-
The Top Twenty Heavies
I thought I'd pick a fight :)
Here's the criteria
1. Great fighters beaten when they were great fighters
2. Division wrecking
3. Ranked fighters beaten
3. Taking on everyone or nearly so
4. Occasional losses top great fighters don't have large impact
5. Losses to less than great fighters when in one's extended prime have a significant impact
6. Judgement is made over one's "extended prime." The longer the prime the better
7. Guesses over "who could beat who" have zero import. Why? Easy, because they are just guesses.
8. Social impact has no bearing. This an in the ring approach.
9. It is only what they did as heavies that counts.
I think too often fighters are simply too close to really rank them. Instead what I am going to do is put them in broad groups and within those groups rank them however you want and I won't argue very often.
Those having an argument for the top spot
Only two men defeated over 30 ranked fighters, were champions across a decade had dominant records against HOFers and had over fifteen defenses as undisputed champion. Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali.
Third
Jack Johnson. Li'l Arthur was simply dominant after his loss to Joe Choyinski. In the month they spent jailed together Choyinski taught Johnson the sweet science and Johnson never looked back. The best of the four black HOF heavies of the time he retired with a 13-3-3 record against HOFers and eight defenses as champion. Clearly the best heavy in the decade from 1906-1915.
Slots 4-7
These are the division wreckers. Jack Dempsey who once he came under Doc Kearns and really got rolling was simply a revolution in the heavyweight division. He defeated 11 HOFers against only two losses. Though criticized today for not fighting any blacks as champion, the fact is there was only one guy Harry Wills, who remotely deserved a shot. Nevertheless Dempsey loses some position for not fighting Wills in my view. In ony 23 fights Jim Jeffries fought HOFers nine times. Jeffries went 7-1-1 with his loss coming to Johnson after a six year layoff. An athlete so far ahead of his time it asn't funny. Jeffries also didn't fight a black fighter as champion. In his case though i is hard to come up with who the logical guy would have been prior to his initial retirement. Had he stuck around another 2-3 years? The four black heavies noted above would have been severe challenges. While there is a variety of opinion on Larry Holmes' reign? I take the view there were few fighters he should have fought that he didn't. His 2-4 record against HOFers is mitigated somewhat by his twenty title defenses and defeating nineteen ranked fighters. The test of Rocky Marciano's greatness is not that he never lost. It is that he left the division so bereft of challengers it took the sport over a year to make a credible match for the vacant crown and one of the participants had already lost to the Rock. Marciano went 6-0 against HOFers and had six title defenses.
Slots 8-9
George Foreman gets here really on his singular achievement of winning the undisputed crown twenty years apart. It is a staggering achievement. He went 4-2 against HOFers but only knocked off seven ranked fighters. Sam Langford was not at his best as a heavy but he was still special. Before his eyesight went he was 14-9-8 against HOF heavies. Sam isn't higher because as a heavy he got lazy and he occasionally lost to men he shouldn't have.
Slots 10-13
Smoking Joe Frazier fought in an in-arguably tougher era than Marciano and may well also have wrecked that division. It is what it is. 1-4 against HOF heavies and defeated eight ranked heavyweights. One of the five most prestigious wins in boxing history makes a big impact here. Sonny Liston was as intimidating as they come. 2-2 against HOF heavies, seven ranked heavies beaten, undisputed heavyweight champ. Evander Holyfield was at his best below heavy, but with the big boys he went 4-1-1 against HOF heavies and defeated ten ranked men and was a two time lineal champion. Ezzard Charles another guy at his best below heavy. But he went 4-4 against HOF heavies, was undisputed champ with seven defenses and defeated 15 ranked heavies. Why isn't he higher? He lost to some heavies he had no business losing to.
Slots 14-15
One can make a pretty good argument these guys are indistinguishable from the above group, though I disagree. Lennox Lewis went 3-0-1 against HOFers but really met only Vitali in what could be called his prime. He defeated 13 ranked heavies. So why isn't he higher? Two bad KO losses just can't be ignored. Mike Tyson really only beat one HOF heavyweight and that was Holmes. His overall record against HOF heavies? 1-3. He defeated 12 ranked fighters and had two defenses as undisputed champion.
Slots 16-20
Jersey Joe Walcott went 3-6 against HOF heavies with almost all those fights after he was 35. He defeated eight ranked heavies but was hardly unbeatable. Floyd Patterson is a guy I think gets short shrift. Yup he got destroyed by Sonny Liston, twice. Six of his eight losses came to HOFers and the only HOFer he defeated was Ingo. But he also defeated eleven ranked guys over 15 years. Not bad. Harry Wills came along too late to face the four great black heavies pre WWI, bu in their decline he owned them. He went 15-5-6 against HOFers but all those fights were a good five years after Langford, McVea and Jeanette were past it. He should have gotten a shot against Dempsey. Max Schmeling has one of the five most prestigious wins in the history of the division. The only man to handle Louis in his prime. Six wins over ranked fighters and three wins over HOF heavies. Max Baer punched his way through nine ranked fighters and went 2-2 against HOFers.
