submit top ten heavyweights

[Sebastian Guerriero]

Based on a mixture head to head and accomplishments.

1) Joe Louis
2) Muhammad Ali
3) Rocky Marciano
4) Jack Dempsey
5) Joe Frazier
6) George Foreman
7) Larry Holmes
8) Lennox Lewis
9) Jack Johnson
10) Jersey Joe Walcott

Lewis could be rated as high as 5, the same with Holmes. I used to have Foreman at 4, but feel Dempsey was a better fighter then I gave him credit for. After 8, it really gets hard. I want to put Holyfield there, I want to put Jefferies there, I want to put Liston there. Depending on my mood, I might. I give Walcott 10th just because he had a long shelf life, and despite his inconsistency had more brilliant in ring moments (even when losing) then some fighters who normally get ranked ahead. Plus, I just think he was deceivingly powerful and would beat alot of the greats at his best.

Tyson, Bowe, Charles would be just outside 10 for me.

[apollack]

I already posted this elsewhere, but here it is again on this thread:

As I see it, the biggest problem with doing these top ten lists is that there is no criteria. Also, you may look at one matchup and say fighter A beats fighter B and B beats C, and C beats D, but you might also think D beats A, which throws a money wrench into it all. Also, sometimes it is difficult to visualize the matchups because of the different eras and opponents, and the different sizes and body types. Also, lots of intangibles. Some of these you think if they fought four times it would be 2-2, so that also makes it difficult. I like to visualize these fights as fights to the finish. Very tough to do this and these are always open to debate (friendly I hope), but my list is:

MUHAMMAD ALI

JOE LOUIS

LARRY HOLMES

JOHN L. SULLIVAN

GEORGE FOREMAN

JOE FRAZIER

EVANDER HOLYFIELD

MIKE TYSON

ROCKY MARCIANO

JAMES J. JEFFRIES

LENNOX LEWIS

RIDDICK BOWE

JACK DEMPSEY

GENE TUNNEY

PETER JACKSON

JACK JOHNSON

SONNY LISTON

[thumper3852]

It's the criteria that's always the moving target, not the fighters as their body of work is largely complete.

Let's say we're the Ring Magazine rating board. It's October 3, 2006, all the fighters are alive and competing in the present, enjoying the rules, advances in the sport, and all the changes life has brought to us. They eat and live and train as if they are here with us as we speak; we need to get the ratings complete for the next issue.

Without the generational criteria, etc. you have Jeffries and Liston boxing while wearing those butt cheek trunks Sharkey is so fond of and Michael Buffer yelling through a giant megaphone doing the intros. They wear 4 oz gloves filled with horse hair.

[Elmer Ray]

IMO, the over-the-hill version of Jack Dempsey whom Gene Tunney beat would have beaten the over-the-hill versions of Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore whom Rocky Marciano beat.

i dont think walcott and moore can be considered over the hill when they fought marciano. judging by film and there records leading up to the marciano bout and there there preformances in the marciano fight, i believe both have to be classified as "near peak" when they fought rocky marciano. i have many newspaper articles describing walcott as fighting one of the best preformances of his career in marciano fight. one article shows bocchichio and walcott saying he ranks marciano I preformance right up there with louis I preformance as his two best. archie moore was one the best winning streak of his career heading into the marciano fight and had just cleaned up the heavyyweight divisions best contenders prior to fighting rocky.

mr. E werent u the one who spoke in such high praise of the 1952-55 heavyweight version of moore who whupped valdez, baker, bivins, henry? this is the moore who marciano licked badly!


i think archie moore and jersey joe walcott soundily beat the 1927 jack dempsey. walcott nearly beat a prime rocky marciano, i think the aggr, esive powerpunching A game Walcott of sept 1952 knocks out a 1927 jack dempsey. jack dempsey was nearly knocked out by jack sharkey and gene tunney. dempsey was slower, rusty, and he was easier to tag. he lack the aggresivness and ferociouness. walcott was pretty much at his peak in that first marciano fight and the combinations, sharp powerpunches, handspeed, strength, jab, boxing skills walcott showed in that fight would be way too much for a 1927 jack dempsey . they were almsot too much for a prime rocky marciano. i think walcott finished off what jack sharkey and gene tunney almost did, knock jack dempsey out.



charles was past his prime in 1954, but the charles of the first marciano fight put on a career preformance that would have toppled many champions that night. i believe jack dempsey gets outboxed and outpointed by the charles of the first marciano fight.

