Thread: Impossible for these boxers to NOT be in the Top 10 All-Time:......

Jack Johnson
Joe Louis
Jack Dempsey
Rocky Marciano
Muhammad Ali
George Foreman
Larry Holmes
Lennox Lewis
****************

Thats 8 right there. No doubt about them I hope for anybody at all?

Now choose from Gene Tunney, Sam Langford, Max Schmeling, Sonny Liston, Evander Holyfield, Mike Tyson, Joe Frazier, Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott, Floyd Patterson, and K2.

I'll go with Joe Frazier and Mike Tyson

Would've put Sonny Liston in there too and taken out Jack Johnson

Originally Posted by TysonBomb

I'll go with Joe Frazier and Mike Tyson

Would've put Sonny Liston in there too and taken out Jack Johnson

I cant take out "Downtown" Jack Johnson, sorry....

I go with Tyson he was the most ferocious animal I have ever seen fight---
Frazier I tend to not put in there---his best fight was the 1st Ali fight and he still took too many shots to the head. His worst fights were the 2 Foreman fights. He put in a really shit performance in the 2nd Ali fight but then redeemed himself with that torrid gutsy Thrilla fight. I rank Joe about #12.

I like Holyfield--he fought so many people for so long--the list is like a Who's Who. Seriously. Check it out:

Foreman
Qawi (2)
Bowe (3)
Tyson (2)
Lewis (2)
Moorer (2)
Ruiz (3)
Byrd
Rahman
Cooper
Douglas
AND THE WHOLE SLEW OF RUSSINA GUYS WHOSE NAMES I CANNOT SPELL
***********************************************

Evander seriously WAS the Real Deal but I didnt like him until he shocked the world in '96 against Tyson.

I say Evander Holyfield, Mike Tyson, then guys like Charles and Liston and Tunney----THEN Frazier, Norton, Schmeling, Walcott, Patterson----
THEN I can put K2 with all generosity about at #19 and #20.

Nah his win over Ali is one of the best ever and was one hell of a fight. That was probably the most physically strong version of Ali that we've seen and he even dropped him with that legendary left hook. Ali got away with a ton of holding in the second fight and should've been deducted a point or two or warned at the very least. Third fight was the most brutal of them all and both men fought to the point of collapse ... he gets massive credit from me for that performance even though he lost.

He also has quality wins over Bonavena (twice), Quarry (twice), Ellis, Foster etc.

Foreman was just a bad matchup and Frazier showed a ton of heart. I don't think anyone of Fraziers style could ever beat that version of Foreman ... who got away with a ton of pushing and shoving.

No shame in that. Jack Johnson is someone who I'm really not that impressed with and he wouldn't make my top 10.

I'm not a fan of Holyfield and I'm very critical of his "accidental" headbutts and tactics for the Tyson bouts. But his body of work and longevity cannot be denied. He's fought everyone and has been around forever. He's on the edge of the top 10 for me. Don't know where to rank K2 ... if Wlad becomes undisputed and dominates for another 2-3 years then I'd have to move him up to near the top 10. The length of his reign cannot be denied, despite his competition. He's been the best and beaten the best since 05/06 and has like 14 straight title defenses. Yeah he's fighting hepatitis patients, cruisers, geriatrics, hype jobs but these are the guys available. Yeah losses are especially hilarious and embarrassing, his chin is probably the worst I've ever seen from a dominant heavyweight champion, and H2H he'd get clowned a lot but guys like Norton, Tunney, Schmeling etc. don't have the same kind of reign he has had.

Ken Norton, despite what he's done and how he's viewed, has never won a title. Tunney was champion for 2 fights and we all know about the controversial Dempsey fights. Schmeling was champion for like 1 fight ... he did beat Joe Louis, which is a hell of a win especially considering Louis was in his prime and Schmeling was older but I can't but him ahead of Wlad.

Are we judging them on what them on historical impact ?? or on who would have beaten who ?

Because if its on who would have beat who , lots of those guys are way to small for the modern era.

It's very subjective but as a list of top ten heavyweights I should imagine its pretty close to most other peoples. The criteria by which you judge greatness is different for everyone though and personally I would have Frazier in there because of the huge impact he made on the sport. As well as helping to solidify the Ali legend you dont really get the Rocky movie character without him and he represents a kind of everyman fighting spirit that makes him the last of a long line stretching into the past.


In a list of ATGs throughout the weight classes and being truly representative of the sport it is interesting to think who you would remove/keep from that list when you introduce SRR, Wilde, Armstrong, Mace etc

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

Jack Johnson
Joe Louis
Jack Dempsey
Rocky Marciano
Muhammad Ali
George Foreman
Larry Holmes
Lennox Lewis
****************

Thats 8 right there. No doubt about them I hope for anybody at all?

Now choose from Gene Tunney, Sam Langford, Max Schmeling, Sonny Liston, Evander Holyfield, Mike Tyson, Joe Frazier, Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott, Floyd Patterson, and K2.

I have Liston, Holyfield, and Frazier ahead of Lewis.

Originally Posted by Bobthepen

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

Jack Johnson
Joe Louis
Jack Dempsey
Rocky Marciano
Muhammad Ali
George Foreman
Larry Holmes
Lennox Lewis
****************

Thats 8 right there. No doubt about them I hope for anybody at all?

Now choose from Gene Tunney, Sam Langford, Max Schmeling, Sonny Liston, Evander Holyfield, Mike Tyson, Joe Frazier, Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott, Floyd Patterson, and K2.

