Outside the ring Detonay is a excellent role model for youth of today. Well done Deontay !! http://theundefeated.com/features/boxer-deontay-wilder-fights-for-his-daughter-and-himself/
What ??? Think about what you just said there, my man. Of course you can ! When you get very old, you're expected to lose to decent younger men. Not necessarily every time, but if you can do it at all, that's a major achievement. You keep bringing up George's loss to Morrison when he was 44 but you don't seem to diminish Tyson for getting KO'd by a much inferior fighter, McBride, at 36. I don't think you have the slightest idea of the feat it was for George to have had a second career at the top level in his mid forties.
I don't see this ,because apart from Fury beating an old Wlad none of that trio have beaten anybody yet! Parker and Joshua are still works in progress.
Hopefully they don't avoid each other and we can then get a clearer answer to where they will belong in boxing history.
Yes, or like every single fighter who has ever lived at some point in their career. The point is, you are deriding people for discussing Foreman in the very highest circles after he beat Frazier - and Norton and Roman and Norton and Lyle etc. - but basically discussing Foreman before he beat any of these fighters (in the shape of Wilder) in these same circles. Wilder could beat Joshua; but I would personally make Joshua favourite. Most of all, though, the fight just doesn't look like it would happen because Wilder (or the people handling him) appear frightened to match him with good or very good fighter. He could make more money with better fighters and that's fact, but he chooses limited or inexperienced fighters who are far easier to beat. His last opponent had never even been twelve rounds before. This leads to a huge analysis gap. You want to credit Wilder with the ability to "go deep". That's unproven. He could be nursing a stamina problem far, far worse than Foreman's. This is because we've never seen him fight at anything but his own pace. You've actually picked Wilder to win a shoot-out with George Foreman despite the fact that we've never seen him bang out a qualified fighter - ever - and we've never seen him hit flush by a puncher - ever. You've picked Wilder to out-move Foreman in the ring, but we've never - ever - seen him in the ring with an opponent who knows how and has the will to, cut off the ring. While acknowledging that it's possible you are right in all of this, you seem to be assuming an enormous amount. Anyone - and I mean anyone - born after 1920 who appears on a top 100 heavies would look excellent against this level of competition. Which is very very very very very low in an historical sense.
This is much how I look at the matter, but I will make a some observations. I think that Bob Fitzsimmons belongs in category three, and I think that Jack Sharkey belongs at least in category four, if not category three. I think that Willard and Carnera did enough to get in somwhere. I also think that there are a lot of very good contenders over the years, who deserve a place in your category five.
fair point, but against. Heavyweight contenders shouldn't be beating up mentally ill welterweights. And if they do that mentally ill welterweight shouldn't be walking out of the gym.
1. Joe Louis 2. Muhammad Ali 3. Larry Holmes 4. George Foreman 5. Joe Frazier 6. Evander Holyfield 7. Jack Dempsey 8. Wladmir Klitschko 9. Lennox Lewis 10. Rocky Marciano
If he does that he's still only beat three top 5 ranked guys. He'd be at the point Tyson was when he'd beaten Thomas, more or less. Not top 10 for me.
How exactly is WK above Lewis? The way Lewis held onto his belts against Vitali compared to how WK surrendered them against Fury proves they are not in the same ball park.
