Your number 11-20 great heavyweights of all time

[ThePlugInBabies]

I've seen plenty of top 10 lists, here's a chance for the guys who may just have missed out, educate me and give me your numbers 11-20.

[McGrain]

True.

11) Foreman
12) Dempsey
13) Marciano
14) Langford
15) Schmeling
16) Wills
17)Jersey Joe Walcott
18) Gene Tunney
19) Riddick Bowe
20) Sam Mcvey

[heerko koois]

True.

11) Foreman
12) Dempsey
13) Marciano
14) Langford
15) Schmeling
16) Wills
17)Jersey Joe Walcott
18) Gene Tunney
19) Riddick Bowe
20) Sam Mcvey

49-0 at 13 ? :huh

[McGrain]

49-0 at 13 ? :huh

I struggle horribley with Marciano.

I don't mean to disrespect him at all, he's a cool guy, I just think a lot of the guys I rate above him would murder him. What to do?

Only 13 slots in a top 13.


Let's see yours (as i've shown you mine).

[heerko koois]

11- Joe Frazier
12- Riddick Bowe
13- Jersey Joe Walcott
14- Lennox Lewis
15- Wladimir Klitscko [ could go even higher or lower ...]
16- Gene Tunney
17- Jack Dempsey
18- Ken Norton
19- F Patersson
20- Tim Whitherspoon [ okay don,t laugh , he is my favorite ]

[McGrain]

14- Lennox Lewis

17- Jack Dempsey

20- Tim Whitherspoon [ okay don,t laugh , he is my favorite ]

It's ok to show bias to a favourite if you'll admit it I guess.

Dempsey is VERY low. So is Lewis.


Care to comment?

[heerko koois]

It's ok to show bias to a favourite if you'll admit it I guess.

Dempsey is VERY low. So is Lewis.


Care to comment?

Lewis could have been higher i guess...but he was ko,d twice in his prime...that did not happen with any of my top 10 ATG....
Dempsey is another story...he lost twice to Tunney ...and got ko,d once in the first round...

[rekcutnevets]

11) Sonny Liston- Destroyed Patterson, Williams, Folley
12) Riddick Bowe- won 2 out of 3 vs. Holyfield(#9)
13) Jack Dempsey- Never fought Wills. Never know if he was the #1heavy in the world without that fight.
14) Jim Jeffries- Dominated, but fought during racial discrimination.He was
another of the white champs that didn't have to prove it
against black fighters(Jackson was in his late 30's).
15) Harry Wills- Beat Sam Langford more times than not. Can't crack top
10 without win over Dempsey
16) Max Schmeling- Beat a young Louis(#2)
17) Gene Tunney- Beat Dempsey, and Dempsey wasn't that old.
18) Jim Corbett
19) Peter Jackson
20) Floyd Patterson

I'll have to be honest, I've never listed this high before, going off the top of my head. I may make some changes later.

[hopkinsfan07]

11th. Rocky Marciano
12th. Jack Dempsey
13th. Mike Tyson
14th. James Jeffries
15th. Gene Tunney
16th. Ezzard Charles
17th. Max Schmelling
18th. Jersey Joe Walcott
19th. Sam Langford
20th. Jack Sharkey

[hopkinsfan07]

15- Wladimir Klitscko


do you mean Vitali ?

[rekcutnevets]

Hopkinsfan07, no disrespect, but I don't think he did.

Vitali is famous for winning, points wise, against Lewis before being stopped on that cut. After that he beat Kirk Johnson, Corey Sanders, and Danny Williams. I'll give you Sanders beating Wladimir. Vitali doesn't really have any more wins over top guys, unless you want to count Larry Donald. He was beating Byrd on points, but quit.

Wladimir has beaten, if I am giving you Donald; Botha, McCline, Jefferson, Peter, Byrd(twice), and Brock.

Neither one of these guys are knocking on an all time top 10 with these opponents, but I think Wlad edges him at the moment.

Vitali is coming back, so things could change.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I have yet to do even my all-time Top 10 heavyweight list!!!! :yikes


The truth is, I can't decide who's 9 & 10...the four contnders for those places are Dempsey, Liston, Frazier and Holyfield. So two of those are 11 and 12 in this thread. :good

[My dinner with Conteh]

11.
12. Tucker
13. Lewis
14.
15.

51. Foreman


Those are my anchor spots, ill fill in the rest later.


:good

[My dinner with Conteh]

tucker is closer to 27-34


127 more like.

[My dinner with Conteh]

...
126. Joe Bugner
127. Tony Tucker
128. Trevor Berbick

[Sakura]

You're overrating Riddick Bowe badly.

[Jack Dempsey]

Hmm, I'll have to think about this one

Charles
Schmeling
Patterson
Bowe
Walcott
Tunney

Are all in there somewhere

[McGrain]

I'm curious to see your top ten, because that seems quite low for Foreman. He's no joke as far as head-to-head matchups go, and starching Moorer as an old man is one hell of a feather in the cap legacy-wise.

Yeah, I had Foreman in my top 10 until very recently. The problem with a top ten is that there are only a limited number (.....10) of slots. The guys I have above him are Ali, Louis, Liston, Johnson, Lewis, Jeffries, Frazier, Hollyfield, Holmes and Tyson.

I tend to swap Tyson and Foreman about in 10 and 11.

Foreman was devastating but quite a clumsy, open fighter. In my own opinion the great offensive boxers from history would have KO'd him, and the great generals would have outfought and outthought him.

[heerko koois]

do you mean Vitali ?

No ...i rank Vitali at number 21......:smoke

[rekcutnevets]

I don't believe Bowe is being overrated. A lot of people regard Holyfield as a top 10 all time heavyweight, and Bowe bested him 2 out of 3.

He only has one loss on his record, but his wins over Golata hurt more than help. Golata was outfighing Bowe in both fights, and threw those fights away. If Bowe had appeared able to handle Golata in those fights, he could be argued up there with Holyfield on the all time list.

He did face a few undefeated up and comers after his first loss, and none of those ever became top notch fighters, but he proved to be a class above them.

