Which ATG do you think does the worst head to head overall?

[Bill1234]

Which great do you feel would do the worst head to head?

[Holmes' Jab]

Dempsey.

[anon1]

I'd pick Patterson but if we're going by Top 10...lemme remind myself of my top 10. I'll include #11 Tyson because I know a lot of guys like to keep him in the top 10. I don't know much about Jack Johnson so I can't talk about him or rate him.

1. Ali (.5) - maybe loses to Louis (50/50)
2. Louis (.5)- maybe L to Ali (50/50)
3. Liston (2) - L to Ali, Louis
4. Holmes (4) - L to Ali, Louis, Liston, Frazier
5. Foreman (5) - L to Ali, Louis, Liston, Holmes, Holyfield
6. Lewis - (5.5) L to Ali, Louis, Liston, Holmes, Foreman, maybe Tyson
7. Dempsey (7) - L to Ali, Louis, Liston, Holmes, Foreman, Lewis, Tyson
8. Holyfield (6.5) - L to Ali, Louis, Liston, Holmes, Dempsey, Marciano, maybe Frazier (50/50)

9. Marciano (7.5) - L to Ali, Louis, Liston, Holmes, Foreman, Lewis, Dempsey (50/50), Tyson
10. Frazier (5.5) - L to Louis, Liston, Foreman, Lewis, maybe Dempsey, Tyson
11. Tyson(6.5) - L to Ali, Louis, Liston, Holmes, Foreman, Lewis (50/50), Holyfield

My votes goes to Patterson first and then Marciano. Seeing how all the ATGs have so many predicted losses to each other - Mike Tyson was spot on when he was asked who'd win between Louis and Ali (or some other great fighters) - he said that on any night...any of the great fighters could beat the other and vice versa...

[Holmes' Jab]

Going by my top 15 HW's: I think Marciano would fare better than Dempsey in a head to head sense, though I realise I might be in the minority with that view.

[anon1]

Going by my top 15 HW's: I think Marciano would fare better than Dempsey in a head to head sense, though I realise I might be in the minority with that view.

I disagree with you by a hair...7.5 vs 7...it can easily be switched by one difference in opinion for a particular fight. The great fighters could beat the others and vice versa on any given night...this thread illustrates that well...so it's hard to give a wrong answer

[ChrisPontius]

Certainly not a weak fighter, but i would go with Foreman. Reason being that his high ranking is mostly because of two great wins over stylistically perfect matchups (Frazier & Norton) and a great comeback win (Moorer). Those do a lot for his legacy, but regarding his ability against skilled boxers or punchers, i'd have some question marks.

[Rebel-INS]

Patterson at heavy maybe, but he'd be an absolute nightmare for any light heavy.

[TBooze]

Which great do you feel would do the worst head to head?


I do not like Ricardo Lopez's chances against Ali, Louis, Foreman, Moore, Charles, Robinson......;)

[janitor]

Ken Norton.

I wish there was a prize for this.

[TBooze]

Ken Norton.

I wish there was a prize for this.:nono

Standards please, Kenny Norton was a fine fighter, but he was hardly an 'all-time great'!

[janitor]

:nono

Standards please, Kenny Norton was a fine fighter, but he was hardly an 'all-time great'!

If Kenny Norton posts on ESB he would have our undivided atention.

[TBooze]

If Kenny Norton posts on ESB he would have our undivided atention.

Yes, but so would many fighters, it still does not necessarily make them great.

It just means that many in this forum are part of the boxing fancy, who respect the sport and its participants.

[rekcutnevets]

Posted by ChrisPontius
Certainly not a weak fighter, but i would go with Foreman. Reason being that his high ranking is mostly because of two great wins over stylistically perfect matchups (Frazier & Norton) and a great comeback win (Moorer). Those do a lot for his legacy, but regarding his ability against skilled boxers or punchers, i'd have some question marks.
That is a good choice.

[WhataRock]

It pains me to say it but Pac...

His weight jumping has seen him go through some historically pretty talent rich divisions.

At the very best I see him being top 5 H2H at superbantem..which would probably be the youngest and most talent thin divisions he has camped at.

I cant see him cracking top 10 at fly, feather or superfeather...Lightweight and jnr welter faget about it.

[Russell]

Hearn's at the higher weight classes. At MW plenty of fighters who can bully him and have the chin/heart to hang in there are going to get to him.

That's more or a result of him climbing so ridiculously high in weight then anything else, though.

[Russell]

In that vein, Spink's at heavyweight.