Now one might ask where Gene Tunney and Bob Fitzsimmons are. In my view neither did enough at heavyweight to make this list. Ona p4p basis? Those two would both belong inside the top ten here. But that's not what I'm trying to do. The other guy it kills me to leave off is the great Peter Jackson. An Australian Aborigine who went 61 rounds to a draw with Jim Corbett was viewed in his own time as a legend but I just haven't gotten my hands around his career.
This leaves us with the open question of the Brothers Klitschko. I did not leave them off because they are still active, I left them off because though they have beaten a cauldron of ranked guys, between them they have faced only one clear HOFer to this point. Not their fault, but again, it is what it is. I also don't know how to deal with them not facing one another and what that means (if anything).
That's my list. Have at it!
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Great post, I'll have a proper look later and give my list and views.
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
I can't be bothered to read all that.
The only fight people care about is prime Mike Tyson vs Anyone.
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
If we aren't taking social standing/ influence into account, then we shouldn't have to account for something as subjective as HOF.
IMO Canastota assuming that Rocky Balboa is a HOF is no different to me assuming that Ken Norton would be lit up by most of the heavyweights of the 90's... Except that in my eyes, I am right and they are dumb as fuck ;D
Otherwise interesting post. Lots to disagree about ;D ;D
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
too many criteria to balance and tweak like nipples on an aging female goat: we're too busy suckin' to pick a tit.
1. Muhammad Ali because he was great in 2 careers. 1st was built on speed and accuracy. 2nd career on taking major punishment and squeaking it out at the end. Who the hell else could make such an adjustment and still remain.......THE GREATES' !!!
2. Larry Holmes because this guy probably even had a better chin than Ali, a better jab, a better right hand, and better stamina, and he defended his title FOREVER, and should have tied Marciano at 49-0 but was fuckin RAILROADED.
3. George Foreman because he also had 2 fantastic Champion careers. And he maybe had a better chin than Ali AND Holmes, a better right hand and left hook, a wrecking ball left jab, though not the stamina.
4. Joe Louis..........jus' bcuz :) He knew how to rock and roll, shimmy, and do the twist.
5. Rocky Marciano
*************THESE ARE THE TOP 5 OF ALL TIME**************
6. jACK jOHNSON
7. Joe Frazier
8. JJ Walcott
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Evander Holyfield
*************************************
11. Ezzard Charles
12. Lennox Lewis
13. Mike Tyson
then 14-15 is Liston, Schmeling
***************************************
forget corbett, langford, baer, tunney, klitschkos, bowe, etc....thats ridiculous
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
If we aren't taking social standing/ influence into account, then we shouldn't have to account for something as subjective as HOF.
IMO Canastota assuming that Rocky Balboa is a HOF is no different to me assuming that Ken Norton would be lit up by most of the heavyweights of the 90's... Except that in my eyes, I am right and they are dumb as fuck ;D
Otherwise interesting post. Lots to disagree about ;D ;D
The HOF, at this point, remains a reasonable, if imperfect shorthand for greatness.
You do realize Stallone went in in a non-fighting capacity like guys including AJ Liebling, Budd Schulberg. Bert Sugar and Howard Cosell, right? ;)
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
too many criteria to balance and tweak like nipples on an aging female goat: we're too busy suckin' to pick a tit.
1. Muhammad Ali because he was great in 2 careers. 1st was built on speed and accuracy. 2nd career on taking major punishment and squeaking it out at the end. Who the hell else could make such an adjustment and still remain.......THE GREATES' !!!
2. Larry Holmes because this guy probably even had a better chin than Ali, a better jab, a better right hand, and better stamina, and he defended his title FOREVER, and should have tied Marciano at 49-0 but was fuckin RAILROADED.
3. George Foreman because he also had 2 fantastic Champion careers. And he maybe had a better chin than Ali AND Holmes, a better right hand and left hook, a wrecking ball left jab, though not the stamina.
4. Joe Louis..........jus' bcuz :) He knew how to rock and roll, shimmy, and do the twist.
5. Rocky Marciano
*************THESE ARE THE TOP 5 OF ALL TIME**************
6. jACK jOHNSON
7. Joe Frazier
8. JJ Walcott
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Evander Holyfield
*************************************
11. Ezzard Charles
12. Lennox Lewis
13. Mike Tyson
then 14-15 is Liston, Schmeling
***************************************
forget corbett, langford, baer, tunney, klitschkos, bowe, etc....thats ridiculous
Forget Langford???????????? Really?
