http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...top-25-heavyweight-champs-of-all-time/page/26 From the same palce or author that was posted here a while ago about 10 deaths in the last decade. Interesting list, and glad that the author thinks for himself. No Louis #1, and no Marciano top 3, etc. Has ALi#1, and I think Foreman#2. A unique and well reasoned list. (I have no relation to him or site.)
Vitali on the list at all kind of pisses me off, and Holyfield outside of the top 8 also pisses me off. They had to go and put him right above Holy though, just to make it worse. *******s.
Not a K Bro fan either. But due to size and other factors, they have to be up there somewhere. Where do u have him?
Such as? All such lists are subjective, and IMO most are far worse, wth people claiming Louis and Marciano would have beaten all the later HW champs, who were bigger, stronger, longer reach, or had other attributes that indicated they would have beaten those 2. SO to me this list was a breath of fresh air.
Resume. Achievements. Just because one fighter is ranked above another fighter doesn´t mean he would beat him. Just because a fighter is bigger and has a longer reach doesn´t mean he is stronger or better. You want fesh air? Go outside. Nothing fresh about this list. Plenty of similar lists are posted and written everyday all over the globe.
I get tired of these lists. Just another assholes opinion. First of all, all the really short and really light guys probably wouldn't do very well vs. the likes of Ali, Holmes, Holyfield, Foreman, Lewis, Bowe, V. Klitschko, and V. Klitschko. These guys had the right combination of size, skill, and durability. Some more durable than others. As much as I like guys like Charles, Tunney, Dempsey, Patterson, Langford, etc... I don't see them doing much vs. these guys. I rank Louis, Marciano, and Frazier high but they didn't have the same combination of size, skill, and durability as the first group mentioned. Yes, Marciano was very durable but very small. Louis was down quite a bit. Frazier was destroyed by Foreman... I doubt Foreman could have done that to Holmes, Holyfield, Bowe, V. Klitschko, and some others. Tyson and Liston are an interesting pair. Liston didn't beat too many giants. I think Liston gets overrated sometimes. I think they both deserve a high ranking though. Norton and Patterson are interesting as well. Could give many good HWs a beat down or at least a good fight but not always the most durable guys. Honestly though, I don't think much seperates Norton and Frazier but Frazier is always seen as the better fighter. Sullivan, Jeffries, Johnson, Wills, and some others... different times, almost a different sport in my opinion. Johnson was ahead of his time though.
John Vale, contributor, B/R (Bleacher Report) August 3, 2011 "The criteria is thishow good they were at their best, and how often they were at their best." 25. Sam Langford 24. 'Jersey' Joe Walcott 23. Ken Norton 22. Max Schmeling 21. Riddick Bowe 20. Ezzard Charles 19 Harry Wills 18. Floyd Patterson 17. John L Sullivan 16. Wladmir Klitschko 15. Gene Tunney 14. Evander Holyfield 13. Vitali Klitschko 12. James J. Jeffries 11. Larry Holmes 10. Sonny Liston 9. Rocky Marciano 8. Jack Dempsey 7. Lennox Lewis 6. Joe Frazier 5. Jack Johnson 4. Mike Tyson 3. George Foreman 2. Joe Louis 1. Muhammad Ali
edit : sorry this is a **** list , Jack Johnson #5 , Louis @#2 , Frazier @ 6 , Dempsey @ 8 !! , Tunney , Norton , Schmelling , Charles , Patterson , too much to bare !
You know there something wrong with a list when Vitali Klitsckho is placed above Evander Holyfield (and even Wladmir Klit)