Larry Donald(world class amateur) had proven himself to be better than another young contender in Jeremy Williams(also world class amateur).

Herbie Hide defeated Michael Bentt(top notch amateur) who was mostly known for knocking out Tommy Morrison in the first round.

[Muchmoore]

11. Frazier
12. Holyfield
13. Jeffries
14. Bowe
15. Tunney
16. Wills
17. Charles
18. Patterson
19. Walcott
20. Spinks

[janitor]

11. Larry Holmes
12. Harry Wills
13. Mike Tyson
14. George Foreman
15. Evander Hollyfield
16. James Corbett
17. Joe Walcott
18. Max Schmeling
19. Ezzard Charles
20. Bob Fitzsimmons

[McGrain]

THIS is an interesting one....


12. Harry Wills
13. Mike Tyson





Care to coment?

[Minotauro]

11. Jersey Joe Walcott
12. Evander Holyfield
13. Jim Jeffries
14. Sam Langford
15. Mike Tyson
16. Floyd Patterson
17. Ezzard Charles
18. Max Schmelling
19. Harry Wills
20. Gene Tunney

[rekcutnevets]

What's your full list Minotauro? We just about agreed on the top pound for pound per decade thread. Heavyweight's are where we are different. I'll cut and paste mine over from elsewhere. The only ones that are out of place are Frazier and Lewis, I have switched them.

20) Floyd Patterson

19) Peter Jackson
1:cool: Jim Corbett
17) Gene Tunney- Beat Dempsey, and Dempsey wasn't that old.
16) Max Schmeling- Beat a young Louis(#2)
15) Harry Wills- Beat Sam Langford more times than not. Can't crack top
10 without win over Dempsey
14) Jim Jeffries- Dominated, but fought during racial discrimination.He was
another of the white champs that didn't have to prove it
against black fighters(Jackson was in his late 30's).
13) Jack Dempsey- Never fought Wills. Never know if he was the #1heavy in the world without that fight.
12) Riddick Bowe- won 2 out of 3 vs. Holyfield(#9)

11) Sonny Liston- Destroyed Patterson, Williams, Folley


10. Mike Tyson

Tyson was the youngest heavyweight champion ever, and had the best blend of speed and power ever seen in a fighter. He came out a winner in twelve title bouts. Tyson had the ability to rank higher on this list, but lacked the discipline. He never bested another elite fighter (Larry Holmes was 37), but Trevor Berbick, James Smith, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tucker, Larry Holmes, Tony Tubbs, and Frank Bruno were all world titlists at some point in their careers. The knock on Tyson is that he never really overcame adversity in his fights, but when you were as skilled as he was you don't come across adverse situations all that often.

9. Evander Holyfield

Holyfield moved up from the cruiserweight division, where he was also champion, to excel in the heavyweight division like no other fighter moving up from below 200 lbs. has ever done. What he lacked in size, he more than made up for it with courage, determination, chin, and heart. He also had decent strength, a crisp punch, and above average speed. While his boxing skills were always apparent, he reinvented himself after losing his title to Riddick Bowe in 1992. He put on a masterful performance when he beat Bowe to regain his title a year later. He seemed to decline afterwards, losing a disputed decision to Michael Moore. He again rose to championship form, putting on a wonderful boxing display in stopping Mike Tyson, and another solid outing when he stopped Michael Moorer in their rematch. Other notable wins came against Michael Dokes, an aging George Foreman, an aging Larry Holmes, Ray Mercer, and Hasim Rahman.

8. Lennox Lewis

Lennox Lewis barely edges out Holyfield for this spot on the list. Lewis had his flaws, but did not seem overly confused by any style in particular. He had a size advantage over Holyfield. His competition was on par with Holyfield's. Not to mention a win over Holyfield, though I feel Holyfield had started his decline at that point. Lewis had a booming right hand, stiff jab, and has a victory over every fighter he has faced. With sixteen successful title defenses, spread over the course of two reigns, he ranks third amongst the heavyweight champions. He had a suspect chin, and was not always properly motivated for his fights; but only suffered two set backs in spite of these flaws. It would have been nice to have seen how he would have dealt with Riddick Bowe, but he was able to beat one man that had previously defeated Bowe(Holyfield) He also made short work of Andrew Golata. Golata had previously thrown two dominant performances over Riddick Bowe away due to fouls. Lewis also showed the ability to overcome adversity. He was in very close fight with Frank Bruno, and turned it on to stop him in the seventh. He was losing, in my opinion, to Vitali Klitschko; but seemed to be taking the fight over when that bout was stopped due to an awful gash near Klitschko's eye. Other than the aforementioned fighters, notable wins came against Razor Ruddock, Tommy Morrison, Ray Mercer, Shannon Briggs, David Tua, Hasim Rahman, and Mike Tyson.

7. Joe Frazier

Joe Frazier was armed with one the best left hooks in division history, was strong willed, and had the gas to burn. Frazier's most notable wins were against Buster Mathis, Jerry Quarry, Jimmy Ellis, Bob Foster, and Muhammad Ali. It is also important to notice he only lost to two men over the course of his career, both of which make this list.

6. George Foreman

It is tempting to think of Foreman as having two careers, as two different fighters, because of his ten year layoff from boxing in the middle of his career. Also because of his seeming personal tranformation. I don't really buy the make over. I am not saying he is a scam artist, or that he doesn't believe in his ministry. I am referring to the good guy, bad guy routine. I don't believe that Foreman was ever really a bad guy. I think he was perceived that way because of his strong will and savage strength. He brutalized his opponents in a way that it would seem only a thug be capable of. After his ten year retirement he came back near forty, bald, clean shaven, fat, forcing a smile, and perceived by many as a joke. Also perceived was a change of heart. It is hard paint a forty year old smiling fat man as a villian. George Foreman may now be famous for his smile, but he has never been a joke. Foreman posessed a sledge hammer jab, granite chin, dogged determination, and was probably the physically strongest heavyweight champion ever. Before losing his title to Muhammad Ali, he demolished Joe Frazier and Ken Norton. He was involved in one of the greatest heavyweight bouts ever when he knocked out Ron Lyle. He inspired millions when, Foreman age 42, unsuccessfully challenged 29 year old Evander Holyfield for the heavyweight championship. He later went on to become the oldest heavyweight champion in history, 45 years old, when he defeated Michael Moorer. Shannon Briggs found out that a 48 year old Foreman was stil a formidable foe, when he was pummeled and won a disputed decision over him in Foreman's final outing.