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
"Occasional losses top great fighters don't have large impact"
Lennox Lewis went 3-0-1 against HOFers but really met only Vitali in what could be called his prime. He defeated 13 ranked heavies. So why isn't he higher? Two bad KO losses just can't be ignored
Sam Langford was not at his best as a heavy but he was still special. Before his eyesight went he was 14-9-8 against HOF heavies. Sam isn't higher because as a heavy he got lazy and he occasionally lost to men he shouldn't have.
Same thing.
I consider the way someone won as well as the way they lost. Stats only tell one part of a story.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
If we aren't taking social standing/ influence into account, then we shouldn't have to account for something as subjective as HOF.
IMO Canastota assuming that Rocky Balboa is a HOF is no different to me assuming that Ken Norton would be lit up by most of the heavyweights of the 90's... Except that in my eyes, I am right and they are dumb as fuck ;D
Otherwise interesting post. Lots to disagree about ;D ;D
The HOF, at this point, remains a reasonable, if imperfect shorthand for greatness.
You do realize Stallone went in in a non-fighting capacity like guys including AJ Liebling, Budd Schulberg. Bert Sugar and Howard Cosell, right? ;)
It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.
Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.
I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it ;D
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Ali
Louis
Holmes
Johnson
Tyson
Lewis
Foreman
Frasier
Holyfield
Rocky
Dempsey
Sullivan
Liston
Tunney
Wlad
Fitzsimmons
Corbett
Vitali
Schmeling
Patterson
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.
Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.
I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it ;D
See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).
However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system. I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.
I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?
I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.
My Top 20
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Howlin Mad Missy
"Occasional losses top great fighters don't have large impact"
Lennox Lewis went 3-0-1 against HOFers but really met only Vitali in what could be called his prime. He defeated 13 ranked heavies. So why isn't he higher? Two bad KO losses just can't be ignored
Sam Langford was not at his best as a heavy but he was still special. Before his eyesight went he was 14-9-8 against HOF heavies. Sam isn't higher because as a heavy he got lazy and he occasionally lost to men he shouldn't have.
Same thing.
I consider the way someone won as well as the way they lost. Stats only tell one part of a story.
Not remotely the same thing. One getting absolkutely drilled and the other losing decisions is not the same thing. See your own comment.
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
If we aren't taking social standing/ influence into account, then we shouldn't have to account for something as subjective as HOF.
IMO Canastota assuming that Rocky Balboa is a HOF is no different to me assuming that Ken Norton would be lit up by most of the heavyweights of the 90's... Except that in my eyes, I am right and they are dumb as fuck ;D
Otherwise interesting post. Lots to disagree about ;D ;D
The HOF, at this point, remains a reasonable, if imperfect shorthand for greatness.
You do realize Stallone went in in a non-fighting capacity like guys including AJ Liebling, Budd Schulberg. Bert Sugar and Howard Cosell, right? ;)
It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.
Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.
I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it ;D
Hold on for a second, Ali was overrated????????? How the hell is THAT exactly?
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.
Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.
I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it ;D
See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).
However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system.
I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.
I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?
I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.
My Top 20
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling
The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.
How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?
Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Howlin Mad Missy
"Occasional losses top great fighters don't have large impact"
Lennox Lewis went 3-0-1 against HOFers but really met only Vitali in what could be called his prime. He defeated 13 ranked heavies. So why isn't he higher? Two bad KO losses just can't be ignored
Sam Langford was not at his best as a heavy but he was still special. Before his eyesight went he was 14-9-8 against HOF heavies. Sam isn't higher because as a heavy he got lazy and he occasionally lost to men he shouldn't have.
Same thing.
I consider the way someone won as well as the way they lost. Stats only tell one part of a story.
Not remotely the same thing. One getting absolkutely drilled and the other losing decisions is not the same thing. See your own comment.
Losing by ko or points because you got lazy and didnt train = same thing.
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Howlin Mad Missy
"Occasional losses top great fighters don't have large impact"
Lennox Lewis went 3-0-1 against HOFers but really met only Vitali in what could be called his prime. He defeated 13 ranked heavies. So why isn't he higher? Two bad KO losses just can't be ignored
Sam Langford was not at his best as a heavy but he was still special. Before his eyesight went he was 14-9-8 against HOF heavies. Sam isn't higher because as a heavy he got lazy and he occasionally lost to men he shouldn't have.
Same thing.
