Top 10 Heavyweights of All-time, The Ring - March 1975

It is all flavour of the month.

Back in the 70s you were considered mad if you did not have Dempsey in the top three.

In the 80s Tunney was in everybody's top 10.

Now a days, you are shot down if you do not pay homage Louis; and many put him ahead of Ali, which was not the thing to do say 20 years ago.

All thee are excellent fighters, but the reason Dempsey got kudos was he was still alive, a link to a golden era in the sport.

After Dempsey's death, it became obvious Tunney had been ignored, not least because he was smart, and not your typical working class hero boxer, and thus it became a fad to rate him highly.

Now a days it is thought the likes of Charles and Greb are underrated.

 

I hate lists..hate making lists even more.

 

with the advent of boxrec and youtube boxing is much much more accessible.

 

It's just that research is now a lot easier and a lot more user friendly.

Who'd have fought google would be so beneficial to boxing? Not just result wise but report wise also.

 

You are right, but it helps no end to have a cheerleader though, and so many boxing commentators have their favourites and will put them across, which then does influence fans.

 

I mean, Jeffries and his 20 somewhat fights, Johnson and him possibly on the lower end.

Fits and Corbett...Get Out

There is an argument for Tunney although his Heavyweight resume is based on his excellent display over a rusty Dempsey I would not find room for him in the top 9



Joe Louis Good
Jack Dempsey below 3rd IMO
Rocky Marciano 2nd or 3rd IMO
Gene Tunney Not enough room in top 10 anymore IMO
Muhammad Ali move him on up
Joe Frazier more towards the middle or below but makes the top 10

 

I'm confused on one point brought up... how does the resume of Louis compare to Ali In Re: quality of opposition... I honestly don't see it as that close tbh

 

There is nothing wrong with Ali's quality of opposition.

 

You get the same with Wlad. It's undeniable, and much harder to rate current fighters, especially if you view the era or talent pool to be devoid and weak.

 

It's funny when i was younger, i used to love lists and stats. But as i've got older (30's) they don't really bother me now. It's more personal preference in what i think of a fighter, or remember how good each fighter was.

 

Fascinating post Burt. It's an eye opener to hear about peoples thoughts from back then, on how a supposed fight between the two would go down.
It' funny my Grandad always said Dempsey was better too.

 

I get the sense that lists of the past were much more H2H based because they were based on first hand knowledge kind of thing.

These days people seem much more interested in watching the fights and reading the resumes. This kind of thinking just wasn't available back then so things like

"son, believe me when I say dempsey was as quick as a WW and the hardest punching man in history" would carry a lot of weight whereas today we can simply go "oh right, I'll see what I find on youtube, boxrec and get back to you"

maybe today we over analyse things and it's not as passionate as it used to.

I think it is quite clear that criteria has definitely changed.