Louis and Ali - the only TRUE great heavyweights

[fists of fury]

It might not be a popular opinion, but I've been thinking more and more about this, and only two heavies (in my mind) can be called truly great: Ali and Louis.
The rest like Marciano, Frazier, Holmes etc. are oustanding fighters or at best near-great, but the usual suspects we name in our top 10's (aside from Louis or Ali) simply cannot be called great.
Fair? I think so. They just don't compare with those two gents, legacy-wise at least.

Thoughts?

[McGrain]

I agree that there is a serious gap between them and the rest.

[robert ungurean]

It might not be a popular opinion, but I've been thinking more and more about this, and only two heavies (in my mind) can be called truly great: Ali and Louis.
The rest like Marciano, Frazier, Holmes etc. are oustanding fighters or at best near-great, but the usual suspects we name in our top 10's (aside from Louis or Ali) simply cannot be called great.
Fair? I think so. They just don't compare with those two gents, legacy-wise at least.

Thoughts?:hat

[Holmes' Jab]

I agree to a certain extent.

Holmes, Lewis and Marciano (though he never quite fought "big men" on a consistent basis, his unbeaten record remains a great feat) are knocking at the door of these two guys, but no cigar.

[robert ungurean]

I dont like it when people use the word legacy to determin a fighter's greatness.
I like to go by plain skill when determining a fighters greatness and there were a good number of HW fighters that mach up with Ali & Louis.
Fitz
Jeffries
Johnson
Dempsey
Tunney
Charles
Liston
Holmes
all come to mind as being as talanted as Ali & Louis.

[fists of fury]

I go by legacy a lot, because aside from watching tapes or reading reports and such, what else do we go on?
To me, legacy defines a fighter. It's the sum total of his career, and what it represented not only to those involved with boxing, but to Joe Public as well, both then and now.

I think Louis and Ali transcended boxing. They were bigger than merely being the best at their sport. Can greatness be measured purely on skill or speed or power? To me, greatness goes beyond all that - it's an ethereal quality that to my mind, only Louis and Ali possessed.

[robert ungurean]

I understand & respect your point.
I just preffer going by skill,talent ect. Legacy's to me just leave too many question marks.

[Duodenum]

I go by legacy a lot, because aside from watching tapes or reading reports and such, what else do we go on?
To me, legacy defines a fighter. It's the sum total of his career, and what it represented not only to those involved with boxing, but to Joe Public as well, both then and now.

I think Louis and Ali transcended boxing. They were bigger than merely being the best at their sport. Can greatness be measured purely on skill or speed or power? To me, greatness goes beyond all that - it's an ethereal quality that to my mind, only Louis and Ali possessed.Dempsey certainly transcended boxing, as evidenced by the huge NY Times headlines reporting the outcomes of his title defenses, but he wasn't a great active champion. That Holmes didn't rematch or go after all of the toughest opposition diminishes his resume, though he may be a candidate to win an all-time tournament.

Ali rematched Ken Norton twice, an opponent he could never look good against. He also got in the ring with Holmes rather than Weaver, although he paid lip service to taking on Hercules in the early stages of training for his eventual match with Larry. In closing out his career, Muhammad was better against Trevor Berbick (RIP) than John Tate (RIP) and Greg Page were. During Joe Louis's comeback bid, he defeated HOFer Jimmy Bivins (retroactively reestablishing himself as the top HW against the wartime champion during his military service), and a host of useful challengers. It's often overlooked that going into his final match with Marciano, Joe was still considered the number one contender, and had generated a resume following the Charles loss to support that positioning.

While I don't agree with this particular criteria defining greatness exclusively, if it's accepted at face value, then a case might be made for Joe Frazier to a lesser extent, for restoring the legitimacy of the HW Title following the void left by Ali's exile.

It's a refreshing viewpoint defining greatness, an interesting perspective.

[Bummy Davis]

The Big men of Ali's era were Foreman,Lyle,Foster(mac)Liston and most of those big guys were beaten by smaller men,Quarry DOMINATED Lyle,Foster and Liston was already beaten & dropped by 179lb Marty Marshall, Louis KO'd every big man in his era (IT was the smaller Billy Conn and Arturo Godey who gave him problems) Foreman struggled with 185lb Peralta who was a decent fighter at best. In the 50's most of the bigger men were eliminated 6"3 Nino Valdez beaten by 180lb Harold Johnson,175lb Bob Satterfield, 6"2 Bob Baker KO'd by Archie Moore and Satterfield (who was KO'd in 2 by Charles) 6"3 Rex Layne Ko'd by Ezzard Charles, Roland Lastarza beating 6'3 Dan Bucceroni (who had a 37-2 record) and 222lb Ralph Schneider and Big Bill Wilson220lbs, Cleveland "BIG Cat "Williams was also KO"D in 3 rounds by 174lb Bob Satterfield in 1954 . As far as Ali, well he was badly dropped and hurt by 185lb Henry Cooper and was in the fight of his life vs(blown up 188lb Doug Jones) Ali was dropped and beaten by 205lb Joe Frazier and given a real rough fight vs 204lb Oscar Bonavena and an aged Ali lost to a 6-0-1 195lb Leon Spinks. So I think its not where the big men where NOT, we know they were beaten but where are the Fit,Fast,hardpunching smaller heavyweights today, I think STERIODS eliminated most of them Today

[OLD FOGEY]

On greatness--in the end of the century poll for the greatest athletes
(effectively North American) of the century by the Associated Press,
Ali was 4th and Louis 7th, with Dempsey 38th and Marciano 44th. In the
ESPN poll, Ali was #3, Louis 11th, with Marciano 51st and Dempsey 52nd.
I think the finishes of Dempsey and Marciano is an indication of a consensus
of some sort of greatness, if not of the heights of Ali & Louis.
I myself would put Ali and Louis in the top ten, with Marciano probably about
25th and Dempsey and Johnson in the high thirties to low forties.
Being in the top fifty of all athletes of the century shows greatness.