5. Rocky Marciano

Marciano had one of the divisions best chins, bone jarring punch, and seemed able to keep coming no matter what.Rocky Marciano's record run of 49 straight wins is, as of this date, still a record. In fact, he never lost as a profesional. You might wonder how a fighter that never lost is not at the top of the list, but his level of competition is what stops him. For the most part, he faced the best he could. Joe Walcott was an excellent fighter, but was 38 years old for their first fight, and 39 in their second. Ezzard Charles may have been the finest light-heavyweight that ever lived, but the smaller man was into his 30's at the time of their fights. Archie Moore is another argument for best light-heavy ever, but was 38 year old out of his division as well. Marciano would probably rank 2 spots higher on this list if he had fought, and defeated (which was possible), Floyd Patterson. If he had faced, and defeated (doubtful), Sonny Liston; he would make an argument for the top spot.

4. Larry Holmes

Larry Holmes tends to be the most underated heavyweight in history. He ranks second in number of consecutive wins, which was 48. He ranks second with his title reign of over 7 years. He also ranks second with number of successful defenses with a more than impressive total of 20. His level of competition was not the best, but he managed to defeat 8 men that held world titles at some point in their careers. Holmes had one of the best jabs ever seen, was an accurate puncher, and was able to pick apart his opponent 69 of the 75 times one was place in front of him. Notable wins came against Ken Norton, Ernie Shavers, Ossie Ocasio, Mike Weaver, Muhammad Ali, Trevor Berbick, Leon Spinks, Gerry Cooney, Tim Witherspoon, James Smith, Carl Williams, and Ray Mercer. Holmes was age 42 when he beat undefeated, 30 year old, Ray Mercer.


3. Jack Johnson

You almost have to rank Jack Johnson highly just on the hell he went through to become champion. It was not easy being black in the early 1900's, and Johnson endured a double dose of hatred. Whites hated Johnson because he was black, and good. Some blacks hated him because he didn't act according to society's standards, and thought that his defiance of the racist majority brought a bad name to all black people. Johnson fought during a time that white fighters could duck black fighters by claiming that they did not believe in fighting people of another race. Johnson had to prove he was the best black heavyweight in the world long before he proved he was simply the best heavyweight. Notable wins came against Sam Langford, Bob Fitzsimmons, Jim Flynn, Tommy Burns, Al Kaufman, Stanly Ketchel, and Jim Jeffries.

2. Joe Louis

Louis may have had the best offensive arsenal in heavyweight history. His power was not that of someone like Mike Tyson, but he could definately hurt you with every punch he hit you with. The closest comparison I can think of at this writing is a heavyweight Julio Cesar Chavez. He has the longest title reign of anyone, over 12 years. He also has more consecutive title defenses than anyone with 26. Notable wins came against Max Baer, Jack Sharkey, James Braddock, Max Schmeling, John Henry Lewis, Billy Conn, and Joe Walcott.

1. Muhammad Ali

Ali may arguably be the most famous athelete ever, but that is not why he ranks at the top of this list. He had a top notch jab, exceptional speed, great chin, a will to win like no other; and he fought during the divisions most competive era. He has the most notable win column of this list with Henry Cooper, Sonny Liston, Floyd Patterson, Ernie Terrell, Zora Folley, Jerry Quarry, Jimmy Ellis, Ken Norton, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Ron Lyle, and Ernie Shavers.

[McGrain]

there is no explination for that travesty. a man who never even won the title above a man who not only destroyed the division but defended the title 9 times against all of the top contenders.

You can't really criticise Wills for not having won, the title, I mean who knows?

As to Tyson, I watched him fight Bonecrusher tonight, what do you make of that one?

[janitor]

THIS is an interesting one....
Care to coment?

If I were a lawyer paid to represent Wills I would be arguing for a top 5 slot for him.

Wills defeated a greater volume of world class fighters than any other heavyweight in history. OLD FOGEY conducted some analysis a few months back where he broke down the opposition of various heavyweights and ranked them acording to the number of wins they had against world class oponents.

The top three as I recall were-

1. Wills
2. Ali
3. Louis

In short I think that Wills career is one of overlooked greatness. A classic demonstration that not all that is gold glitters.

[McGrain]

If I were a lawyer paid to represent Wills I would be arguing for a top 5 slot for him.

Wills defeated a greater volume of world class fighters than any other heavyweight in history.

So why not have him in your top 5?

[McGrain]

What criteria do you use? Don't get me wrong, you have an argument on the whole, but putting Frazier above Foreman is pretty mind-boggling. Foreman crushed Frazier head-to-head, and it's hard to see Frazier finishing ahead of Foreman legacy-wise.

Well, Frazier has the single most significant win in the history of heavyweight boxing.

He is also hell on wheels at head to head.

[janitor]

So why not have him in your top 5?

The number's don't tell the whole story. Still a very under rated fighter though.

[McGrain]

The number's don't tell the whole story. Still a very under rated fighter though.

As a lawyer, you lack conviction.

I do feel like i'm guity of underating Wills. But bumping him up my list is a problem because it would basically involve pushing him above Dempsey and Marciano and Langford who are already guys I would like to have higher.

I don't know why I worry about it so much, it's not like it actually matters.

[Minotauro]

What's your full list Minotauro? We just about agreed on the top pound for pound per decade thread. Heavyweight's are where we are different. I'll cut and paste mine over from elsewhere. The only ones that are out of place are Frazier and Lewis, I have switched them.

