Boxing.com's heavyweight poll - the result

I have Rock at 6 and Tyson at 7. Marciano had some brutal knockouts but Tyson had some real eye openers that are just so damn devastating, and against bigger men. Rocky had some tough outings as well with Walcott and Charles and Lastarza despite showing grit and pulling out the wins. Tyson was more dominant to me when he was the champ. You don't see too many youtube highlights reels with Marciano yet we're flooded with Tyson.

 

That's supposed to be a "boxing historian" right? Goes to show you how little that title means, that list isn't worth wiping my ass with. Most ESB classic posters are more knowledgeable than most so-called boxing historians.

 

Didn't Tracy Callis rate Jeffries the #1 all-time heavyweight?

 

I concur completely. :good

:rofl Mendoza would like that!

 

Maybe he knows some great knowledge, but why are his lists so stupendously silly?

Dempsey #1 at HW?! :nut

Hagler #14 at MW!? :blood


Does his MW list have too many white guys who don't belong there, like his HW list?

 

good one because you know people will criticize, yet you posted it with Balls because your opinion is as good as anyone.....Marciano on top :good

 

Another CBZ historian Eric Jorgensen came up with this list in a column mcvey posted in March:

 

I dont agree with it but the top 6 isnt the worst i have seen.

 

All the guys in the list are great.....but it sounds very unfair with Hagler.....

 

Good Lord.

 

Great writer IMO, love his articles........but his lists are crazy to me....
Seamus will like to see this....
http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/callis-rankings.htm

 

I love Seamus' takes. He grinds a very sharp axe whether out of genuine belief or shock value, but it's intelligent regardless.

Monte Cox:

 

I think the lack of you tube vids has more to do with the timeline than the fighter, but I don't have an issue with your rankings based on the criterea you set.
In all honesty, your system of ranking is as good as any other, when you go to compare fighters of different eras. How dominant was the fighter in his own era?
That is the criterea used when you compare athletes in most sports...who was a better qb? Manning or Unitas? In thier eras, they were simpy the best ( please, no bullets from Brady fans...he's great too).
I think maybe too much emphasis is put on "who would beat who." The fact is that things are different in each era, and it's almost impossible to compare fighters that might go 30 or 40 or more rounds to fighters that went 15 or 12 in a championship fight. A different kind of fight, a different kind of preperation, and a different kind of fighter was needed for each era.
Maybe dominance over years in your era is the best way to look at the greatness of a fighter.