I consider the way someone won as well as the way they lost. Stats only tell one part of a story.
Not remotely the same thing. One getting absolkutely drilled and the other losing decisions is not the same thing. See your own comment.
It's pretty much the same thing. Putting your analysis of Langford and Lewis side-by-side shows the hyprocrisy clearly.
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.
Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.
I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it ;D
See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).
However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system.
I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.
I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?
I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.
My Top 20
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling
The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.
How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?
Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.
The fact is it is just YOUR criteria. Your criteria is not the criteria that everybody must follow. You select your criteria, hence it has inherent bias. You can't argue with that. Also, you come across as quite patronising. Just my opinion.
Oh, and just to parody your last sentence - How can you use YOUR own eyes and have Langford ahead of Lewis? Ok, you will say you don't rely on your eyes but your own criteria (as if only a moron would trust their own eyes), but your criteria seem very bendy.
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.
Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.
I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it ;D
See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).
However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system.
I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.
I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?
I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.
My Top 20
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling
The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.
How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?
Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.
Oh, and where is Charlie Chaplin in your list?
I was just wondering because it seems your number one criteria for any list is that the person in question performed in black & white.
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.
Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.
I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it ;D
See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).
However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system.
I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.
I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?
I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.
My Top 20
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling
The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.
How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?
Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.
Oh, and where is Charlie Chaplin in your list?
I was just wondering because it seems your number one criteria for any list is that the person in question performed in black & white.
You're SO wrong. Buster Keaton owns Chaplin. Keaton has that mean mutha expression and a 'special' hand.
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Howlin Mad Missy
"Occasional losses top great fighters don't have large impact"
Lennox Lewis went 3-0-1 against HOFers but really met only Vitali in what could be called his prime. He defeated 13 ranked heavies. So why isn't he higher? Two bad KO losses just can't be ignored
Sam Langford was not at his best as a heavy but he was still special. Before his eyesight went he was 14-9-8 against HOF heavies. Sam isn't higher because as a heavy he got lazy and he occasionally lost to men he shouldn't have.
Same thing.
I consider the way someone won as well as the way they lost. Stats only tell one part of a story.
Not remotely the same thing. One getting absolkutely drilled and the other losing decisions is not the same thing. See your own comment.
It's pretty much the same thing. Putting your analysis of Langford and Lewis side-by-side shows the hyprocrisy clearly.
First off you need to look up the definition of the word hypocrisy. The we can talk about the rest.
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.
Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.
I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it ;D
See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).
However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system.
I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.
I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?
I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.
My Top 20
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling
The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.
How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?
Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.
Oh, and where is Charlie Chaplin in your list?
I was just wondering because it seems your number one criteria for any list is that the person in question performed in black & white.
LOL! Another one who refuses to do the work!
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.
Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.
I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it ;D
See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).
However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system.
I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.
I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?
I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.
My Top 20
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling
The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.
How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?
Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.
The fact is it is just YOUR criteria. Your criteria is not the criteria that everybody must follow. You select your criteria, hence it has inherent bias. You can't argue with that. Also, you come across as quite patronising. Just my opinion.
Oh, and just to parody your last sentence - How can you use YOUR own eyes and have Langford ahead of Lewis? Ok, you will say you don't rely on your eyes but your own criteria (as if only a moron would trust their own eyes), but your criteria seem very bendy.
Geeze, OBVIOUSLY on the bold. But seomeone must HAVE criteria to determine such a list. You seem dismissive of the very CONCEPT of criteria. {Now THAT was patronising)
I NEVER said I don't rely on my own eyes. I questioned what you were seeing with yours in placing Johnson over Louis. What do you see in Johnson that you don't see in Louis for example> What do you see in Louis that you don't see in Johnson? Relying solely on ones eyes requires an arrogance that I just don't have. I don't know about you, but my eyes often lead to incorrect or questionable conclusions. I often find the views of others illuminating.
As for my criteria being Bendy? I agree. Now find me one that is MORE objective and I'll happily use that one.
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.
Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.
I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it ;D
See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).
However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system.
I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.
I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?
I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.
My Top 20
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling
The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.
How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?
Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.
The fact is it is just YOUR criteria. Your criteria is not the criteria that everybody must follow. You select your criteria, hence it has inherent bias. You can't argue with that. Also, you come across as quite patronising. Just my opinion.
Oh, and just to parody your last sentence - How can you use YOUR own eyes and have Langford ahead of Lewis? Ok, you will say you don't rely on your eyes but your own criteria (as if only a moron would trust their own eyes), but your criteria seem very bendy.