Here is my full list:
1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. George Foreman
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Johnson
6. Joe Frazier
7. Larry Holmes
8. Sonny Liston
9. Lennox Lewis
10. Jack Dempsey
11. Jersey Joe Walcott
12. Evander Holyfield
13. Jim Jeffries
14. Sam Langford
15. Mike Tyson
16. Floyd Patterson
17. Ezzard Charles
18. Max Schmelling
19. Harry Willis
20. Gene Tunney

[C. M. Clay II]

11. Riddick Bowe
12. Evander Holyfield
13. Rocky Marciano
14. Floyd Patterson
15. Ezzard Charles
16. Jersey Joe Walcott
17. Gene Tunney
18. Jim Jeffries
19. Ken Norton
20. Sam Langford

:good

[ironchamp]

1-10

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Johnson
4. Larry Holmes
5. Rocky Marciano
6. George Foreman
7. Mike Tyson
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Joe Frazier
10. Evander Holyfield

11-20

11. Sonny Liston
12. Jack Dempsey
13. Jim Jeffries
14. Gene Tunney
15. Floyd Patterson
16. Jersey Joe Walcott
17. Riddick Bowe
18. Ezzard Charles
19. Harry Wills
20. Ken Norton

[Holmes' Jab]

11. Jim Jeffries
12. Jack Johnson
13. George Foreman
14. Floyd Patterson
15. Gene Tunney
16. Riddick Bowe
17. Sam Langford
18. Joe Walcott
19. Bob Fitzsimmons
20. Harry Wills

[Holmes' Jab]

I respect a wide variety of opinions, but this putting Frazier above Foreman business I see from a couple people is sheerest lunacy. I mean c'mon, they actually met prime-to-prime and Frazier was blown out like a tune-up opponent. What else does it take?

I mean... it's just... flabbergasting. It's like someone rating Foreman above Ali. It just doesn't compute.

You could argue that Frazier was the only fighter to defeat a close-to-absolute prime Ali :yep

Also Foreman had an absolute wafer thin resume in terms of quality leading up to the "Rumble...." (barring a taylor-made-for-him Frazier and Chuvalo)

[C. M. Clay II]

I respect a wide variety of opinions, but this putting Frazier above Foreman business I see from a couple people is sheerest lunacy. I mean c'mon, they actually met prime-to-prime and Frazier was blown out like a tune-up opponent. What else does it take?

I mean... it's just... flabbergasting. It's like someone rating Foreman above Ali. It just doesn't compute.

Thank you. I've been wondering that for a long time. It's like putting Thomas Hearns above Sugar Ray Leonard.:rofl Thank you, WindUp, this needs to be said.:good

[McGrain]

I respect a wide variety of opinions, but this putting Frazier above Foreman business I see from a couple people is sheerest lunacy. I mean c'mon, they actually met prime-to-prime and Frazier was blown out like a tune-up opponent. What else does it take?

I mean... it's just... flabbergasting. It's like someone rating Foreman above Ali. It just doesn't compute.

First, Frazier was never the same fighter after the first Ali fight, so your claim that Joe was in his prime is not something I accept as gospel.

Second of all, Frazier is the owner of the greatest win in heavyweight history, over the Ali that was about to run over Frazier twice and Foreamn once. You can't have a better fighter on your resume unless you get Williams era Ali (arguable) or championship Louis (also arguable).

Frazier has a combination of boxing, stamina, punching and heart that makes him a handful for any fighter in the top tier apart from George Foreman, although there are those that argue fight of the century Frazier would not be an easy victim and I sympathise.

Foreman, on the other hand, has a style which is vulnerable to great punchers and great boxers alike.

[McGrain]

Thank you. I've been wondering that for a long time. It's like putting Thomas Hearns above Sugar Ray Leonard.:rofl Thank you, WindUp, this needs to be said.:good

Or Joe Louis above Rocky Marciano.

[McGrain]

Frazier was 29 years old, the undefeated heavyweight champion of the world, and less than two years removed from his victory over Ali when he met Foreman. Claiming that Frazier was past his prime for this fight is specious.

Even if it's true? I won't say that Frazier was done for Foreman, or anything of the sort. But I will say that he was not the same fighter that he was after the Ali fight that he was during it. I'm quite happy with that.

How far he is from that win is of literally no importance if that is the win that shaved him of his top 1%.


Making allusions to an ancient Louis being executed by Marciano is just assinine.

As you say - but it's an example of a fighter who is generally ranked above a man who beat him, in the same division as the one we are discussing. If it makes you more comfortable I will use Lewis-Rahman, Dempsey-Tunney, Willard-Johnson etc etc.



So the importance of Frazier's victory over Ali is magnified by the fact that Ali would, among other things, go on to beat Frazier twice in return?

Yes, in purely objective terms. Frazier holds a victory over the greatest heavyweight of all time making him an important scalp. ONE of the reasons Ali is regarded as the greatest of all is becaus of the two revenge wins he has over Frazier. In more grounded terms vengance and redemption are very important aspects in determining greatness I think


If Ali had beaten Frazier ten times in return, would Frazier move even higher on your list?

Did you accuse me of being asinine earlier?

After all, he would have beaten an Ali so great he would go on to beat Joe Frazier ten times!

Obviously you're not being serious with me but here is a reasonable example in the region we're talking about.

Sugar Ray took on Jake LaMotta six times.

Many rate LaMotta as one of the top 10 MW's of all time. Most have him top 20 and almost all have him top 30.

ONE of the reasons he is rated so highly is that he holds a win over near-peak Robinson.

Robinson holds multiple wins over LaMotta who is a top 10 or 20 MW - certainly this benifits his legacy. ,Do you think it should be otherwise? You seem to be infering that Frazier's credit for beating Ali should not be enhanced becuase some of Ali's ATG wins come against Frazier himself. I disagree.



No. Losing rematches counts against your legacy, not in favor of it.

I have never disputed this. My point is that when calculating the value of a win, the quality of opponent that the vanquished fighter has defeated becomes relevant. Just because Frazier is at both ends of the equation doesn't mean the credit he enjoys should be any less than any other fighter.

