The Top Twenty Heavies

[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

[marbleheadmaui]

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?

[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.

[marbleheadmaui]

"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.

[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.

[brocktonblockbust]

Master's list is daft, mad, pixie-mazed, asinine:

Lewis before Foreman wtf??

and NO ROCKY MARCIANO

..........LAY OFF THE LUNATIC BROTH.

[Master]

Master's list is daft, mad, pixie-mazed, asinine:

Lewis before Foreman wtf??

and NO ROCKY MARCIANO

..........LAY OFF THE LUNATIC BROTH.

Rocky was 10.

[Mars_ax]

Exellent thread Marb, and although I agree with much of the OP, I tend to stay away from "top 20" or alltime great HW threads, because they're usually subjective/bias. They also don't give proper credit some Pugs deserve for being one of the best of their era and/or the individual merit for their accomplishments tends to be overlooked.

My point? Sure you can make edcucated guesses, compare records/stats, typically Louis & Ali come in first and second "top 20", but who's to say that in their own way, Marciano, Holmes, Dempsey, Johnson, Jeffries, Lewis, et al, wasn't 1st or 2nd, or the greatest HW of all time? I mean isn't this basically just a popularity contest based on opinion?

[Spicoli]

Exellent thread Marb, and although I agree with much of the OP, I tend to stay away from "top 20" or alltime great HW threads, because they're usually subjective/bias. They also don't give proper credit some Pugs deserve for being one of the best of their era and/or the individual merit for their accomplishments tends to be overlooked.

My point? Sure you can make edcucated guesses, compare records/stats, typically Louis & Ali come in first and second "top 20", but who's to say that in their own way, Marciano, Holmes, Dempsey, Johnson, Jeffries, Lewis, et al, wasn't 1st or 2nd, or the greatest HW of all time? I mean isn't this basically just a popularity contest based on opinion?

Seeing is believing. Its true. We tend to get stuck on the here and now, the familiar. I look at the amount of shit calls and bs calls fight by fight in just the past 10-15 yrs alone that are recorded as history and can only imagine what has been swept under the rug and passed as fact that we've never layed eyes on. Its a fine line and equally you have to respect and speak on ones that blazed a path historically.

[IamInuit]

Jimmy Young beat Foreman , Lyle and Ali minus the stench scoring and you never see him pop up on such lists. The most underrated, ignored hev of all time.

[Mars_ax]

Jimmy Young beat Foreman , Lyle and Ali minus the stench scoring and you never see him pop up on such lists. The most underrated, ignored hev of all time.

I wouldn't give Jimmy Young that much credit, he had his moments, but he was still just a good journeyman HW.

[ryanman]

"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.

[marbleheadmaui]

"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.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

I thought everyone knew Muhammad Ali was overrated

Muhammad Ali is definitely overrated. Not as overrated as Sam Langford though.