what is the true heavyweight top ten

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

I love Marciano just as much as anyone else but I can't accept him being the #1 guy, or in the top 3. People always point to the fact that he was never beaten. I don't really think thats relevant, because it doesn't mean that he couldn't be beaten. We've seen him come damn close to defeat a few times. I mean if Valuev wins his next 3 fights and retires at 49-0 are people going to say that he was one of the best HW boxers? I know its a bad comparison because Rocky fought much better opposition, I just hate when people use the "well he's undefeated" argument. I'll put Ali and Louis ahead of him any day of the week.

---

Rocky fought EVERYONE there was to fight....don't compare him to Nicolay Valuev the guys he has fought STILL couldn't beat Rocky (....yeah the dead guy).

Rocky fought GREAT FIGHTERS, Rocky BEAT great fighters, Rocky got off the canvas to win, and Rocky came close to losing but he never did. What more do you want from the guy???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by landmine950

cc for ya mick for the effort of the post...(even tho you called me an assh0le) LOL

I'm always against the old "rose colored glasses" view of older fighters
Best all time...."at the time?" or compared to fighters right now?

To me its like if a guy won the 1940 1500 meter Olympic race by 3 seconds.. the biggest margin ever....so he was WAAYYY better than anyone .......THEN...
BUT! his winning time in 1940 is now 50th place in all time 1500m races.......
If he ran in the Olymics today in 2007, he'd come in dead last...by 3 seconds.


So is he the best ever? or 50th best?

maybe its because I look at things from a more quantatative viewpoint....I say he's 50th.

How would Rocky Marciano, Ali, Joe Lewis do against the best in 2007?
IMO 1st round KO
Unpopular viewpoint?....It's Ok I'm getting used to it.....
Now as for what they contributed to boxing or popularity or the greatness of the fights? WHOLE different story..

---

Well by that rational with today's advances in nutrition, healthcare, training, and so on I'd say Rocky and Louis would do rather well and you're big F****** freak of a fighter Valuev would get KO'd by Primo Carnera

---

I think I understand what your saying.... Put ali in a time machine and have him born in 1980 so he's 27 today.. another totally different scenario..hard to say. For sure they would be WAYY better than they were.....what about the steroid issue? how much of that is going on today? some guys get caught. how many don't?

Boxing, like any sport is far bigger than it was in the "old" days
I say the larger the talent pool.. the smaller the star.
Its the old big fish in the small pond becomes the small fish in the ocean.
Well smallerER for sure.
todays boxing pool is an ocean of hard core proffesionals compared to 1940-60.

....hey there are a lot of WHAT IF's but the old timers deserve their place at the top.




FYI Babe Ruth could not only hit more home runs than Barry Bonds if he was playing today but he could also strike Barry out too.....on a diet of booze, hotdogs, and cigars and no steroids to be found

LYLE.. please read my "maskaev promotional spin" post &
respond to it there..... so I can get back to ribbing you!

1. Ali 2. Louis 3. Marciano, 4. Moore 5. Holyfield 6. Holmes 7. Dempsey 8. Tunney 9. Foreman 10. Frazier.

Ali at the top of the list. I inlcuded Holyfield in this list, may be not everybody will agree with me, but this guy was a real warrior...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puerto Rican Punch

1. Ali 2. Louis 3. Marciano, 4. Moore 5. Holyfield 6. Holmes 7. Dempsey 8. Tunney 9. Foreman 10. Frazier.

Ali at the top of the list. I inlcuded Holyfield in this list, may be not everybody will agree with me, but this guy was a real warrior...

---

i a gree with holyfield for sure......but theres one guy that should be in there that most people deny this man but he defenatly should be in there tyson he was a bomber of all motherfgucking bombers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puerto Rican Punch

1. Ali 2. Louis 3. Marciano, 4. Moore 5. Holyfield 6. Holmes 7. Dempsey 8. Tunney 9. Foreman 10. Frazier.

Ali at the top of the list. I inlcuded Holyfield in this list, may be not everybody will agree with me, but this guy was a real warrior...

---

moore and holyfield shouldnt be above holmes and to be honest i wouldnt even class moore in top 15 he wasnt great at hw he had much better resume at lhw and i dont think i would class holyfield in top 10 either but thats my opinion

and actually how can moore be that high when he never even won hw title and he is ahead of holmes and foreman ?? sorry mate doesnt make sense to me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeboxing

Lennox LEwis is soo underated. IMO , he is much better than tyson in prime. They fought once not long befor Tyson became champ and Lennox was better according to the people who watched it, Tyson was frustrated and skooled

---

Mate you shouldnt go starting that debate! Its been on ere a thousand times and no one ever agrees. For what its worth i think Prime Tyson knocks his block off.

....I disagree ever so respectfully cockney

Tyson 5'11 220, Lewis 6'5 250

AND Lennox had more power than Frank Bruno and was a better boxer....and Franky Bruno gave Mike all he could handle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

....I disagree ever so respectfully cockney

Tyson 5'11 220, Lewis 6'5 250

AND Lennox had more power than Frank Bruno and was a better boxer....and Franky Bruno gave Mike all he could handle

---

Tyson wasn't very sharp in that fight though, he wasn't bobbing and weaving like he had in the past, that was really the beginning of the end already... But Bruno also gave Lewis pretty much all he could handle some years later, so did Mercer, Rahman, and McCall.. To say prime Tyson wouldn't have a good chance to KO him is bias I think. It's a pick em for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

....I disagree ever so respectfully cockney

Tyson 5'11 220, Lewis 6'5 250

AND Lennox had more power than Frank Bruno and was a better boxer....and Franky Bruno gave Mike all he could handle

---

Tyson wasn't very sharp in that fight though, he wasn't bobbing and weaving like he had in the past, that was really the beginning of the end already... But Bruno also gave Lewis pretty much all he could handle some years later, so did Mercer, Rahman, and McCall.. To say prime Tyson wouldn't have a good chance to KO him is bias I think. It's a pick em for me.

---

ye ride on brother......know man doing anything with peek tyson,fair enought didnt last long but while it did...thrilling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matteoz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

....I disagree ever so respectfully cockney

Tyson 5'11 220, Lewis 6'5 250

AND Lennox had more power than Frank Bruno and was a better boxer....and Franky Bruno gave Mike all he could handle

---

Tyson wasn't very sharp in that fight though, he wasn't bobbing and weaving like he had in the past, that was really the beginning of the end already... But Bruno also gave Lewis pretty much all he could handle some years later, so did Mercer, Rahman, and McCall.. To say prime Tyson wouldn't have a good chance to KO him is bias I think. It's a pick em for me.

---

ye ride on brother......know man doing anything with peek tyson,fair enought didnt last long but while it did...thrilling

---

Aint been on in a while so welcome and :coolclick: spot on about Mike.

....Tyson always had trouble with boxers who were tall and also boxers who weren't intimidated by him.


Tyson would have always lost to Lewis.....and Tyson would ALWAYS lose to Bowe.......and Tyson would always lose to Holyfield......and Tyson would always lose to Foreman.


d-d-d-d-deal with it