In the final accounting, Ali got the better of both Frazier and Foreman. Ken Norton did better against Ali, on the whole, than Frazier did.

As you wish. But I would submit that in his losing effort in Manilla, Frazier gave Ali more trouble than any other fighter he fought in his pro career, excluding those fights where he was suffering from Parkinson's syndrome.

Ali struggled with both Frazier and Norton, while Foreman easily crushed both of those guys. Yet do we rate Foreman above Ali? Of course not, because head-to-head fights matter way more than judgements based on common opponents.

I suggest that there are many, many, many reasons why Ali is rated above Foreman all time and that the win Ali holds over Foreman is only one of them.



Let's be serious here, shall we? Frazier wasn't merely beaten by Foreman, he was obliterated in two rounds. Making him 27 years old instead of 29 for the Foreman fight would not signifigantly alter the outcome.

I actually tend to agree with you here, although there are many who don't. But that is not the crux of the thing. The crux is, Foreman has only one win over an ATG and it is against a past peak Frazier. Frazier also has only one win over an ATG and that is against a past-peak Ali. In comparing the two wins I suggest Frazier's is much, much more impressive and as good a place as any to begin any argument about their ATG status.



Outside of Ali and Louis, who could consistently beat a prime Foreman?

My picks would be: Liston, Dempsey, Tyson, Holmes, Lewis.

I wouldn't pick Johnson to beat him but I would be interested to see what he could come up with. I'd make him favourite over Jeffreis but there is always the possibility that Foreman could be outlasted - I think his stamina was suspect at the sharp end.

The bottom line here is Foreman fought two all time greats. One beat him. The other was stylisticly made for him. He looks, to me, vulnerable to both punchers and boxers, plods, hits hard, but also tends to push.

He is not in my top ten all time heavyweights currently, and has never been higher than 9. Frazier has never been outside of my top 8.

[McGrain]

Trimmed your text to keep the post size from getting out of control. If you feel I missed anything of importance, feel free to point it out.

No, I go mad when I get into something, you have to trim it. If you want a laugh, track down Janitor's "beware the bum of the month" thread, Chris Pontius and I really get into it, one of my post had to be split in half.


You can look at a timeline of a guy's career, shove a pin into the marker for whatever you consider his best fight, and call everything after that "past his peak" if you want to. But in practical terms, Frazier was still "prime" when he fought Foreman.

Yes. But I try to be about objecitivity as much as I can. I'm not trying to score points "for" Frazier "against" Foreman - in practical terms you may be right but it is my opinion that the top 1% is the most important 1% and if a fighter loses that it's significant. Frazier is in his physical prime, probably, but i'm quite satisfied that he is past his composite prime.


Or Dempsey-Flynn, or Tyson-Douglas, or a million other fights, none of which are comparable. Foreman wasn't some journeyman who eeked out a lucky win, and Frazier wasn't some ancient creaking revenant waiting to be taken.

Hollyfield-Bowe then. Most have Hollyfield above Bowe, but Bowe got the better of Hollyfield and they were both near peak. Point is, if two guys have a fight and one loses, that's important, but for me it's near the bottom of the list. I have Bowe at 19 and Hollyfield at 8.


There's another way to look at it: Frazier can't assert superiority over his most meaningful opponent, because the best win of his career was reversed twice in rematches.

Although interestingly enough Frazier won when they were closest to their peaks. Also he has 1/3 against his most meaningful opponent. Foreman has 0/1.


Foreman, on the other hand, can assert superiority over Frazier having beaten him twice.

Of course there's no denying that. But I do feel that Frazier was made for Foreman, the perfect foil. Having said that Foreman makes my top 15 of theback of his physicality and these two wins, in the main.


If someone had come along and splattered LaMotta all over the canvas like a tomato can, only to be vanquished by Robinson in one of his most inspired performances, then went back and knocked out LaMotta AGAIN... Yeah, I'd probably rate that guy above Jake.

Well knocking out Jake at MW and knocking out Frazier at HW are very very different prospects (the first may be impossible, but no heavyweight is "unknockoutable" for me). You make a good point though.


I disagree. The Frazier fights were more dramatic, but Norton had the fighting style that Ali could never quite solve. Frankly, one can argue that a gift decision was the only reason Norton didn't come out the winner of that trilogy. At least the Frazier victories were pretty indisputable.

Ali was quite open about post-Manilla. "Closest thing to death" and all that there. Of course, on paper, you are correct.


There are many reasons, but the fact that Ali whipped Foreman is the foremost.

I don't agree with that at all. It is the most obvious. I have Ali above Foreman because he has a much better resume, a much more difficult style, better physical attributes at peak, better mental attributes all round, more prestige as regards the title, huge longevity and phoenix in spades. The Foreman win would be below all of these on a list. But the Foreman win is near the top of the list if you were rating his specific wins.

Except Frazier's win was reversed twice in rematches.

It's possible for a loss to add to resume. Manilla certainly did this for Frazier.


When the curtain closed on that era, Ali had gotten the better of Frazier and Foreman. Foreman had gotten the better of Frazier.

And Foreman had made Frazier look like a child in the process. Meahwhile Ali had made Foreman look limited, slow, stupid. I made an appraisal of the era and have Frazier well above Foreman. Here are the most impressive results from that era IMO.

Frazier over Ali in I
Ali over Foreman
Foreman over Frazier I

Frazier wins the most important of the three (highest combined talent in the ring in terms of ratings) and loses the least important. A win over Ali is always going to be more impressive than a win over Frazier - Ali is one of the best who ever did it, Frazier is not quite in the top five.



Liston is an intriguing opponent. I don't know if I agree, but I won't dispute you picking him over Foreman.

Be interesting to see those two in the ring together. Of course Foreman sparred with a well past peak Liston - and was very impressed. He described Liston as the only man to ever back him up with a punch.


The others... Well Holmes would be a hell of a fight, but Larry did have a tendency to get rocked and then have to recover to win. Against Foreman I don't think he'd get the chance to recover.

