On their very best night who wins the all time heavyweight prizefighter competition?

[Fenster]

His age is irrelevant. If you show blinding form and take a fearsome reputation into a contest you can't start making excuses - of being past it/out of form - if you get whipped.

This age argument in boxing is a very dubious one.

[Dark Lord Al]

Liston was a plodder , prime george foreman beheads him , and if a light punching ali boxes him to a standstill , larry holmes / Lewis / vitali / all beat him for me.

[ICB]

Liston was a plodder , prime george foreman beheads him , and if a light punching ali boxes him to a standstill , larry holmes / Lewis / vitali / all beat him for me.

Sonny Liston used to spar with George Foreman, supposedly taught him all the bullying tactics.

[Dark Lord Al]

Liston was a plodder , prime george foreman beheads him , and if a light punching ali boxes him to a standstill , larry holmes / Lewis / vitali / all beat him for me.

Sonny Liston used to spar with George Foreman, supposedly taught him all the bullying tactics.

Yes i know , but Liston was at his peak when he fought patterson , Foreman at his peak when he fought ali , put them together and i think Foreman stops him inside 3 rounds.
would love to have seen the fight

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

Hmmmm....

Just found these (Opinions on Foreman Vs Liston):

Ernie Terrell
Chicago based promoter Ernie Terrell is a former WBA heavyweight champion.

"Oh boy, it would have been something to watch! We're talking about two very tough men, not just tough fighters, Liston was a very good boxer in his prime, which was the late-50's and early-60's. I sparred with him, but since I was much taller, and was a boxer, his jab, which was one of his best weopons, didn't affect me the way it did most other fighters. Physically, he could do more in the ring than Foreman.
It's a shame Foreman couldn't combine the power and speed of his youth with the improved defense and maturaity he shows today. Still, he was a very strong guy. Most of the men he knocked out he hurt first. Foreman had a great chin, but even greater determination. Getting up from those knockdowns and coming back to beat Ron Lyle proved what he was made of.
The fight would flow the same way Foreman-Lyle did. Both men would connect with big punches. But Liston was abetter all-round boxer, and he was certainly a better puncher than Lyle. By o means would it be an easy fight for Liston. But I see him coming on as Foreman weakens, and scoring a knockout around the 11th round."


Chuck Wepner
A heavyweight contender in the 70's, Chuck Wepener was stopped by both Liston and Foreman.

"I fought Liston in his last fight, and Foreman when he was on his way up, so I speak from experience when I say they were two of the hardest punchers ever. it would be hard to match two harder-hitting heavyweights. Even though I though Liston was at the end, I thought he was still a very good boxer. He took a good punch, and he had a lot of savvy. In his prime, he could do it all.
When he was younger, Foreman's most impressive quality was his awesome brute strength. He liked to push people around, but he could be wild with his punches, and that cost him against Muhammad Ali. He was alot like Liston then. Both liked to intimidate their opponents, but you couldn't intimidate either one of them. With George, though, it was an act; he's always been a good guy.
It would be an action packed fight. Both had good, hard jabs, and didn't hesitate to open up and throw bombs. But Liston was a much better boxer. i don't beleive anyone could have beaten Liston in his prime, including Ali. I see Liston stopping Foreman in six or seven rounds."

[BIG H]

This is quite interesting - not relevant to teh criteria of this thread, but anyway....

Heavyweight Fighter of Century as chosen by a five-member panel for The Associated Press in 1999:

1. Muhammad Ali, 56-5, 37 KO's; Career: 1960-81, 19 years active.
2. Joe Louis, 68-3, 54 KO's; Career: 1934-51, 14 years active.
3. Rocky Marciano, 49-0, 43 KO's; Career: 1947-55, 9 years active.
4. Jack Dempsey, 61-6-8, 50 KO's, 6 ND; Career: 1914-27, 11 years active.
5. Jack Johnson, 78-13-11, 49 KO's, 18 ND; Career: 1897-1938, 30 years active.
6 Larry Holmes, 67-6, 43 KO's; Career: 1973-99, 23 years active.
7. Sonny Liston, 50-4, 39 KO's; Career: 1953-70, 17 years active.
8. Joe Frazier, 32-4-1, 27 KO's; Career: 1965-81, 13 years active.
9. Sam Langford, 167-38-37, 117 KO's, 48 ND; Career: 1902-26, 25 years active.
10 Jersey Joe Walcott, 53-18-1, 33 KO's; Career: 1930-53, 20 years active.

[El Kabong]

This is quite interesting - not relevant to teh criteria of this thread, but anyway....

