Your number 11-20 great heavyweights of all time

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by janitor

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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]

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.

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

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]

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.

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.

[McGrain]

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.

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]

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.

Or Joe Louis above Rocky Marciano.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by WindUp

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]

Originally Posted by WindUp

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).

Originally Posted by BritInvasion

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]

Originally Posted by NickHudson

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 ( and Tyson (10) but you can make a reasonable case for the reverse.

Let's see where you have each.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by WindUp

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.