I think Foreman is a good, not great finisher, though you make a good point.

But I think Foreman eats Dempsey for lunch.

Breifly, here's my thinking - Dempsey is quick and has no rythym (pattern) coming in. He gets by Foreman. At 12, 14 inches he has Foreman firmly out fought in my view. He will tire close up, but I give him a big edge in stamina. But I see a pretty early KO.



Tyson lasts longer than Frazier did, thanks to defense and an iron chin, but still gets stopped in my opinion.

I'm in a minority picking Tyson over Foreman. To me, Foreman is to wide, a little to open. Tyson is quick as lightning and for me, the best finisher who ever fought, at any weight. I think he would hurt Foreman at some point and be right after him.


And Lewis? His chin wasn't as bad as his detractors make it out to be, despite it's conspicuous failings, but it wasn't a "survive against peak Foreman" chin either.

I have Lewis in a pick em. I think people would be surprised at how much bigger Lewis is if they were seen in the ring together (peak for peak). Don't know how Foreman would cope v someone as strong who is bigger.


Frazier fought two all-time greats, Ali and Foreman. The former whipped him two out of three, and the latter whipped him two out of two. So where does that leave him?

With a win over a heavyweight who appears on p4p lists, all time - one of only two.

Besides which, I think you underrate Foreman's career. He did also crushingly defeat a very capable fighter in Ken Norton, a guy who perpetually vexed our mutual #1 Ali.

The Noron performance is the best for me. He himself seems to think he wasn't "sharp" but I think he showed a reasonable patience. It's the least clumsy he's looked I think.

I may be underestimating his career and him in general. But I don't disike the man or the fighter, I have nothing against him.


Foreman's second career doesn't have that many fascinating "head to head" guys on it's list, but if you count legacy at all, it's huge.

I think if i was to make a re-appraisl of Foreman it would be from this second career he would draw any new juice.

It's cool discussing these things with you.

[Zakman]

11. Tyson
12. Jeffries
13. Lewis
14. Walcott
15. Charles
16. Bowe
17. Schmeling
18. Corbett
19. Tunney
20. Baer

[NickHudson]

I hear where you are coming from with many of these. I am also of the belief that only 1) and 2) are set in stone, and then there are a pile of question marks.

One quibble, I am surprised that Lewis has such a stellar rating (3) when his equally formidable (to my mind) peers Tyson and Holyfield barely scrape the top 13.

Lewis has the longevity, but Tyson had the formidable title reign with no close calls, and Holyfield had the great 'era-defining' battles with Bowe and Tyson.

To me these weigh very close to each other (as such I have Lewis, Tyson and Holy closer in my list) whereas you have a clear stand out (Lewis) and then a couple of 'also-rans' (Tyson and Holy).

In order to explain my 'system', copied from a previous thread...

14Frazier

15Tunney
Patterson

17Bowe
Charles
Langford

20 Walcott
Vit Klit / Wlad Klit (forgive me, I cannot make my mind up about these two. Its hard to gain perspective on active fighters. I sense I may drop them, but they deserve a shout).


And before any says, yes, I am aware that Frazier isn't in my top 10. I am indeed aware of this. He could very easily make my '10 tier', but I slightly prfer the guys at 10 over him.

[McGrain]

To me these weigh very close to each other (as such I have Lewis, Tyson and Holy closer in my list) whereas you have a clear stand out (Lewis) and then a couple of 'also-rans' (Tyson and Holy).

You make a fair point, Nick, i'll be interested to see Brit's response.

I have it Lewis (5) Hollyfield (8) and Tyson (10) but you can make a reasonable case for the reverse.

Let's see where you have each.

[McGrain]

A guy's best 1% is such an ephimeral thing, trying to pin it down is an invitation to hair-splitting.

No, I don't agree. I've chosen an arbitary number in 1% which I probably shouldn't have - the point is that Frazier's best was left behind him the night he beat Ali. He is still an important scalp, still a very good fighter but he's not going to scale those heights again.


Ah, but that's because Holyfield went on to have a much longer and more distinguished career overall.

Yes, by any measure that is true. However it's not the most important thing for me - i am far more interested in head to head and tools. You get a lot of this, guys arguing from different planes - basically I see it like this - the fact that Foreman beat Frazier doesn't really interest me that much as regards their relative placings aside from the fact that it represents Foreman's top scalp.



As great as Ali was, I think you overvalue him as a measuring stick.

By whatever stystem you use to measure the fighters, this can't be true. A win over the #1 is worth more than a win over a #5 - that's all. Frazier holds the single greatest win (probably) in heavyweight history. Only Schmeling competes, really. It's a very significant win. Foreman doesn't have a win anything like as good.


As you say, they both fought other guys. Both have solid records against solid competition - Foreman's pre-title competition is pretty poor but that is more than compensated for by his second coming.




I have to tell you, I think stopping Foreman was Ali's best win. Yes, better than the Frazier wins. I mean everyone expected Ali to not only lose, but to lose in devastating fashion. It's a fight which would have made Foreman the undisputable ruler of the division's all-time strongest era had he won.

It might be. All things considered this is not an unreasonable claim. If either Liston win is on the level I would rate that above it but I don't think they are, so I can't. Ali's best performance is in the Manilla fight probably, though he did some spectacular stuff in the 60s - but the Liston situation considered, you are probably right.





It's better than anything on Frazier's resume that doesn't include Muhammad Ali.

There is no way to make the Frazier win go away. But I agree it would make things much simpler if you could. If Frazier had never beaten Ali it would be near impossible to rate him above Foreman. Of the top of my head Frazier would probably drop to around 15 on my list and Foreman would slide in at 10.





There are ways to beat George, but a straight shootout isn't one of them.

I think Louis and possibly Liston could out shoot him but I agree that Dempsey couldn't.


