Re: this top ten heavyweight of all time list is bad!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dezmundo1983
How the F*** is hollyfield the 5th best heavyweight of all time! ???
He will be the greatest of all time if he gets another championship belt, Well...maybe!?
Re: this top ten heavyweight of all time list is bad!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klitschkofan
The funny thing is Klitschko would have a great chance at beating all the fighters on this list.I could easily put Klitschko in that list.Just because the competition of this era isn't the same as when Louis and Ali were around doesn't mean he couldn't compete with them.Heavyweights now days are bigger and stronger and that is a fact.I really doubt Marciano would have a record like that fighting guys weighing 250+lbs and having the power they poses.He only fought 11 guys over 200lbs and they were just over 200lbs.Louis fought only 18 fighters who were over 200lbs!Patterson 14.Tunney less than 5.You have to take that into consideration.You can't just write him off, if you do you aren't really thinking it through.
Didn't say either couldn't compete, they haven't fought the caliber of opponents that those guys did, regardless of weight. So, they doesn't deserve to be on the list. Maybe not their fault due to competition, but Louis and Marciano would have definately hung with todays guys. Tyson barely weighed over 200 for awhile, and we saw what he did. Bigger you are, harder you may hit, but you fall the same way. Muscle doesn't equal chin. Plus those guys fought 15 rounds. I seriously doubt either Klitchko would last considering their stamina issues and injuries.
Re: this top ten heavyweight of all time list is bad!
Quote:
Originally Posted by headson
rocky is better than tunney
holmes is better than hoylfield
where does harry wills come from
It's not a great list, Harry Wills was a great fighter back pre-post 1st world war.
He fought Sam langford about a thousand times and won most of them.
He fought often for what was known then as the Colored Heavyweight Championship.
Shouldn't be in the top ten but worthy of recoginition.
Re: this top ten heavyweight of all time list is bad!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klitschkofan
The funny thing is Klitschko would have a great chance at beating all the fighters on this list.I could easily put Klitschko in that list.Just because the competition of this era isn't the same as when Louis and Ali were around doesn't mean he couldn't compete with them.
I'm not sure which Klitschko you're talking about, but it really doesn't matter, because neither Vitali nor Wlad should even be mentioned in the same sentence as Muhammad Ali or Joe Louis.
I get that part of your argument is the weight issue, but if Ali and Louis had access to 21st century training techniques, both of them would give either of the Klitschko brothers an asskicking.
In fact, they could probably do it even without the modern training.
Well that is your opinion because neither Ali or Louis ever fought a guy like Wladimir or Vitali.Ali didn't have the kind of Power that would threaten Vitali whatsoever and even Wladimir for that matter.I couldn't imagine Wladimir's record if he had made a career out of fighting guys that were 205lbs!As it is 43ko's in 48 wins fighting guys who average between 240 to 250lbs!There is no way that Ali gives either of the Klitschko's an "asskicking".Ali was not a :banghead:god.
Re: this top ten heavyweight of all time list is bad!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klitschkofan
The funny thing is Klitschko would have a great chance at beating all the fighters on this list.I could easily put Klitschko in that list.Just because the competition of this era isn't the same as when Louis and Ali were around doesn't mean he couldn't compete with them.Heavyweights now days are bigger and stronger and that is a fact.I really doubt Marciano would have a record like that fighting guys weighing 250+lbs and having the power they poses.He only fought 11 guys over 200lbs and they were just over 200lbs.Louis fought only 18 fighters who were over 200lbs!Patterson 14.Tunney less than 5.You have to take that into consideration.You can't just write him off, if you do you aren't really thinking it through.
the game has changed but klitschko isnt all that
more weight = less speed dont forget
he still isnt in the top 10
and this list is still the worst ever
Re: this top ten heavyweight of all time list is bad!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dezmundo1983
1 Muhammad Ali 2,026 1960 - 1981 56-5-0
2 Joe Louis 1,568 1934 - 1951 69-3-0
3 Gene Tunney 1,500 1915 - 1928 82-1-3
4 Rocky Marciano 1,378 1947 - 1955 49-0-0
5 Evander Holyfield 1,054 1984 - 2007 41-8-2
6 Larry Holmes 1,037 1973 - 2002 69-6-0
7 Floyd Patterson 975 1952 - 1972 55-8-1
8 Harry Wills 974 1911 - 1932 79-10-4
9 Lennox Lewis 957 1989 - 2003 41-2-1
10 Mike Tyson 930 1985 - 2005 50-6-0
i think there should oney be 5 top heavy weights. ???
Re: this top ten heavyweight of all time list is bad!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klitschkofan
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klitschkofan
The funny thing is Klitschko would have a great chance at beating all the fighters on this list.I could easily put Klitschko in that list.Just because the competition of this era isn't the same as when Louis and Ali were around doesn't mean he couldn't compete with them.
I'm not sure which Klitschko you're talking about, but it really doesn't matter, because neither Vitali nor Wlad should even be mentioned in the same sentence as Muhammad Ali or Joe Louis.
I get that part of your argument is the weight issue, but if Ali and Louis had access to 21st century training techniques, both of them would give either of the Klitschko brothers an asskicking.