I have Liston, Holyfield, and Frazier ahead of Lewis.

No way my friend. Liston does not belong in the top 25, he had no heart, and was sloth like. Frazier was a runt with a lot of heart, but not enough to get him into the top ten. Holyfield is 11 or 12, in my opinion.
Marciano is there--and well deserved--because of his indefeated status. I have no idea why Dempsey is in the top ten, top twenty yes. Johnson is there because he was--also richly deserved--a black pioneer, and master boxer-puncher.
Take Dempsey out of the top ten.
Insert W. Klitschko, now we are looking better, and have two spots to fill.

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

Now choose from Gene Tunney, Sam Langford, Max Schmeling, Sonny Liston, Evander Holyfield, Mike Tyson, Joe Frazier, Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott, Floyd Patterson, and K2.

Out of those options... I think I'll go with Tyson and K2. Tyson had a relatively short prime but can't argue with youngest champ of all time and the amount of bodies he left behind.

Originally Posted by beenKOed

No way my friend. Liston does not belong in the top 25, he had no heart, and was sloth like.

Jeez I don't know about that. Maybe not top 10, but not top 25? Liston was a beast, before Ali they thought he would be champ until he decided to retire (and maybe he would have if it wasn't for Ali). He really only lost to Ali, a SD early on and a brutal KO when he was damn near 40. Liston would smash over half of that top 10 list IMHO.

I think the whole "no heart" and "bully" thing is overblown because it sounds good... he faced adversity in his career and came back and won. Cleveland Williams shattered his nose and rocked him in their first fight and he fought back and brutally TKO'd him.

Originally Posted by beenKOed

Originally Posted by Bobthepen

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

Jack Johnson
Joe Louis
Jack Dempsey
Rocky Marciano
Muhammad Ali
George Foreman
Larry Holmes
Lennox Lewis
****************

Thats 8 right there. No doubt about them I hope for anybody at all?

Now choose from Gene Tunney, Sam Langford, Max Schmeling, Sonny Liston, Evander Holyfield, Mike Tyson, Joe Frazier, Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott, Floyd Patterson, and K2.

I have Liston, Holyfield, and Frazier ahead of Lewis.

No way my friend. Liston does not belong in the top 25, he had no heart, and was sloth like. Frazier was a runt with a lot of heart, but not enough to get him into the top ten. Holyfield is 11 or 12, in my opinion.
Marciano is there--and well deserved--because of his indefeated status. I have no idea why Dempsey is in the top ten, top twenty yes. Johnson is there because he was--also richly deserved--a black pioneer, and master boxer-puncher.
Take Dempsey out of the top ten.
Insert W. Klitschko, now we are looking better, and have two spots to fill.

So Frazier, Liston, Dempsey and Holyfield don't make the top ten but Wlad does? Who else does? Akinwande perhaps, or maybe Bruce Seldon.

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Are we judging them on what them on historical impact ?? or on who would have beaten who ?

Because if its on who would have beat who , lots of those guys are way to small for the modern era.

That is a great question or two. Debatable but they fit. Those and a few others are why more then any other division I struggle or second guess any hev list I come up with beyond numeric order. Another rather large factor for me is who did they fight and when they fought them. Its for that reason alone that I do not rank Marciano or Holmes as high as most people.

I'm not sure that size difference played the same role as it does today and I think that its largely do to the combatants and the mentality of the day. Especially the original 8 era when fighting bigger men was common place. I guess what I'm saying is that the deer in the headlights look on the faces of most of Wlad opponents would most likely not be apparent on many of the faces of past heavyweights should they be in the same ring. Wlad or Lennox's size would not have intimidated the smaller heavyweights of other eras the way that it seems to do today. Just a different mind set totally.
Having said that intimidated or not you are right. Size would be a big factor but perhaps not as much as one might think.

Thanks for getting me thinking this early in the morning.

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Are we judging them on what them on historical impact ?? or on who would have beaten who ?

Because if its on who would have beat who , lots of those guys are way to small for the modern era.

Just to play devil's advocate, you do realize that there were plenty of big boxers back in the day. For example, Jess Willard awas 6'6, Buddy Baer was 6'7, Primo Carnera was 6'5 and Luis Firpo was 6'3. I'm not going to argue those guys would have beat Lennox Lewis and Vitali Klitschko. You know my point though.

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Are we judging them on what them on historical impact ?? or on who would have beaten who ?

Because if its on who would have beat who , lots of those guys are way to small for the modern era.

That is a great question or two. Debatable but they fit. Those and a few others are why more then any other division I struggle or second guess any hev list I come up with beyond numeric order. Another rather large factor for me is who did they fight and when they fought them. Its for that reason alone that I do not rank Marciano or Holmes as high as most people.

I'm not sure that size difference played the same role as it does today and I think that its largely do to the combatants and the mentality of the day. Especially the original 8 era when fighting bigger men was common place. I guess what I'm saying is that the deer in the headlights look on the faces of most of Wlad opponents would most likely not be apparent on many of the faces of past heavyweights should they be in the same ring. Wlad or Lennox's size would not have intimidated the smaller heavyweights of other eras the way that it seems to do today. Just a different mind set totally.
Having said that intimidated or not you are right. Size would be a big factor but perhaps not as much as one might think.

Thanks for getting me thinking this early in the morning.

Beat me to it.

Tyson and Frasier need to be in there. I think Wlad has a better legacy than Vitali but see Vitali as the better fighter of the two at their peaks.