Geeze, OBVIOUSLY on the bold. But seomeone must HAVE criteria to determine such a list. You seem dismissive of the very CONCEPT of criteria. {Now THAT was patronising)
I NEVER said I don't rely on my own eyes. I questioned what you were seeing with yours in placing Johnson over Louis. What do you see in Johnson that you don't see in Louis for example> What do you see in Louis that you don't see in Johnson? Relying solely on ones eyes requires an arrogance that I just don't have. I don't know about you, but my eyes often lead to incorrect or questionable conclusions. I often find the views of others illuminating.
As for my criteria being Bendy? I agree. Now find me one that is MORE objective and I'll happily use that one.
You have made an embarrassing error. Your last three replies are all to the same person - me. I'm not the same as Jazmerkin. It's good that you continue to be patronising by advising me to look up the meaning of the word hypocrisy - I did so and it seems I used it in the correct context ( I didn't really check - just feeding your ego).
So, you use your own eye, that’s a good start. So, can you please expand on how you have Langford ahead of Lewis? Because it really does seem as though you have a recurring issue with Lennox Lewis for his 2 losses yet consistently hold fighters that have suffered more losses against equally questionable opponents in high regard. That is what I mean by bendy criteria.
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.
Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.
I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it ;D
See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).
However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system.
I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.
I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?
I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.
My Top 20
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling
The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.
How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?
Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.
The fact is it is just YOUR criteria. Your criteria is not the criteria that everybody must follow. You select your criteria, hence it has inherent bias. You can't argue with that. Also, you come across as quite patronising. Just my opinion.
Oh, and just to parody your last sentence - How can you use YOUR own eyes and have Langford ahead of Lewis? Ok, you will say you don't rely on your eyes but your own criteria (as if only a moron would trust their own eyes), but your criteria seem very bendy.
Geeze, OBVIOUSLY on the bold. But seomeone must HAVE criteria to determine such a list. You seem dismissive of the very CONCEPT of criteria. {Now THAT was patronising)
I NEVER said I don't rely on my own eyes. I questioned what you were seeing with yours in placing Johnson over Louis. What do you see in Johnson that you don't see in Louis for example> What do you see in Louis that you don't see in Johnson? Relying solely on ones eyes requires an arrogance that I just don't have. I don't know about you, but my eyes often lead to incorrect or questionable conclusions. I often find the views of others illuminating.
As for my criteria being Bendy? I agree. Now find me one that is MORE objective and I'll happily use that one.
You have made an embarassing error. Your last three replies are all to the same person - me. I'm not the same as Jazmerkin. It's good that you continue to be patronising by advising me to look up the meaning of the word hyprocracy - I did so and it seems I used it in the correct context ( I didn't really check - just feeding your ego).
So, you use your own eyes, that's a good start. So, can you please expand on how you have Langford ahead of Lewis? Because it really does seem as though you have a recurring issue with Lennox Lewis for his 2 losses yet consistently hold fighters that have suffered more losses against equally questionable opponents in high regard. That is what I mean by bendy criteria.
Oh, and you say 'Geez OBVIOUSLY on the bold'. Yes it was obvious, that's why I said it. I was making a simple point that you seemed to have forgotten.
* Note - I have complied a top heavyweight list probably at least three times on here so I'm not going to be repetitive. I know you haven't been here too long so you wouldn't know but there have been a fair few threads on this subject.
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.
Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.
I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it ;D
See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).
However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system.
I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.
I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?
I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.
My Top 20
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling
The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.
How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?
Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.
The fact is it is just YOUR criteria. Your criteria is not the criteria that everybody must follow. You select your criteria, hence it has inherent bias. You can't argue with that. Also, you come across as quite patronising. Just my opinion.
Oh, and just to parody your last sentence - How can you use YOUR own eyes and have Langford ahead of Lewis? Ok, you will say you don't rely on your eyes but your own criteria (as if only a moron would trust their own eyes), but your criteria seem very bendy.
Geeze, OBVIOUSLY on the bold. But seomeone must HAVE criteria to determine such a list. You seem dismissive of the very CONCEPT of criteria. {Now THAT was patronising)
I NEVER said I don't rely on my own eyes. I questioned what you were seeing with yours in placing Johnson over Louis. What do you see in Johnson that you don't see in Louis for example> What do you see in Louis that you don't see in Johnson? Relying solely on ones eyes requires an arrogance that I just don't have. I don't know about you, but my eyes often lead to incorrect or questionable conclusions. I often find the views of others illuminating.
As for my criteria being Bendy? I agree. Now find me one that is MORE objective and I'll happily use that one.
You have made an embarrassing error. Your last three replies are all to the same person - me. I'm not the same as Jazmerkin. It's good that you continue to be patronising by advising me to look up the meaning of the word hypocrisy - I did so and it seems I used it in the correct context ( I didn't really check - just feeding your ego).
