exert yourself somewhat, anf FORCE yourself to communicate in a friendly and polite manner.

I don't suffer fools gladly.

I myself, although always shunning oscenities and four letter words, have more than a sufficient command of language to hold my own in ANY "exchange of words", [as I used to physically in my ring days].....even without a thesaurus.

Well goody for you! I could care less about the style of your words.....it's their lack of substance that concerns me.

But I don't want to be involved in any slanging match, just because I think .....for instance....that Gene Krupa is, historically a better drummer than Buddy Rich.

Considering music is a matter of taste while being a better fighter is not, I'd say your analogy falls flat.

Poet

[smallbutstrong]

Opinions are like azzholes: The wrong people have them and they're all full of ****.

Tyson was dominant in a weak era of Heavyweights: Fat boys, coke addicts, and other assorted detritus that won't make a top-5 contenders list in a decent era.....and that includes the belt holders her fought (Trevor Berbick anyone?). Any fighter who generates a lot of offense looks spectacular when fighting tomato cans and other assorted weak-sisters which is why they consistantly get overrated. These ARE the facts of the matter: If you aren't considering the quality of the era Tyson fought in than you're being intellectually dishonest. You're ignoring the facts rather than sticking to them......cherry picking your "facts" doesn't feed the bulldog.

Poet

Tyson was champion in the 80s for just over 3 years, and in those 3 years he beat all of the best opposition they put in front of him. If I remember correctly, 7 out of his 10 title fight wins, in that time period, were against top 10 ranked fighters.

The three other fighters who weren't ranked in the top 10 were Holmes, Tubbs and Bruno.

Holmes was past-it but he's still an all-time great heavyweight. Not to mention that the public were demanding that fight.

Tubbs and Bruno, although not rated in the top 10 at the time, were world champions, at one point in their respective careers. Although, these two weren't what you would call memorably great champions, they're certainly not tomato cans.