[kikibalt]

Elmer Ray

I know that you're a young man, but do you think that at 38 years old you
're going to be full of piss and vinegar as you're now? been there myself let me tell you that you won't.

Frank

[mike]

glad to see appoack has sullivan up there--he realley deserves it--in my opinon.

[Colin Maclaurin]

Elmer,

the purpose of my list was more in terms of head to head. i do believe rocky is a great fighter, but i would pick both corbett and tunney to outpoint marciano. i think marciano lacks the overall dimension ( defense, speed, variety ) to defeat the fighters i listed. just one man's limited opinion--take it with a grain of salt dude.

your top ten?

[Elmer Ray]

Elmer Ray

I know that you're a young man, but do you think that at 38 years old you
're going to be full of piss and vinegar as you're now? been there myself let me tell you that you won't.

Frank

so frank......ur basing everything off age??


u really think the 26 year old jersey joe walcott abe simon beat was a better version of walcott than the 38 year old walcott?


you think the 30 year old walcott who 8-12 johnny allen beat was a better version of walcott than the 38 year old walcott marciano beat??




no im not going to be as full of piss and vinegar(though i may since im a late bloomer).



however there are special exceptions where fighters are late bloomers and still incredible physical specimans in there mid 30s like jersey joe walcott, archie moore, and a modern example bernard hopkins. hopkins looked as good as ever in his peak fight vs tito at age 37. how bout lennox lewis? he looked as good as ever when he knocked out hasim rahman at age 36 in 2001.


also other examples include dick tiger, bob fitzsimmons and eddie cotton were still fighting as good as ever in there mid 30s.

[Elmer Ray]

my top 5 are

1. joe louis
2. muhammad ali
3. sonny liston
4. larry holmes
5. rocky marciano

my rest in undecided order are

tyson
dempsey
frazier
foreman
johnson

[10-8]

however there are special exceptions where fighters are late bloomers and still incredible physical specimans in there mid 30s like jersey joe walcott, archie moore, and a modern example bernard hopkins. hopkins looked as good as ever in his peak fight vs tito at age 37. how bout lennox lewis? he looked as good as ever when he knocked out hasim rahman at age 36 in 2001.

For many fighters, their physical skills such as timing, reflexes, speed, and endurance (attributes of youth and physical peak) begin to decrease at the same rate as their ring smarts, experience and overall ring generalship increases (attributes of experience).

During this transition period, the top fighters have good results and are often considered at their career peak (usually when they have been champ for a couple of years). Larry Holmes would be a good example of this probably peaking at 30-31 years old as would Lennox Lewis who refined his game and peaked later than most.

In some rare cases such as Bernard Hopkins, Archie Moore and Jersey Joe Walcott their experience, ring smarts etc...increases at a more rapid pace than their physical tools diminish. That's why they have good success late in their careers.

In the case of Walcott and Moore facing Marciano, you have to consider the wear and tear both guys bodies had been subject to. Both guys were at least 20 year pros and Moore in particular had close to 180 fights when he fought Marciano. That takes it's toll on a 38 year old body. I don't care who you are.

Were they physically at their peak? I would say definitely no, but looking at their in-the-ring accomplishments at the time they fought Marciano you have a strong argument that they were at their career peak.

[Sharkey]

by "fond of" you obviously mean "sickened by"?

[kikibalt]

For many fighters, their physical skills such as timing, reflexes, speed, and endurance (attributes of youth and physical peak) begin to decrease at the same rate as their ring smarts, experience and overall ring generalship increases (attributes of experience).

During this transition period, the top fighters have good results and are often considered at their career peak (usually when they have been champ for a couple of years). Larry Holmes would be a good example of this probably peaking at 30-31 years old as would Lennox Lewis who refined his game and peaked later than most.

In some rare cases such as Bernard Hopkins, Archie Moore and Jersey Joe Walcott their experience, ring smarts etc...increases at a more rapid pace than their physical tools diminish. That's why they have good success late in their careers.

In the case of Walcott and Moore facing Marciano, you have to consider the wear and tear both guys bodies had been subject to. Both guys were at least 20 year pros and Moore in particular had close to 180 fights when he fought Marciano. That takes it's toll on a 38 year old body. I don't care who you are.

Were they physically at their peak? I would say definitely no, but looking at their in-the-ring accomplishments at the time they fought Marciano you have a strong argument that they were at their career peak.

Very well said.

[hawk5ins]

I always thought it was PITH and Vinegar.