So, you use your own eye, that’s a good start. So, can you please expand on how you have Langford ahead of Lewis? Because it really does seem as though you have a recurring issue with Lennox Lewis for his 2 losses yet consistently hold fighters that have suffered more losses against equally questionable opponents in high regard. That is what I mean by bendy criteria.
I've made no errors. But give me time! ;)
And you obviously didn't look up hypocrisy so I'll help you
a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
I suspect what you mean to accuse me of is having a "double standard." Happy to have that pointed out if it is true!
Let me try to show why I have Langford over Lennox. Sam defeated HOFers on 14 occasions and on almost every occasion those guys were in ther primes. Lennox beat that quality a fighter only three times and I don't think any of them except Vitali was in their prime. It's a HUGE accomplishment gap. Now was there anything Lennox could have done about that? Probably not. He didn't have the same possibilities in front of him. It is what it is. And even among non HOFers Langford defeated fine heavyweights like Jeff Clark (good enough to defeat HOFer Kid Norfolk) and Battling Jim Johnson (who faced Jack Johnson in a title fight and got a draw though Jack was injured) on multiple occasions each. Had their been ratings back then? My guess (based on just a quick count) and it is only a guess? Langford defeated ranked heavies 25 times, Lennox we know did so 13 times, an excellent number, but still a big gap (only in my guesswork though).
Lennox was drilled by two different mediocrities while in his prime. Before his eyes were injured in 1917 Langford was not KO'd by any heavyweight period despite fighting top guys well over 30 times. After his eyes were damaged he got KO'd by lesser fighters (Fred Fulton for example) but does anyone want to make the case that counts as Langford's prime? Did Lennox reverse those? Sure but so what? Langfo0rd didn't have to in the first place.
Anyway, that's the basic case for whatever it is worth.
I think the best response is not to question the data as it's hard to do so, but to argue that Langford was never champion and Lennox had a fine title reign. It's not Sam's fault he couldn't get a shot, but so what? Liife isn't fair.
It's not a bad counter, just not one I find compelling.Have you a better argument? Love to hear it!
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.
Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.
I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it ;D
See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).
However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system.
I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.
I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?
I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.
My Top 20
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling
The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.
How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?
Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.
The fact is it is just YOUR criteria. Your criteria is not the criteria that everybody must follow. You select your criteria, hence it has inherent bias. You can't argue with that. Also, you come across as quite patronising. Just my opinion.
Oh, and just to parody your last sentence - How can you use YOUR own eyes and have Langford ahead of Lewis? Ok, you will say you don't rely on your eyes but your own criteria (as if only a moron would trust their own eyes), but your criteria seem very bendy.
Geeze, OBVIOUSLY on the bold. But seomeone must HAVE criteria to determine such a list. You seem dismissive of the very CONCEPT of criteria. {Now THAT was patronising)
I NEVER said I don't rely on my own eyes. I questioned what you were seeing with yours in placing Johnson over Louis. What do you see in Johnson that you don't see in Louis for example> What do you see in Louis that you don't see in Johnson? Relying solely on ones eyes requires an arrogance that I just don't have. I don't know about you, but my eyes often lead to incorrect or questionable conclusions. I often find the views of others illuminating.
As for my criteria being Bendy? I agree. Now find me one that is MORE objective and I'll happily use that one.
You have made an embarassing error. Your last three replies are all to the same person - me. I'm not the same as Jazmerkin. It's good that you continue to be patronising by advising me to look up the meaning of the word hyprocracy - I did so and it seems I used it in the correct context ( I didn't really check - just feeding your ego).
So, you use your own eyes, that's a good start. So, can you please expand on how you have Langford ahead of Lewis? Because it really does seem as though you have a recurring issue with Lennox Lewis for his 2 losses yet consistently hold fighters that have suffered more losses against equally questionable opponents in high regard. That is what I mean by bendy criteria.
Oh, and you say 'Geez OBVIOUSLY on the bold'.
Yes it was obvious, that's why I said it. I was making a simple point that you seemed to have forgotten.
* Note - I have complied a top heavyweight list probably at least three times on here so I'm not going to be repetitive. I know you haven't been here too long so you wouldn't know but there have been a fair few threads on this subject.
{Laughing on the bold] Forgotten? Hardly. It is so obvious it needn't be explicitly stated.
-
I thought everyone knew Muhammad Ali was overrated ???
Muhammad Ali is definitely overrated. Not as overrated as Sam Langford though.
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ryanman
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.
Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.
I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it ;D
See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).
However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system.
I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.
I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?
I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.
My Top 20
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling
The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.
How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?
Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.
