Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-02-2007, 10:59 AM   #1
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,044
vCash: 1000
Default So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

What I am going to ask you to do is this.

First produce a top 10 heavyweight list in which you completely disregard anything that happened after 1958.

Then list any amendments that you would make to it in 1971.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 07-02-2007, 11:18 AM   #2
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,044
vCash: 1000
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

And yes I will pull you up on it if your list apears to benefit from post 1958 input.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2007, 11:30 AM   #3
UpWithEvil
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 340
vCash: 1000
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

1 - Louis
2 - Dempsey
3 - Jeffries
4 - Johnson
5 - Langford
6 - Wills
7 - Marciano
8 - J. Sharkey
9 - Schmeling
10 - Fitzsimmons

The list is based on a combination of h-2-h and overall accomplishments as a heavyweight; Gene Tunney may well rank in the top-5 based soley on ability, but his heavyweight resume is too thin.
[shrug]
UpWithEvil is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2007, 11:39 AM   #4
Dempsey1238
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,015
vCash: 1000
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

1958 as I was living

1Johnson
2Jeffires
3Dempsey
4Louis
5Marciano
6Ruby Red
7Tunney
8Max Schmeling
9 Jim Corbett
10 Gene Tunney.

This is 58, so it was not long before Louis and Marciano retire, so they would have been fairly recent. Johnson and Jeff were still view as 1 and 2, as flip flopping them around and all. Dempsey follows shortly behind them. Corbett is still a top tier in that time. was temping in putting Sullivan in place of Schmeling.
Dempsey1238 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2007, 11:46 AM   #5
Bad_Intentions
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Miami FL, USA
Posts: 3,688
vCash: 153
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

great list Dempsey1238
Bad_Intentions is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2007, 11:51 AM   #6
Sonny's jab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

Something like :

1958

1 Dempsey
2 Louis
3 Marciano
4 Tunney
5 Johnson
6 Jeffries
7 Wills
8 Langford
9 Charles
10 Walcott

1971

1 Dempsey
2 Louis
3 Marciano
4 Frazier
5 Ali
6 Liston
7 Tunney
8 Johnson
9 Jeffries
10 Wills
 Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2007, 12:12 PM   #7
Ramon Rojo
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 312
vCash: 75
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

This is head to head list between champions (except for Harry Wills), not based on achievement.

1958

1. Joe Louis

2. Ezzard Charles

3. Floyd Patterson

4. Jack Johnson

5. Gene Tunney

6. Harry Wills

7. Jack Dempsey

8. Rocky Marciano

9. Max Schmeling

10. Max Baer



1971

1. Muhammad Ali

2. Sonny Liston

3. Joe Frazier

4. Joe Louis

5. Ezzard Charles

6. Floyd Patterson

7. Jack Johnson

8. Gene Tunney

9. Harry Wills

10. Jack Dempsey
Ramon Rojo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2007, 01:17 PM   #8
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,044
vCash: 1000
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramon Rojo
This is head to head list between champions (except for Harry Wills), not based on achievement.

1958

3. Floyd Patterson
Patterson only had three title defences at this stage and only one of those was against a ranked contender.

Can you honestly say that you would put him above guys like Johnson, Dempsey and Marciano at this stage?


Quote:
1971

1. Muhammad Ali

2. Sonny Liston

3. Joe Frazier
Muhamad Ali has just been beaten by Joe Frazier who has also beaten most of his better oponents.

Would you really have him above Frazier let alone at No1?



Remember that you must totaly disregard anything that these fighters achieved after the date of the list.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2007, 03:16 PM   #9
Dempsey1238
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,015
vCash: 1000
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

Even in 2007. I would not rank Patterson over Marciano. lol. Patterson had a VERY poor rein. He not only duck Liston, but Folly and Machen, and was taking on people who's records were 0-0. I mean I give more respect for Ali fighting Spinks with a 7-0 record, than I would with a 0-0 record. And he fought that type of foes though out his title rein. Sure he fought the best once he lost the title. But I can not forgive Patterson for that. And is one of the MAIN reasons Patterson is at the bottom tier of my top 20. Marciano at least fought his top contenders. So that alone should put Marciano up a few levels. If not a lot.
Dempsey1238 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2007, 03:54 PM   #10
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,044
vCash: 1000
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

My lists

2007

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhamad Ali
3. Jack Johnson
4. Jim Jeffries
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Sonny Liston
8. Lenox Lewis
9. Sam Langford
10. Joe Frazier



1958


1. Joe Louis
2. Jack Johnson
3. Jim Jeffries
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Sam Langford
7. Harry Wills
8. James Corbett
9. Joe Walcott
10. Max Schmeling



1971

1. Joe Louis
2. Jack Johnson
3. Jim Jeffries
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Sam Langford
7. Harry Wills

8. Joe Frazier
9. Muhamad Ali
10. Sony Liston



janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2007, 04:11 PM   #11
Sonny's jab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

Quote:
Originally Posted by janitor
My lists

2007

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhamad Ali
3. Jack Johnson
4. Jim Jeffries
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Sonny Liston
8. Lenox Lewis
9. Sam Langford
10. Joe Frazier



1958


1. Joe Louis
2. Jack Johnson
3. Jim Jeffries
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Sam Langford
7. Harry Wills
8. James Corbett
9. Joe Walcott
10. Max Schmeling



1971

1. Joe Louis
2. Jack Johnson
3. Jim Jeffries
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Sam Langford
7. Harry Wills

8. Joe Frazier
9. Muhamad Ali
10. Sony Liston



What accounts for Sonny Liston rising up between 1971 and 2007 ?
 Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2007, 04:26 PM   #12
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,044
vCash: 1000
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny's jab
What accounts for Sonny Liston rising up between 1971 and 2007 ?
As Ali's stock rises a loss to him becomes less damaging.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2007, 05:00 PM   #13
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,044
vCash: 1000
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweet Pea
Not the way he lost though, and twice at that.
In 1971 he has a prime loss to my No9.

In 2007 he has a prime loss to my No2.

The latter is easier to forgive.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2007, 05:10 PM   #14
ChrisPontius
March 8th, 1971
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,640
vCash: 238
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny's jab
Something like :

1958

1 Dempsey
2 Louis
3 Marciano
4 Tunney
5 Johnson
6 Jeffries
7 Wills
8 Langford
9 Charles
10 Walcott

1971

1 Dempsey
2 Louis
3 Marciano
4 Frazier
5 Ali
6 Liston
7 Tunney
8 Johnson
9 Jeffries
10 Wills
Why would you rate Dempsey over Louis in 1958 or 1971? Louis had by far the better resume, longetivity, didn't duck the most deserving challenger for 6 years, etc.
ChrisPontius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2007, 05:19 PM   #15
TBooze
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of London
Posts: 10,819
vCash: 483
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

1958

1 Louis
2 Marciano
3 Dempsey
4 Jeffries
5 Corbett
6 Tunney
7 Johnson
8 Schmeling
9 Fitzsimmons
10 Baer

1971

1 Louis
2 Johnson (In 58 people still hated Johnson, but that hatred was mellowing by 71)
3 Dempsey
4 Marciano (slips slightly because you would have had longer to reflect on his body of work)
5 Jeffries
6 Corbett
7 Tunney
8 Wills (black fighters were starting to get the kudos they deserved in 71)
9 Charles (same reason as Wills)
10 Ali (A begrudging nod to his record thus far)
TBooze is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013