Lewis would have to fight a perfect fight for every single round. If Rahman and McCall can knock a sloppy unmotivated Lewis silly, Foreman can do it to a focused one. Don't get me wrong, I do think Lewis makes the ATG heavy top ten, but he's in with a guy who's best strength just happens to coincide with his own weakest attribute. That's a recipe for trouble.

I agree with most of this analysis - I would add that Lewis' very odd disease would always see him underprepared and sloppy against guys he felt he outclassed - certainly this would not be the case with Foreman.


Then allow me to make the case....


Interesting stuff.

[JohnThomas1]

Thank you. I've been wondering that for a long time. It's like putting Thomas Hearns above Sugar Ray Leonard.:rofl Thank you, WindUp, this needs to be said.:good

Actually, it's nothing like it. Leonard has wins over ATG's Duran (2), Hagler and Benitez as well as his one over Tommy. What ATG's has Foreman beat beside Frazier? Norton isn't quite an ATG. Frazier beat Ali, Foreman failed. Opposite is SRL beating Hagler and Tommy failing.

Having said that good debate can be made both ways with Foreman's "second coming" at an amazing age a focal pivot.

[Sonny's jab]

Everyone seems to rate Foreman above Jimmy Young, so I dont see the problem with Frazier ahead of Foreman.

:D

Dempsey usually goes above Tunney.
M.A. Barrera will rank above Junior Jones, I guess.

etc. etc. etc.

[jhar26]

First, Frazier was never the same fighter after the first Ali fight, so your claim that Joe was in his prime is not something I accept as gospel.
If Frazier was not in his prime anymore when Foreman used him for a basketball because of what Ali had done to him in their first fight, then he was even further from his prime when Ali beat him in their second and third fights after the beating he took from George. In other words, IF George only beat a slightly past his prime Frazier than Ali only beat a way past his prime Frazier.

[McGrain]

If Frazier was not in his prime anymore when Foreman used him for a basketball because of what Ali had done to him in their first fight, then he was even further from his prime when Ali beat him in their second and third fights after the beating he took from George. In other words, IF George only beat a slightly past his prime Frazier than Ali only beat a way past his prime Frazier.


You exaggerate when you say "way past prime" but i'd accept that your logic is reasonable. Whether Frazier was "further gone" for Ali II than he was for Foreman I is difficult to prove or disprove of course. Every beating does not equal a loss in terms of ability and a protracted beating is certainly worse for a fighter than being blown out.

[NickHudson]

Hey McGrain,

Here are my current rankings, work in progress. I've gone with vibe, plus some sort of weighting between legacy and head-to-head:

1) Ali
2) Louis
3) Holmes
4) Foreman
5) Frazier
6) Tyson
7) Liston
8) Marciano
9) Johnson
10) Patterson


11) Holyfield
12) Lewis
13) Dempsey
14) Walcott
15) Bowe
16) Norton
17) Tunney
18) Jeffries
19) Charles
20) Schmeling

You make a fair point, Nick, i'll be interested to see Brit's response.

I have it Lewis (5) Hollyfield (8) and Tyson (10) but you can make a reasonable case for the reverse.

Let's see where you have each.

[McGrain]

1) Ali
2) Louis
3) Holmes
4) Foreman
5) Frazier
6) Tyson
7) Liston
8) Marciano
9) Johnson
10) Patterson

Pretty solid top 10. I would argue that Holmes and Foreman are a little too high (i have them at 9 and 11 resepctivley) but I don't think there's a great deal of difference between, say, 4 and 9, not as much as people make out, anyway. What is the deal with Patterson at 10 though? I love the guy but have never had him in my top 20. Why the high rating?

11) Holyfield
12) Lewis
13) Dempsey
14) Walcott
15) Bowe
16) Norton
17) Tunney
18) Jeffries
19) Charles
20) Schmeling

Again, solid stuff. Seeing Lewis, Hollfield and Dempsey below Patterson is a little strage but the one that really sticks out for me is Jeffries at 18 - I have him at 6 myself.

Good list though.

[OLD FOGEY]

I respect a wide variety of opinions, but this putting Frazier above Foreman business I see from a couple people is sheerest lunacy. I mean c'mon, they actually met prime-to-prime and Frazier was blown out like a tune-up opponent. What else does it take?

I mean... it's just... flabbergasting. It's like someone rating Foreman above Ali. It just doesn't compute.

Do you rate Schmeling ahead of Baer? If so, why? If not, why?


I also want to add that your post #64 above is a wonderful post,
very well argued whether one agrees with it or not.

[NickHudson]

Patterson causes me a lot of problems! I can see where you are coming from- I agree that head to head, some of the guys I rank below him would waste him.

Having said this, I remain a big fan. Great combination of being arguably the fastest HW ever both in terms of single shots and combos, coupled with genuinely explosive 1 punch KO power means he makes more of an argument against the 'big fellas' than a lot give him credit for.

I also think he is important historically, with the regained title etc. I have no problem with him being outside the top10, but outside the top20 seems overly harsh to me...

Jeffries, hmmm would like to hear more detail from you on that one? Top18 all time is still awesome and he has some tremendous fighters in front of him!!

Pretty solid top 10. I would argue that Holmes and Foreman are a little too high (i have them at 9 and 11 resepctivley) but I don't think there's a great deal of difference between, say, 4 and 9, not as much as people make out, anyway. What is the deal with Patterson at 10 though? I love the guy but have never had him in my top 20. Why the high rating?

[b]

Again, solid stuff. Seeing Lewis, Hollfield and Dempsey below Patterson is a little strage but the one that really sticks out for me is Jeffries at 18 - I have him at 6 myself.

Good list though.

[Vanboxingfan]

11/. Riddick Bowe
12/. Ezzard Charles
13/. Floyd Patterson
14/. Buster Douglas
15/. Michael Spinks
16/. Lennox Lewis
17/. Wlad Klitschko
18/. Vitali Klitschko
19/. Gene Tunney
20/. Tim Witherspoon
21/. Frank Bruno
22/. Oliver McCall
23/. Ken Norton
24/. Ernie Terrell
25/. Tommy Morrison

Having watched the careers of both Lewis and the Klitschko brothers I don't understand how posters can have them so close together. Lewis had a far better career than either of the K brothers so far.