Or was that simply Cindy Brady butchering the phrase?

Hawk

[Mr E]

i dont think walcott and moore can be considered over the hill when they fought marciano. judging by film and there records leading up to the marciano bout and there there preformances in the marciano fight, i believe both have to be classified as "near peak" when they fought rocky marciano. i have many newspaper articles describing walcott as fighting one of the best preformances of his career in marciano fight. one article shows bocchichio and walcott saying he ranks marciano I preformance right up there with louis I preformance as his two best. archie moore was one the best winning streak of his career heading into the marciano fight and had just cleaned up the heavyyweight divisions best contenders prior to fighting rocky.

mr. E werent u the one who spoke in such high praise of the 1952-55 heavyweight version of moore who whupped valdez, baker, bivins, henry? this is the moore who marciano licked badly!


i think archie moore and jersey joe walcott soundily beat the 1927 jack dempsey. walcott nearly beat a prime rocky marciano, i think the aggr, esive powerpunching A game Walcott of sept 1952 knocks out a 1927 jack dempsey. jack dempsey was nearly knocked out by jack sharkey and gene tunney. dempsey was slower, rusty, and he was easier to tag. he lack the aggresivness and ferociouness. walcott was pretty much at his peak in that first marciano fight and the combinations, sharp powerpunches, handspeed, strength, jab, boxing skills walcott showed in that fight would be way too much for a 1927 jack dempsey . they were almsot too much for a prime rocky marciano. i think walcott finished off what jack sharkey and gene tunney almost did, knock jack dempsey out.



charles was past his prime in 1954, but the charles of the first marciano fight put on a career preformance that would have toppled many champions that night. i believe jack dempsey gets outboxed and outpointed by the charles of the first marciano fight.

Oh, don't get me wrong. Even over-the-hill versions of Walcott, Charles and Moore were tough nuts-- terrific fighters, all.

But, IMO, it is unrealistic to believe that at those ages they could possibly have been as good as they had been previously.

Walcott put up a great fight against the Rock in the first bout, but his performance in the rematch was disgraceful. Really makes me wonder how much be benefitted from Rocky's 'blindness' in the first bout-- i.e., had Rocky not had to worry about his vision, maybe he steps on the gas a little earlier and the fight ends a lot sooner than it did. More to the point, if a faster, harder-chinned version of Walcott -- i.e., Gene Tunney -- were in there instead, would Rocky have won? I don't know.

I do think '27 Dempsey beats all the guys against whom Marciano defended, but I certainly respect the opposing viewpoint.

[Sharkey]

I don't see any resemblance between Sharkey and Walcott in terms of the aggressive Sharkey that faced Dempsey and Jersey Joe who defended against the Rock.

As for Walcott finishing what Sharkey started, I could easily make the case that Walcott wouldn't have Dempsey even 'started'.

The analogy applied doesn't make sense. Maybe Walcott beats 1927 Dempsey, but he would have to do it on his own, using his style and not be given credit for improving on what Sharkey and Tunney were doing; seeing as how Sharkey for his part at least was not anything like Walcott...and not necessarily to Sharkey's detriment.

[Mr E]

I don't see any resemblance between Sharkey and Walcott in terms of the aggressive Sharkey that faced Dempsey and Jersey Joe who defended against the Rock.

As for Walcott finishing what Sharkey started, I could easily make the case that Walcott wouldn't have Dempsey even 'started'.

The analogy applied doesn't make sense. Maybe Walcott beats 1927 Dempsey, but he would have to do it on his own, using his style and not be given credit for improving on what Sharkey and Tunney were doing; seeing as how Sharkey for his part at least was not anything like Walcott...and not necessarily to Sharkey's detriment.

Well said. Sharkey might have had a better chance of beating Dempsey than Walcott did, I think, because Sharkey took a better punch than Walcott did.
Take Sharkey and Walcott at their peaks and I think you have a pretty even fight. Pick 'em over 15 rounds.

[Cojimar 1945]

What factors do people think are responsible for improvements in record times in various swimming and running events? Are there better training techniques, better shoes and swimsuits, better athletes, better supplements, etc?

Regarding Lennox Lewis the two men who knocked him down both weighed over 230 pounds which is far heavier than Dempsey, Marciano or Louis. These were not small men although their power is somewhat questionable since Rahman and McCall failed to kayo some guys who don't have great chins.

