Quote Originally Posted by hardrock
Quote Originally Posted by spekterscript
Quote Originally Posted by hardrock
* I respect all your thoughts so please don't take offense to my post.

To Brockton Bomber - I don't think Marciano should be number 2 but lower, Jack Johnson wasn't all time great based on what I know (maybe good for his period) so I don't think he should be in there. Foreman should be higher.

To spekterscript - Jack Johnson above Ali is nuts, Marciano above Lennox is nuts.

To Punisher136 - I agree with your points not your order.
Jack Johnson decimated the competition so his place in the top 10 is secured. In his autobiography Muhammad Ali says that Joe Louis and Jack Johnson are the 2 greatest heavies of old. Also in sports documentaries Jack Johnson's domination in his division during his time is compared to Babe Ruth's dominance in hitting home runs. This is quite a statement.
I just think the modern day boxing is much better than the early 1900s so Jack Johnson
wouldn't mean much in say the 60s 70s Heavyweight division.

Jack Jackson fighting the likes of leon spinks, Joe Fraizer, Ken Norton, Floyd Patterson, George patterson, Archie Moore. Ali beat all this fighters. See my point!

I see where you are coming from. Ali beat all of those fighters during a time when the heavyweight division was very competetive. I don't think Jack Johnson beating any of those guys (that Ali beat) prime vs. prime is out of the question. I am looking at physical attributes along with technique. Johnson was faster than all of them except Ali and probably stronger than all of them except Foreman and Norton. Modern boxing has made improvements since the early 1900s. Reliance on jab and higher held hands for defense are staples of modern boxing. Does that mean we disqualify PBF, Roy Jones, Wilfred Benitez, and Pernell Whitaker as all time greats in their respective weight classes? I think not. Speed, agility, chin, heart, stamina, and power all come into play in determining all time greats.