[faisal]

oscar de la hoya at 147

[Maxmomer]

Certainly not a weak fighter, but i would go with Foreman. Reason being that his high ranking is mostly because of two great wins over stylistically perfect matchups (Frazier & Norton) and a great comeback win (Moorer). Those do a lot for his legacy, but regarding his ability against skilled boxers or punchers, i'd have some question marks.

I agree.

[Maxmomer]

I don't think Marciano does well head to head against most other great and all-time great heavyweights.

[McGrain]

Certainly not a weak fighter, but i would go with Foreman. Reason being that his high ranking is mostly because of two great wins over stylistically perfect matchups (Frazier & Norton) and a great comeback win (Moorer). Those do a lot for his legacy, but regarding his ability against skilled boxers or punchers, i'd have some question marks.

Agree.

[McGrain]

Not the MOST, but I think Hearns is horribly overated at 147. People are ready to pick him over all kinds of great fighters.

[TBooze]

Not the MOST, but I think Hearns is horribly overated at 147. People are ready to pick him over all kinds of great fighters.

I do not care what you say, I still take him over Billy Backus!;)

[WhataRock]

Not the MOST, but I think Hearns is horribly overated at 147. People are ready to pick him over all kinds of great fighters.


What level do you put him at Mc?

I dont see him touching Robinson...nor Leonard more often then not but he proved very difficult in that fight nonetheless.

Napoles probably gets him..but I think with the skill, speed, size and power of Hearns there is every chance he busts Jose up.

After those guys I dont think many could beat him, not convincingly anyway...with the better, big punchers always having a decent chance.

[McGrain]

What level do you put him at Mc?

I dont see him touching Robinson...nor Leonard more often then not but he proved very difficult in that fight nonetheless.

Napoles probably gets him..but I think with the skill, speed, size and power of Hearns there is every chance he busts Jose up.

After those guys I dont think many could beat him, not convincingly anyway...with the better, big punchers always having a decent chance.

I give a lot of good welters a chance to beat him. I think he's overated in the division because he's struggling with the weight - not desperately, just a camp geared towards weight loss as much as boxing - and because he lacks quality experience. I think he was better when he stepped up.

A really good judge of range, a deluxe counterpuncher from the third clutch would have a good chance...someone like Curtis COkes, though that's not a confident pick.

[jones1]

With Jack Johnson's style I think that most greats that are his size that have a good jab and good footwork would beat him.

[mr. magoo]

There seems to be a growing concencus here that George Foreman was the best runner up for the award of worst head to head. Needless to say, I disagree. A man with the highest Win/KO percentage and highly destructive wins over Frazier, Norton, Lyle and Moorer does not warrant receiving such a title. Yes, he had some stylistic deficiencies, but Christ I'd pick him to anialate a lot of greats head to head, while troubling plenty of others.

If one was looking for a candidate to be the least effective in head to head matches, they should probably have to look no further than Floyd Patterson. Yes, Floyd was a great fighter and one that I highly respect for a lot of different reasons. But when Sized up to most greats, I fear he does poorly. Patterson was too highly prone to getting decked by a wide spectrum of different fighters and this even included a debuting professional in a world title defense. He was nothing for Sonny Liston in both of their fights and was badly beaten by Ingo who at the time was viewed by most as nobody.

[dmt]

Johnson

[Mantequilla]

Hearns was at his best head to head at Welter imo.His power was at its best there and it was at that weight he had awesome physical advantages.

as a small 154 middleweight he's not going to have as much success against the real elites at middleweight.that lack of real defence is a much bigger weakness there.

[Holmes' Jab]

Johnson


He'd put a whupping on a fair few. :yep

[AlFrancis]

There seems to be a growing concencus here that George Foreman was the best runner up for the award of worst head to head. Needless to say, I disagree. A man with the highest Win/KO percentage and highly destructive wins over Frazier, Norton, Lyle and Moorer does not warrant receiving such a title. Yes, he had some stylistic deficiencies, but Christ I'd pick him to anialate a lot of greats head to head, while troubling plenty of others.

If one was looking for a candidate to be the least effective in head to head matches, they should probably have to look no further than Floyd Patterson. Yes, Floyd was a great fighter and one that I highly respect for a lot of different reasons. But when Sized up to most greats, I fear he does poorly. Patterson was too highly prone to getting decked by a wide spectrum of different fighters and this even included a debuting professional in a world title defense. He was nothing for Sonny Liston in both of their fights and was badly beaten by Ingo who at the time was viewed by most as nobody.

I think you've made a good argument for not making him an ATG. Floyd that is.

[GPater11093]

i think all the fighters before th 1920s

boxing was a different sport and watxching footage someone like Lennox Lewis would destroy Jack Johnson or Bob Fitzimmons

[SuzieQ49]

I don't think Marciano does well head to head against most other great and all-time great heavyweights.