[Mr E]

What factors do people think are responsible for improvements in record times in various swimming and running events? Are there better training techniques, better shoes and swimsuits, better athletes, better supplements, etc?

Regarding Lennox Lewis the two men who knocked him down both weighed over 230 pounds which is far heavier than Dempsey, Marciano or Louis. These were not small men although their power is somewhat questionable since Rahman and McCall failed to kayo some guys who don't have great chins.

The 'improvement in technique' argument makes no sense to me. Fighters develop technique by practice and experience -- i.e., by training and by engaging in fights. In the past, fighters fought a lot more often than the do today. Ergo, it is likely that the old-timers, not the modern fighters, had 'superior technique,' if anyone did. Certainly, there is no reason to simply assume the contrary.

[Cojimar 1945]

Langford can definitely rate over Johnson at heavyweight because he fought against quality oppossition for a longer period of time. Johnson had some good wins while holding the colored heavyweight title but McVey and Jeannette were very inexperienced when they fought Johnson. Langford faced them when they were much more experienced. Johnson did not face the best contenders after beating Burns and ducked Langford, McVey and Jeannette among others during this period. Langford must be considered the best heavyweight during Johnson's "reign" because he fought much better competition.

[hawk5ins]

The "experienced" comments are based off of Boxrec incomplete recorded bout records of Jeannette, McVey, Tate etc.

It is understood that by the time Jack actually won the Heavyweight title he was 30 years old, correct?

And Jack did just happen to beat Langford straight up as well didn't he?

I don't beleive there is a necessity to have to defend who Johnson beat, how many times he beat them, and how convicingly he did it either.

Hawk

[Sharkey]

Langford can definitely rate over Johnson at heavyweight because he fought against quality oppossition for a longer period of time. Johnson had some good wins while holding the colored heavyweight title but McVey and Jeannette were very inexperienced when they fought Johnson. Langford faced them when they were much more experienced. Johnson did not face the best contenders after beating Burns and ducked Langford, McVey and Jeannette among others during this period. Langford must be considered the best heavyweight during Johnson's "reign" because he fought much better competition.

really? Here's a vote then for Jesse Ferguson for best heavyweight of the last 30 years.

[10-8]

really? Here's a vote then for Jesse Ferguson for best heavyweight of the last 30 years.

Buster Douglas, Carl Williams, Mike Tyson, Bonecrusher Smith, Oliver McCall, Bruce Seldon, Michael Dokes, Tony Tubbs, Ray Mercer, Riddick Bowe, Frank Bruno, Larry Holmes, Hasim Rachman, Andrew Golata. Eleven heavyweight champions among that impressive group.

All hail the Bogeyman.

[Cojimar 1945]

Langford lost a few times in his prime but that was against the best heavyweights around and he got the better of McVey and Jeannette during his prime. Langford was also never stopped in his prime.

[hawk5ins]

you are coming from re Langford, as you find him superior to Johnson, Please set the parameters for what you feel was Langford's prime.

WHat years are we talking about?

It will be easier to go from there.

Hawk

[mike]

The 'improvement in technique' argument makes no sense to me. Fighters develop technique by practice and experience -- i.e., by training and by engaging in fights. In the past, fighters fought a lot more often than the do today. Ergo, it is likely that the old-timers, not the modern fighters, had 'superior technique,' if anyone did. Certainly, there is no reason to simply assume the contrary.

right on the button. many fighters of the past-20-50 could both box as well as body puch very well. body puching with excellant mix to the head is perhaps the toughness skill to master without catching them too much in return. comparatively few fighters are so skilled as was taken for granted in the past --the hardest things to do well--goes first.evidenced now. thanks.

[Cojimar 1945]

I'm not sure exactly where Langford's prime would fall but he was very consistent against top-level oppossition from mid 1907 through mid 1914. He continued to do well against the best black heavyweights in the world up through 1916 but in the later years he was less consistent.

[hawk5ins]

Based on the parameters you set, are we supposed to Hold Johnson to those exact same time frames? Does that at all seem fair?

1908 -1915 was the time that Jack was champion. He was between ages 30-37. And of course 1907 was the year following Jack's win over Langford.

Essentially if we are to hold Johsnon to those same parameters, we would have to ignore his entire pre title prime with the exception of 1907. Which, as far as I can see, you seem pretty intent on doing.

Prior to winning the title, Jack demonstrated CLEARLY his dominance over the division. Wins over Jeannette, McVey, Langford, Tate and others belied this. I won't even get into the Hart bout again as i have already given my opinion on that duke.