Heavyweight Fighter of Century as chosen by a five-member panel for The Associated Press in 1999:

1. Muhammad Ali, 56-5, 37 KO's; Career: 1960-81, 19 years active.
2. Joe Louis, 68-3, 54 KO's; Career: 1934-51, 14 years active.
3. Rocky Marciano, 49-0, 43 KO's; Career: 1947-55, 9 years active.
4. Jack Dempsey, 61-6-8, 50 KO's, 6 ND; Career: 1914-27, 11 years active.
5. Jack Johnson, 78-13-11, 49 KO's, 18 ND; Career: 1897-1938, 30 years active.
6 Larry Holmes, 67-6, 43 KO's; Career: 1973-99, 23 years active.
7. Sonny Liston, 50-4, 39 KO's; Career: 1953-70, 17 years active.
8. Joe Frazier, 32-4-1, 27 KO's; Career: 1965-81, 13 years active.
9. Sam Langford, 167-38-37, 117 KO's, 48 ND; Career: 1902-26, 25 years active.
10 Jersey Joe Walcott, 53-18-1, 33 KO's; Career: 1930-53, 20 years active.

The AP gets a lot of stuff wrong and not just in boxing, so forgive me for disagreeing with them but
#1 Joe Louis
#2 Rocky Marciano
#3 Ali

...Dempsey defended his title how many times? Jack Johnson I get, but Dempsey? #4?!?! Langford never even won the title and Walcott wasn't all that impressive as a champion either. Liston had a short reign at the top too.

Now plenty of people may disagree with me based on who fought who and eras and size, strength, speed, skill etc...but Louis and Marciano DOMINATED their eras...I reckon you can put Holmes in that fold as well but Louis was champ for a long time and his record of successful title defenses as heavyweight champion still stands. If you want to talk about fighter x vs fighter y then that's a different story and Ali is probably rated higher, but still Louis is up there.

[Dark Lord Al]

Hmmmm....

Just found these (Opinions on Foreman Vs Liston):

Ernie Terrell
Chicago based promoter Ernie Terrell is a former WBA heavyweight champion.

"Oh boy, it would have been something to watch! We're talking about two very tough men, not just tough fighters, Liston was a very good boxer in his prime, which was the late-50's and early-60's. I sparred with him, but since I was much taller, and was a boxer, his jab, which was one of his best weopons, didn't affect me the way it did most other fighters. Physically, he could do more in the ring than Foreman.
It's a shame Foreman couldn't combine the power and speed of his youth with the improved defense and maturaity he shows today. Still, he was a very strong guy. Most of the men he knocked out he hurt first. Foreman had a great chin, but even greater determination. Getting up from those knockdowns and coming back to beat Ron Lyle proved what he was made of.
The fight would flow the same way Foreman-Lyle did. Both men would connect with big punches. But Liston was abetter all-round boxer, and he was certainly a better puncher than Lyle. By o means would it be an easy fight for Liston. But I see him coming on as Foreman weakens, and scoring a knockout around the 11th round."


Chuck Wepner
A heavyweight contender in the 70's, Chuck Wepener was stopped by both Liston and Foreman.

"I fought Liston in his last fight, and Foreman when he was on his way up, so I speak from experience when I say they were two of the hardest punchers ever. it would be hard to match two harder-hitting heavyweights. Even though I though Liston was at the end, I thought he was still a very good boxer. He took a good punch, and he had a lot of savvy. In his prime, he could do it all.
When he was younger, Foreman's most impressive quality was his awesome brute strength. He liked to push people around, but he could be wild with his punches, and that cost him against Muhammad Ali. He was alot like Liston then. Both liked to intimidate their opponents, but you couldn't intimidate either one of them. With George, though, it was an act; he's always been a good guy.
It would be an action packed fight. Both had good, hard jabs, and didn't hesitate to open up and throw bombs. But Liston was a much better boxer. i don't beleive anyone could have beaten Liston in his prime, including Ali. I see Liston stopping Foreman in six or seven rounds."

Im most interested in Chucks view , and I will not hear of him being punch drunk.

[chinchekked]

I am a fan of boxing.....that being said it is easy to lean towards certain fighters as favorites and overrate them. However I have to defend the fact that Ali being # 1 does NOT bother me. It is my opinion that many people do hail him as the best based on name and reputation alone without even looking at the other options. IMO though I think that he is top 3 without a doubt. I also believe that he did fight in a better era of heayweights as stated earlier in this thread. For anyone who says that today's heavyweights are as good I ask you this.......how many fighters showed up to fight Ali looking like Kirk Johnson vs Klit.