[Sonny's jab]

I would probably be among the "lunatics" who rate Frazier above Foreman on a list of all-time heavyweights.

The way I understand boxing is that almost every fighter - however great - has a fighter out there who just has their number, ie. has the style and attributes to cancel them out.

Foreman was Frazier's kryptonite, but that doesn't make him a superior fighter overall.
The fact that Foreman was made to look foolish against Ali and got KO'd in 8 rounds, something that never happened (and never could have happened) to Joe Frazier, illustrates the point.

Of course, some will try to argue that Joe Frazier's win over Muhammad Ali is offset by his two losses to him. I dont think so. That's probably the greatest 15 round heavyweight classic, and the greatest match-up of undefeateds in HW history, (won in style by Frazier, I might add) and some will reduce it down to a 1/3 of a fight - "Frazier never truly got the better of Ali" ....... like he's supposed to put forth 2 or 3 FOTC performances in a career to get his dues.
Going by that rationale, he should've just ducked any Ali rematches for the rest of his career, and gotten more respect from some of the illogical people looking back at it now.
I actually add value to his greatness by looking at the subsequent fights, esp. the 3rd one, where he performed marvellously despite being over-the-hill by some degree.
Frazier's career should certainly stand out as one of the greatest in HW history to any reasonable minded observer.

I think Joe Frazier beat more contenders in his 37 career fights, than Foreman did in almost twice as many.
There's some revisionist clowns on this forum who have suggested Frazier ducked a lot of guys, but that's pure nonsense. The fact that he (unwisely) fought George Foreman TWICE in the latter half of his career tends to make a mockery of claims that he was ducking such "punchers" as Leotis Martin & Ron Lyle. My God, I even read on here that he ducked Roy "Tiger" Williams. :lol:
As for Foreman, his record is padded with loads of set-ups and third-raters.
I'm not saying Frazier didn't fight some stiffs, but he mixed with more top-raters than Foreman ever did.

I think Foreman's weaknesses were just as stark as those he exposed in Frazier, but Foreman was matched well and given plenty of cannon fodder to devour. The five best HWs he fought in the 70s were Ali, Frazier, Norton, Young & Lyle - and his results are decidedly mixed. You could say the same about Frazier against Ali, Foreman, Ellis, Quarry and Bonavena.
A lot of it comes down to personal preference, I guess.

As for their actual matches against one another, I think it should be noted that Frazier was a bit out of shape and probably slightly over-the-hill in the 1973 match, and way out of shape and long past his best in 1976. However, he showed he could adapt his strategy and improve even in that condition. Conceivably, I believe if foreman had come along 3 or 4 years earlier Frazier and Foreman had fought twice in 1969-71, Frazier might have pulled out an victory. His skills and adaptability were clearly superior to Foreman's, despite some ridiculous claims that Joe was "one-dimensional".

[Holmes' Jab]

I would probably be among the "lunatics" who rate Frazier above Foreman on a list of all-time heavyweights.

The way I understand boxing is that almost every fighter - however great - has a fighter out there who just has their number, ie. has the style and attributes to cancel them out.

Foreman was Frazier's kryptonite, but that doesn't make him a superior fighter overall.
The fact that Foreman was made to look foolish against Ali and got KO'd in 8 rounds, something that never happened (and never could have happened) to Joe Frazier, illustrates the point.

Of course, some will try to argue that Joe Frazier's win over Muhammad Ali is offset by his two losses to him. I dont think so. That's probably the greatest 15 round heavyweight classic, and the greatest match-up of undefeateds in HW history, (won in style by Frazier, I might add) and some will reduce it down to a 1/3 of a fight - "Frazier never truly got the better of Ali" ....... like he's supposed to put forth 2 or 3 FOTC performances in a career to get his dues.
Going by that rationale, he should've just ducked any Ali rematches for the rest of his career, and gotten more respect from some of the illogical people looking back at it now.
I actually add value to his greatness by looking at the subsequent fights, esp. the 3rd one, where he performed marvellously despite being over-the-hill by some degree.
Frazier's career should certainly stand out as one of the greatest in HW history to any reasonable minded observer.

I think Joe Frazier beat more contenders in his 37 career fights, than Foreman did in almost twice as many.
There's some revisionist clowns on this forum who have suggested Frazier ducked a lot of guys, but that's pure nonsense. The fact that he (unwisely) fought George Foreman TWICE in the latter half of his career tends to make a mockery of claims that he was ducking such "punchers" as Leotis Martin & Ron Lyle. My God, I even read on here that he ducked Roy "Tiger" Williams. :lol:
As for Foreman, his record is padded with loads of set-ups and third-raters.
I'm not saying Frazier didn't fight some stiffs, but he mixed with more top-raters than Foreman ever did.

I think Foreman's weaknesses were just as stark as those he exposed in Frazier, but Foreman was matched well and given plenty of cannon fodder to devour. The five best HWs he fought in the 70s were Ali, Frazier, Norton, Young & Lyle - and his results are decidedly mixed. You could say the same about Frazier against Ali, Foreman, Ellis, Quarry and Bonavena.
A lot of it comes down to personal preference, I guess.

As for their actual matches against one another, I think it should be noted that Frazier was a bit out of shape and probably slightly over-the-hill in the 1973 match, and way out of shape and long past his best in 1976. However, he showed he could adapt his strategy and improve even in that condition. Conceivably, I believe if foreman had come along 3 or 4 years earlier Frazier and Foreman had fought twice in 1969-71, Frazier might have pulled out an victory. His skills and adaptability were clearly superior to Foreman's, despite some ridiculous claims that Joe was "one-dimensional".

This is a sensational post, one of the best I've ever read on these forums- I'm totally in agreement and also one of those "crazy lunatics".

Well done. :good

[Sonny's jab]

This is a sensational post, one of the best I've ever read on these forums- I'm totally in agreement and also one of those "crazy lunatics".

Well done. :good

Thank you. :good