Essentially you are asking us to forget all of that and ONLY focus on his championship reign which, as I've already pointed out, did not begin until he was 30 years old. Forget his 20's. Forget the wins over the same fighters who Langford beat and who often beat him as well.

Let's narrow our focus on this one time frame and ignore the entire picture of Johnson's prime and the victories he acheived during that prime.

To me this sounds like saying Sonny Liston was an average fighter becuase he only made one defense of his title, which would IGNORE the fact that he cleaned out the entire division BEFORE he was allowed to actually fight for the title. Also not until he was in his 30's.

I'd rather look at the big picture. I think it tells a more accurate story.

Hawk

[Sharkey]

One could get an opinion or an inkling that Langford may have been able to beat Johnson during Johnson's reign. I am not sure however that translates into a de jure/de facto rating of Langford above Johnson supported by wins over men reputedly way tougher than Johnson's title victims. Look at Holyfield's year or so (4 wins over 'top 10 opponents') before he won the title. Then look at the 24 months after it.

He perhaps ceased to be the best heavyweight the second he won the title from a blimp (to quote Dean Martin).

As for Mike Tyson, Tyson couldn't be seen as the best at any time after his loss and before facing say, Seldon, since he was either inactive or not fighting Mercer, Moorer, Morrison, Bowe, Lewis, Dokes, Sanders, McCall, Foreman and others? Than why was he thought so highly of before Evander whupped him? Mike may have been the best indeed after he got ouit of jail and before he fought Holyfield.. but I tend to think he wasn't better than Bowe, Lewis or Holyfield by this time.

When Larry Holmes faced off against David Bey, had Pink Thomas or Coetzee or someone become best heavyweight by virtue of facing better fighters within the past year? Mike Weaver didn't become better than Holmes by beating Coetzee and Tate whereas Larry fought Zanon, Jones and a cadaverous Ali. Extreme case, but tending to illustrate competition is not the whole story.

Johnson being thought of as the best heavyweight during his reign was built upon the fights and wins preceeding it, one of which was Langford. If he never rematched him nor fought the other black-contenders; who is to say those were the best opponents, or further that NOT fighting Langford again meant Langford was better?

After all, Tim Witherspoon never even got a crack at Tyson..by design no less.. and I would not say he was thus better than Mike because of that.

[Mr E]

One could get an opinion or an inkling that Langford may have been able to beat Johnson during Johnson's reign. I am not sure however that translates into a de jure/de facto rating of Langford above Johnson supported by wins over men reputedly way tougher than Johnson's title victims. Look at Holyfield's year or so (4 wins over 'top 10 opponents') before he won the title. Then look at the 24 months after it.

He perhaps ceased to be the best heavyweight the second he won the title from a blimp (to quote Dean Martin).

As for Mike Tyson, Tyson couldn't be seen as the best at any time after his loss and before facing say, Seldon, since he was either inactive or not fighting Mercer, Moorer, Morrison, Bowe, Lewis, Dokes, Sanders, McCall, Foreman and others? Than why was he thought so highly of before Evander whupped him? Mike may have been the best indeed after he got ouit of jail and before he fought Holyfield.. but I tend to think he wasn't better than Bowe, Lewis or Holyfield by this time.

When Larry Holmes faced off against David Bey, had Pink Thomas or Coetzee or someone become best heavyweight by virtue of facing better fighters within the past year? Mike Weaver didn't become better than Holmes by beating Coetzee and Tate whereas Larry fought Zanon, Jones and a cadaverous Ali. Extreme case, but tending to illustrate competition is not the whole story.

Johnson being thought of as the best heavyweight during his reign was built upon the fights and wins preceeding it, one of which was Langford. If he never rematched him nor fought the other black-contenders; who is to say those were the best opponents, or further that NOT fighting Langford again meant Langford was better?

After all, Tim Witherspoon never even got a crack at Tyson..by design no less.. and I would not say he was thus better than Mike because of that.

Don't forget, too, that Lanford didn't exactly dominate Jeannette and McVey. You could go the other way and point out that he lost to both of them and, since neither was as great as Johnson, Langford likely would have lost to Johnson, too.

[Elmer Ray]

tim witherspoon ducked mike tyson. he wanted no part of tyson after seeing tyson destroy pinklon thomas( a man who beat spoon)

tyson was beating the shit out of most of the top 1980s alpha champs.....he would have done the same to spoon like he did to tubbs, berbick and thomas