I'm not talking head to head, I mean overall or legacy wise. What swings it for me is the will to win that a fighter showed in his career. So fighters like Holmes, Ali, Frazier, Dempsey and Marciano score highly and really impressive guys like Lewis, Tyson and Liston fall short because they never showed the will to win in adversity. (maybe Lewis did against Vitali). Is this the key to greatness, the ***** a fighter shows when they are in trouble? Holyfield showed such courage repeatedly, as did Louis and Marciano. Should this quality be the real definition of a great champion more than any other?
It should certainly be a important factor in evaluation, and it is something I consider. Lewis, for example, is ridiculously overrated by many boxing fans. Because of his utter destruction by two very ordinary journeymen, I cannot see how he could be rated anything better than borderline top ten at highest, and certainly not higher than Holyfield. Tyson also ranks high because even when he lost, he was able to hang in there, he didn't get blown out. I rank Dempsey and Marciano, in particular, quite highly in large part because of the qualities you are noting. My list: 1. Ali 2. Louis 3. Dempsey 4. Foreman 5. Holmes 6. Marciano 7. Holyfield 8. Johnson 9. Liston 10. Frazier 11. Tyson 12. Jeffries 13. Lewis 14. Charles 15. Walcott 16. W. Klitschko 17. Bowe 18. Schmeling 19. Corbett 20. Baer
1. Ali 2. Liston 3. Louis 4. Holmes 5. Foreman 6. Frazier 7. Dempsey 8: Marciano 9: Johnson 10: Tyson.
Based on legacy: Doink Ultimate Warrior Big Van Vader Giant Gonzalez Yokuzuna Lex Lugar Rowdy Rowdy Piper Hulk Hogan Razor Ramon The Undertaker Honorable mentions: I.R.S. ,,,,,,,,, Mr. Perfect ,,,,,,,,,,,, Bastion Booger ,,,,,,,,,,, Bret Hart ,,,,,,,,,,, Shawn Michaels ,,,,,,,,,,,,, Bob Backlund
I know, Swag, and I am a big fan of Liston the same as you are. What I was trying to say is the fighters who showed that quality the most often deserve credit for it. I find mythical matchups troublesome because there are so many intangibles involved. I was just wondering what criteria people use to rate the heavyweights or any other division.
Your post Top 10 list is pretty bad. Lewis and Wlad are 13th & 16th? 2 of the longer reigning champs are not in the top 10, but you have Jeffries who fought a whole 20 times at # 12?
1. Louis 2. Ali 3. Marciano 4. Dempsey 5. Lewis 6. Foreman 7. Frazier 8. Walcott 9. Evander 10.Tyson 11. Holmes 12.Johnson-Jeffries 13. Charles 14.Liston 15.Tunney
I rank them as follows: Overall career accomplishments 25-30% How I think they would do H2H 20-25% Title defenses 15-20% Quality of competition 15-30% Subjective bias 10% 1. Louis 2. Ali 3. Holmes 4. Lewis 5. Foreman 6. Liston 7. Dempsey 8. Marciano 9. Holyfield 10 Tyson 11 Wlad K 12 Frazier Unlike Zak I give Lewis some slack, because I think it's better not to go down in the first place than to go down and not get up. So but for two punches, he may very well have had an undefeated career, and he avenged both losses so he gets ranked pretty high in my book, especially give the quality of comp he faced. H2H would probably be something like this Ali Lewis Tyson Holmes Foreman Liston Louis Wlad Bowe Dempsey
1- Muhammad Ali 2- Joe Louis 3- Jack Dempsey 4- Jack Johnson 5- Gene Tunney 6- Sam Langford 7- Rocky Marciano 8- Ezzard Charles and Vitali Klitschko 9- George Foreman 10- Joe Frazier
Conversely one could rate fighters on beating guys who they lost to. That lets Lewis in far higher than both Holyfield, who didn't beat either Lewis, or come out on top in his trilogy with Bowe, and Tyson who never rematched anyone he lost to.