Funny how you rate Jack Dempsey extremley high h2h, and think very highly of the ever so crude Max "i have no technique in my punches" Baer. I think the pre 1953 Rocky Marciano would be a nightmare h2h for most heavyweights. I think his strength, durability stamina and punching power, and defense in low crouch make him very effective neutralizing some of the bigger skilled heavyweights strengths...Id pick him over many.

[SuzieQ49]

Interesting thread....my choice would have to be Gene Tunney. I feel his bad habit of fighting with his hands at his waist when driven into the ropes, his lack of inside fighting, refusal to take on black fighters, and his question marks on his tolerant level against tall big heavyweights and only 8 pro fights at heavyweight before early retirement make me wonder just how good of a heavyweight he was. Genes footwork while very fast, was also very basic and predictable, he always moved side to side he never changed it up or showed anything different like walcott or ali would do. I would have loved to seen him take on a tall jabber. the only good jabber he fought, a 20 year old tommy loughran, stuffed the left in his face and according to half the newspaper reports won the fight.

[PhillyPhan69]

If Kenny Norton posts on ESB he would have our undivided atention.

Kenny appears in most peoples top 20 of all time, IMO that should qualify as an atg. With those above him I agree he would have a difficult time H2H. If ATG was restricted to top 10 (appears some feel that way), I might lean towars Foreman as chris did!

[PhillyPhan69]

i think all the fighters before th 1920s

boxing was a different sport and watxching footage someone like Lennox Lewis would destroy Jack Johnson or Bob Fitzimmons

I think Johnson would put up respectable showings against most if not all of them!

[GPater11093]

I think Johnson would put up respectable showings against most if not all of them!

im not saying he would be destroyed by everyone but obviously if he was boxing now he would have a different style and be an ATG. but looking at film of him he just has a bad style to fight a modern fighter

[SuzieQ49]

I think Jack Johnson would do very well h2h. I also think he would easily adjust to more modern techniques while being able to keep his old school bad of tricks.

[lefthook31]

Im probably one of the few that think this, but I believe Riddick Bowe would have dominated Lennox Lewis had they fought when they were supposed to. Bowe was a much better fighter when he became champion under Eddie Futch as compared to his amatuer career. Lewis on the other hand still had a lot of flaws at the time, and didnt really become a seasoned pro until Emanuel Steward had him for a few fights.
People say he avoided him and he was scared, but I dont believe that. They said the same thing about Gonzalez who beat Bowe in the olympics, and Bowe ruined him (not to compare the two).

[Flea Man]

Personally I think Hearns is at his best H2H at JMW.

Fighters bad in H2H fantasy fights??? Well, to be honest, there are numerous LW's and WW's I'd pick over Henry Armstrong, but not too many fighters at FW to be honest.


Hmmmmm.....hard question. Probably De La Hoya, I guess what he achieved he put him the ATG category, though up at about 80 in my list not that high.

Can't see him beating any of my top five's in SFW/LW/LWW/WW/JMW OR MW.

So, in any of his weights I don't think De La Hoya matches up with 'the best' in the division. For exaple Arguello, Duran, Pryor, Robinson, McCallum and Hagler would batter him at any weight.

There are certain fighters that have not achieved as much as De La Hoya that I'd think more pose more of a threat to the best guys in the respective weight classes, but are they 'as great' as De La Hoya in terms of achievement?

Probably not. But there a fighters who I'd be more comfortable picking in a H2H situation with a great then I would with Oscar, who most people consider an 'ATG'. I think that is the basis of my argument :rofl

Pull yourself together Fleaman :good

[Mendoza]

Which great do you feel would do the worst head to head?

Depends on who qualifes as an ATG. Some fighters in the hall of fame really were not great, and would do pretty bad outside of their own era.

[Sweet Pea]

Hearns was at his best head to head at Welter imo.His power was at its best there and it was at that weight he had awesome physical advantages.

as a small 154 middleweight he's not going to have as much success against the real elites at middleweight.that lack of real defence is a much bigger weakness there.I generally agree with this, though I don't know what to make of calling Hearns "small" at JMW. He was still a physical specimen there.

[Mantequilla]

I was meaning more in comparison to real full middleweights.He's certainly not small in terms of height or reach at 154 or 160.as far as overall physical strength and in general how robust he was, i think he would be giving up a lot more than he is at Welter, where strength was never his forte anyway.

It's easier to see him being bullied\worn down if we put him against a consensus field of great fighters that weighed in at 154\160 than Welter.