The fact is it is just YOUR criteria. Your criteria is not the criteria that everybody must follow. You select your criteria, hence it has inherent bias. You can't argue with that. Also, you come across as quite patronising. Just my opinion.
Oh, and just to parody your last sentence - How can you use YOUR own eyes and have Langford ahead of Lewis? Ok, you will say you don't rely on your eyes but your own criteria (as if only a moron would trust their own eyes), but your criteria seem very bendy.
Geeze, OBVIOUSLY on the bold. But seomeone must HAVE criteria to determine such a list. You seem dismissive of the very CONCEPT of criteria. {Now THAT was patronising)
I NEVER said I don't rely on my own eyes. I questioned what you were seeing with yours in placing Johnson over Louis. What do you see in Johnson that you don't see in Louis for example> What do you see in Louis that you don't see in Johnson? Relying solely on ones eyes requires an arrogance that I just don't have. I don't know about you, but my eyes often lead to incorrect or questionable conclusions. I often find the views of others illuminating.
As for my criteria being Bendy? I agree. Now find me one that is MORE objective and I'll happily use that one.
You have made an embarrassing error. Your last three replies are all to the same person - me. I'm not the same as Jazmerkin. It's good that you continue to be patronising by advising me to look up the meaning of the word hypocrisy - I did so and it seems I used it in the correct context ( I didn't really check - just feeding your ego).
So, you use your own eye, that’s a good start. So, can you please expand on how you have Langford ahead of Lewis? Because it really does seem as though you have a recurring issue with Lennox Lewis for his 2 losses yet consistently hold fighters that have suffered more losses against equally questionable opponents in high regard. That is what I mean by bendy criteria.
I've made no errors. But give me time! ;)
And you obviously didn't look up hypocrisy so I'll help you
a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
I suspect what you mean to accuse me of is having a "double standard." Happy to have that pointed out if it is true!
Let me try to show why I have Langford over Lennox. Sam defeated HOFers on 14 occasions and on almost every occasion those guys were in ther primes. Lennox beat that quality a fighter only three times and I don't think any of them except Vitali was in their prime. It's a HUGE accomplishment gap. Now was there anything Lennox could have done about that? Probably not. He didn't have the same possibilities in front of him. It is what it is. And even among non HOFers Langford defeated fine heavyweights like Jeff Clark (good enough to defeat HOFer Kid Norfolk) and Battling Jim Johnson (who faced Jack Johnson in a title fight and got a draw though Jack was injured) on multiple occasions each. Had their been ratings back then? My guess (based on just a quick count) and it is only a guess? Langford defeated ranked heavies 25 times, Lennox we know did so 13 times, an excellent number, but still a big gap (only in my guesswork though).
Lennox was drilled by two different mediocrities while in his prime. Before his eyes were injured in 1917 Langford was not KO'd by any heavyweight period despite fighting top guys well over 30 times. After his eyes were damaged he got KO'd by lesser fighters (Fred Fulton for example) but does anyone want to make the case that counts as Langford's prime? Did Lennox reverse those? Sure but so what? Langfo0rd didn't have to in the first place.
Anyway, that's the basic case for whatever it is worth.
I think the best response is not to question the data as it's hard to do so, but to argue that Langford was never champion and Lennox had a fine title reign. It's not Sam's fault he couldn't get a shot, but so what? Liife isn't fair.
It's not a bad counter, just not one I find compelling.Have you a better argument? Love to hear it!
Maybe you'd like to check out patronising while you're about it?
I've included a link. Hope that helps. Patronising - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Master's list is daft, mad, pixie-mazed, asinine:
Lewis before Foreman?????? wtf????? :o
and NO ROCKY MARCIANO???????????? :o:o:o
..........LAY OFF THE LUNATIC BROTH.
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Master's list is daft, mad, pixie-mazed, asinine:
Lewis before Foreman?????? wtf????? :o
and NO ROCKY MARCIANO???????????? :o:o:o
..........LAY OFF THE LUNATIC BROTH.
Rocky was 10.
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Master's list is daft, mad, pixie-mazed, asinine:
Lewis before Foreman?????? wtf????? :o
and NO ROCKY MARCIANO???????????? :o:o:o
..........LAY OFF THE LUNATIC BROTH.
Rocky was 10.
Where was Creed?
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
I still just don't get how somebody can so adamently fight the case of fighters that neither they or any living person has probably seen? I'd rather base my opinions on what I can see rather than what a newspaper or an archive says.
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).
However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system. I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.
I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?
I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.
My Top 20
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling
The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.
How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?
Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.
Damn, Marble, I see you've been winning friends & influencing people on this thread ;D
Just a few things I'd like to say before I reply to your post.
