Your number 11-20 great heavyweights of all time

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by C. M. Clay II

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

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.

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



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

etc. etc. etc.

[jhar26]

Originally Posted by McGrain

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]

Originally Posted by jhar26

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
Marciano
9) Johnson
10) Patterson


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

Originally Posted by McGrain

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

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

Let's see where you have each.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by NickHudson

1) Ali
2) Louis
3) Holmes
4) Foreman
5) Frazier
6) Tyson
7) Liston
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
1 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]

Originally Posted by WindUp

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!!

Originally Posted by McGrain

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]

Originally Posted by JLC

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.

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.
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]

Originally Posted by 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.
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.

Originally Posted by Holmes' 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.

Thank you.