In fact, they could probably do it even without the modern training.
Well that is your opinion because neither Ali or Louis ever fought a guy like Wladimir or Vitali.Ali didn't have the kind of Power that would threaten Vitali whatsoever and even Wladimir for that matter.I couldn't imagine Wladimir's record if he had made a career out of fighting guys that were 205lbs!As it is 43ko's in 48 wins fighting guys who average between 240 to 250lbs!There is no way that Ali gives either of the Klitschko's an "asskicking".Ali was not a :banghead:god.
Corrie Sanders and Lamon Brewster, each of whom left a battered Wlad laying on the canvas, both weighed a mere 225 pounds. Neither of them were that much heavier than Ali. In fact, Ali weighed 224 1/2 when he fought the Thrilla in Manila.
As you see, it hardly takes a great offensive fighter/puncher to hurt or beat Wlad, unless you're going to argue that Corrie Sanders and Lamon Brewster are better offensive fighters than Muhammad Ali was.
Re: this top ten heavyweight of all time list is bad!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknowndonor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klitschkofan
The funny thing is Klitschko would have a great chance at beating all the fighters on this list.I could easily put Klitschko in that list.Just because the competition of this era isn't the same as when Louis and Ali were around doesn't mean he couldn't compete with them.Heavyweights now days are bigger and stronger and that is a fact.I really doubt Marciano would have a record like that fighting guys weighing 250+lbs and having the power they poses.He only fought 11 guys over 200lbs and they were just over 200lbs.Louis fought only 18 fighters who were over 200lbs!Patterson 14.Tunney less than 5.You have to take that into consideration.You can't just write him off, if you do you aren't really thinking it through.
Didn't say either couldn't compete, they haven't fought the caliber of opponents that those guys did, regardless of weight. So, they doesn't deserve to be on the list. Maybe not their fault due to competition, but Louis and Marciano would have definately hung with todays guys.
Tyson barely weighed over 200 for awhile, and we saw what he did. Bigger you are, harder you may hit, but you fall the same way. Muscle doesn't equal chin. Plus those guys fought 15 rounds. I seriously doubt either Klitchko would last considering their stamina issues and injuries.
Tyson was 220 between 216 on average.
Re: this top ten heavyweight of all time list is bad!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klitschkofan
The funny thing is Klitschko would have a great chance at beating all the fighters on this list.I could easily put Klitschko in that list.Just because the competition of this era isn't the same as when Louis and Ali were around doesn't mean he couldn't compete with them.Heavyweights now days are bigger and stronger and that is a fact.I really doubt Marciano would have a record like that fighting guys weighing 250+lbs and having the power they poses.He only fought 11 guys over 200lbs and they were just over 200lbs.Louis fought only 18 fighters who were over 200lbs!Patterson 14.Tunney less than 5.You have to take that into consideration.You can't just write him off, if you do you aren't really thinking it through.
Well of course you could your biased because your massive fan of Klits they aren't even close to top 10 and if you think that then your blind fan are both Klits skilled ?? yes i never denied that but i think Wlad has much better boxing skills than Vitali but are they top 10 material at moment ?? no way in hell.
But funny thing is i do agree with you little bit Wlad or Vitali would prolly beat atleast 3 of them guys on that list but i think Holmes and Lewis would beat Wlad and Vitali imo.
Re: this top ten heavyweight of all time list is bad!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
Corrie Sanders and Lamon Brewster, each of whom left a battered Wlad laying on the canvas, both weighed a mere 225 pounds. Neither of them were that much heavier than Ali. In fact, Ali weighed 224 1/2 when he fought the Thrilla in Manila.
As you see, it hardly takes a great offensive fighter/puncher to hurt or beat Wlad, unless you're going to argue that Corrie Sanders and Lamon Brewster are better offensive fighters than Muhammad Ali was.
Ummmm well Corrie hit a bit harder than Ali....I mean you really can't compare the styles. Not that I say Wladimir would beat Ali but the guys Wlad lost to aren't similar to Ali....I would say you could compare Byrd to Ali but then again Wlad dominated Byrd and Byrd is too small to really compare to Ali.
Now'a'days Larry Donald is the only guy out there who has a style similar to Ali.....it's just that Larry lacks the skill of Ali as does pretty much everyone.
It's just safe to say they never fought anyone like each other and it would be tough either way.
Re: this top ten heavyweight of all time list is bad!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dezmundo1983
1 Muhammad Ali 2,026 1960 - 1981 56-5-0
2 Joe Louis 1,568 1934 - 1951 69-3-0
3 Gene Tunney 1,500 1915 - 1928 82-1-3
4 Rocky Marciano 1,378 1947 - 1955 49-0-0
5 Evander Holyfield 1,054 1984 - 2007 41-8-2
6 Larry Holmes 1,037 1973 - 2002 69-6-0
7 Floyd Patterson 975 1952 - 1972 55-8-1
8 Harry Wills 974 1911 - 1932 79-10-4
9 Lennox Lewis 957 1989 - 2003 41-2-1
10 Mike Tyson 930 1985 - 2005 50-6-0
WTF? DIDN'T LISTON SEND floyd TO DREAMLAND TWICE?