[C. M. Clay II]

In a historical sense, this may be true. but head-to-head, I don't think Louis is a top 2 HW. Sorry.:bbb

[fists of fury]

Why is head to head so important to some though?

Does a '56 Corvette compare with the latest Z06? Does a Spitfire compete with a F-22? But they're still great for their era, right?

None of us can really say H2H who beats who. Sure it's fun to debate, but I can't rank fighters that way. There are far too many variables and intangibles, and we can't hope to know all of them.

Boxing today is so different than in years gone by. Fighters train differently. They eat differently. They have a wealth of information at their disposal the old-timers did not. The rules and equipment have also changed quite a lot.
For those reasons and others, H2H for me is a complete non-issue, unless the fighters being compared are from similar eras. (say, 70's v 80's)

[TBooze]

It might not be a popular opinion, but I've been thinking more and more about this, and only two heavies (in my mind) can be called truly great: Ali and Louis.
The rest like Marciano, Frazier, Holmes etc. are oustanding fighters or at best near-great, but the usual suspects we name in our top 10's (aside from Louis or Ali) simply cannot be called great.
Fair? I think so. They just don't compare with those two gents, legacy-wise at least.

Thoughts?

Almost agree, Foreman's 1990's redemption story sneaks him a place in the greats as well IMO.

[C. M. Clay II]

Why is head to head so important to some though?

Does a '56 Corvette compare with the latest Z06? Does a Spitfire compete with a F-22? But they're still great for their era, right?

None of us can really say H2H who beats who. Sure it's fun to debate, but I can't rank fighters that way. There are far too many variables and intangibles, and we can't hope to know all of them.

Boxing today is so different than in years gone by. Fighters train differently. They eat differently. They have a wealth of information at their disposal the old-timers did not. The rules and equipment have also changed quite a lot.
For those reasons and others, H2H for me is a complete non-issue, unless the fighters being compared are from similar eras. (say, 70's v 80's)

Evolution of eras is overrated. It's not like basketball or football where the sport has been around for only 120 years or so. Fighting has been around for thousands of years, so the difference in evolution of skill in 1940s and, let's say 1980's fighters is almost non-existant. I think it's fair to compare eras, because not much has changed from 1920 to 2000.:good

[fists of fury]

I think it's fair to compare eras, because not much has changed from 1920 to 2000.:good

Sorry bud, but I beg to differ.

The rules are different for one. The neutral corner rule has come in for starters. The fights are shorter now, too. They don't fight in the heat of the day like they used to. Ref's are far more likely to stop a bout now than in years gone by. The three knockdown rule didn't exist decades ago.
(If it did, you would have Dempsey KO1 Firpo, KO1 Willard and Foreman KO1 Frazier for starters)
The gloves are thumbless and better padded. Hell, the mouthpieces today are of better quality.
In isolation any one of these changes don't mean a great deal, but all combined it almost makes boxing a different sport nowadays, imo.

Then we have the fighters themselves. In general, they are bigger today. Not saying it's a good or a bad thing, but it's slightly changed the styles of the fighters to a degree. Their diets are different and their training methods have also changed considerably. How many guys in the 20's had a strength and conditioning coach?
Even the great Angelo Dundee once said that if he caught any of his fighters liftng weights, he'd take a baseball bat to them. Yet, weight training is an integral part of a fighter's training today.
Then there is the use of, er, certain substances today that surely enhances the boxer's performances to some degree.

[Senya13]

The corner rule (not necessarily neutral) had been introduced in the Marquis of Queensberry rules in the middle of 19th century.

[OLD FOGEY]

In a historical sense, this may be true. but head-to-head, I don't think Louis is a top 2 HW. Sorry.:bbb



If you and I agree that a middling team in the NFL last year could
have beaten the 1960's Green Bay Packers or the 1970's Pittsburg
Steelers, does that make that team "greater". Such a definition of
greatness has no meaning at all to me.

[cuchulain]

That Holmes didn't rematch or go after all of the toughest opposition diminishes his resume, though he may be a candidate to win an all-time tournament.

.


I could knock some fighters (Holmes slightly )for not meeting certain fighters, but I would never knock Holmes for not giving rematches. A guy that busy (20 defenses) who has already beaten someone is not diminished by not beating the same someone twice.

[thunder06]

i agree

[Sizzle]

I have Ali, Louis and Marciano in that "bracket" of being truly great - Objectively, their records stand out above all.

In the next bracket, I have the likes of Liston, Tyson, Lewis, Holmes, Jack Johnson, Holyfield, Frazier and Foreman.

Then I have the likes of Floyd Patterson, Jeffries, Dempsey, Bowe, Langford among others.

But this is not a head-to-head rating, obviously. More a pound for pound rating although not entirely.

[JohnThomas1]

I too bracket Ali and Louis above the rest.