1. If you want to swear, please just swear. No one is going to judge you & I certainly won't get offended. If you think something I say is bullshit, call it bullshit.
2. Myself & Ryanman are not the same person, even if we did go to the same uni. Unless all us British posters' avatars look the same to you, you web racist! :p
On your point, we'll just have to disagree. As much as boxing has shrunk as a spectator sport, all facets of sport are more under the microscope than ever before. That's not just boxing, sport & society as a whole is under more scrutiny. It's much easier to pick holes when you can re-watch a fight multiple times & see everything replayed. Also as I've said before, I have NO problem with someone rating these older guys if they've seen extensive footage of them. I just can't rate guys who I haven't & having worked as a boxing journalist I know the temptation for hyperbole & the dangers of bias. I gave the Martinez example because going off the general press reaction to his last few wins, you could very easily believe that he's one of the greatest there has ever been.
I also didn't attack having criteria. What I disagree with is the implication in your OP that it's the criteria we all must use. I'm also clearly not the only one who has read it that way given how a number of other posters have responded. We all have our own criteria which may be different from yours. You assumed mistakenly that I only 'use my eyes'. If I did just that, I wouldn't have Jeffries above Tyson, Tunney, Charles or Wlad. There is obviously more than that. As you have your own groupings, I would have a top 3, which could go in any order. The reason I give an edge to Johnson over Louis is because he's one of the two fighters (Tunney is the other) who I personally feel has had the greatest influence on the styles of so many of the fighters that have followed. Louis looked great, but I don't feel that he was the 'game-changer' in quite the same way as Johnson was, hence why he gets the edge for me. See I have MY criteria as well ;)
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Personally, I'd place Larry "The Racist" Holmes below the following heavies:
Muhammad Ali - (no need to explain)
Joe Louis - (ditto)
Jack Johnson - (Made a much bigger impact on the sport of boxing than Larry ever did).
Mike Tyson - (ditto)
Lennox Lewis - (Better fighter than Holmes; faced better competition).
George Foreman - (see Ali, Louis)
Joe Frazier - (see Ali, Louis)
Evander Holyfield - (Successfully came up from LHW; hugely successful career as HW).
"Rocky" Marciano - (See Johnson, Tyson)
Jack Dempsey - (See Johnson, Tyson)
To this list, I'm tempted to add Wladimir Klitschko and Sonny Liston. And since I dislike the (cough) self-promoting "Easton Assasin" so much.... I probably would.
So that would make Larry, let's see..... hmm..... 13th?
And he said Marciano wasn't fit to "carry his jock".
Sorry Larry.... it's probably the other way around.
:rolleyes:
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Larry Holmes was way better than all with the exception of Ali and the record of Louis. Do not let your prejudice get in the way of acknowledging what a great fighter he was.
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
You take all factors into account: their impact on boxing, level of competition, sheer skill, drawing power..... there's NO way Holmes is anywhere near 3rd on the all-time list.
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
You take all factors into account: their impact on boxing, level of competition, sheer skill, drawing power..... there's NO way Holmes is anywhere near 3rd on the all-time list.
20 defences, wins over Norton, taking the punch of Shavers, the event of beating Cooney and beating Ali were great feats.
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
You take all factors into account: their impact on boxing, level of competition, sheer skill, drawing power..... there's NO way Holmes is anywhere near 3rd on the all-time list.
20 defences, wins over Norton, taking the punch of Shavers, the event of beating Cooney and beating Ali were great feats.
Norton was hardly an all-time great. Cooney was an over-hyped "white hope" who vanished as quickly as he appeared. Ali?!?!? You mean: "the dried-up, over-the-hill, should've-been-retired" Ali, who looked like a walking corpse during the fight. Shame on the racist for even taking that fight!
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
I'll grant you this: On "self-promotion", Holmes was Top 3 All-Time.
;)
-
Re: The Top Twenty Heavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
You take all factors into account: their impact on boxing, level of competition, sheer skill, drawing power..... there's NO way Holmes is anywhere near 3rd on the all-time list.
20 defences, wins over Norton, taking the punch of Shavers, the event of beating Cooney and beating Ali were great feats.
Norton was hardly an all-time great. Cooney was an over-hyped "white hope" who vanished as quickly as he appeared. Ali?!?!? You mean: "the dried-up, over-the-hill, should've-been-retired" Ali, who looked like a walking corpse during the fight. Shame on the racist for even taking that fight!
Holmes had to take the Ali fight as Tyson did Holmes. The Norton fight was brilliant and Holmes went through it with an injury, I never said Cooney was great, but the event was big. I am not trying to convert you, just Holmes did all he could do in his era.
