The Rings Top 20 2017 All Time Heavyweights!

I've got to log off for the night or i am going to break something, lol.

 

These are just numbers. An ATG ranking is primarely based on resume.There is a lack of quality in Wlad's resume as he fought in a weak area.Lewis has a much better resume than Wlad.

 

Quality is subjective. What I know is Wlad made more than double the number of title defenses than Lewis. He fought more fighters in their prime, and he was unquestionably the best Heavyweight in the world for ten years. All things Lewis can't claim.
I understand ppl who rate Lewis above Wlad I think a substantive argument can be made for both men. Lewis defeated all his opponents, and fought in an era generally perceived as better. Wlad fought many more fights than Lewis, made more defenses, stayed in the sport longer fighting the best the division had to offer.

 

You make it sound like it is close while it is not.I have yet to see a serious magazine or journalist rank Wlad over Lewis.Wlad ranks around place 15th by the Ring Magazine, which is the most known boxing magazine.

You claim that Wlad was the best Heavyweight for 10 years.How can you claim that when Vitali was around?

Quality is subjective to a certain degree.Yet by all objective standards Lewis fought the better opponents.Fighting opponents in their prime is not worth very much when such opponents are bums.

 

Vitali tore his ACL in 2005 and retired from that moment on Wlad was clearly the best HW. Vitali returned after a 4 year layoff but never fought the necessary opposition to reclaim number 1 status. So from 2005 through 2015 Wlad was clearly the best heavyweight.
As for the Ring magazine publication, that list was a good effort but flawed. 1. As most historians usually do they under value the current the champion. A true evaluation of the current dominant fighter usually comes years later when the career can be put into proper perspective. 2. Also I would like to see some European experts added to the board as many of the top talent now emigrates from that region. For a balanced appraisal.
To say Wlad fought bums is irrational. So one guy fights great fighters and the guy whose career comes along on the tail end Of that same time frame now fights bums? They have at least 4 common opponents.
Lewis opponents which are better I do not deny that, can be put under a microscope and don't look as good previously thought. Tommy Morrison was HIV positive and in decline testing positive in his very next bout because Las Vegas tested for hiv while New Jersey didn't. Oliver McCall had a breakdown and was mentally unstable smoking crack/cocaine in the lead up to his fight. Andrew Golota was awarded 1.5 million for a lidocaine injection that made him go into seizures after his fight with Lewis.
Tyson was a decade removed from his best days and totally shot. Holyfield was in clear decline I view his Tyson fights as an aberration of his steady decline since the 3rd Bowe fight.
You're being offended because I place a guy above Lewis that made 23 title defenses? Won Olympic Gold in 96 and is facing the best fighters and being competitive still at age 41 in 2017.
It's debatable to put who over who not egregious.

 

Yes, no fighter has ever moved up in stature as time goes by after their retirement.

 

actually, who were the best heavyweights from the late 1890's to 1915 or so.

I would say Fitz, Jeffries, Burns, Langford, McVey, and Jeannette (other than of course Johnson. Hart would not be in the hunt at all only he got a close decision over Johnson, being eliminated almost immediately by Burns)

What do Fitz, Jeff, Burns, Langford, McVey and Jeannette have in common. All lost to Johnson. So Johnson effectively proved himself better against the best heavyweights of over a twenty year period when they got in the ring with him.

I can anticipate the squealing now--but they weren't at their best. Yup. But that's boxing. You rarely get the best against the best at their best. Fighters are prisoners of time and time doesn't play fair. In Johnson's case, though, it is blaming the victim by holding Jeff being over the hill against him. It was Jeff who spurned a match in 1904 or 1905 when he would have had a better chance.

 

I don't think mine is and I would put Lewis #4. I am American (to which most Americans join Red Foley in warbling "I hang my head in shame.")

For those who think this list is too American centered, which non-Americans should be on this list and aren't? I mentioned Schmeling, but can't think of any others.

 

Well let's put it this way, Wlad was never undisputed No1 if Vitali was around. Certainly a lot of folks would have picked Vitali to beat Wlad.

The rest of your argumentation is confusing. On the one hand, you acknowledge that Lewis has the better resume but then goes on to take it apart. What does that tell us about Wlad's resume?

Wlad has 23 title defenses. But against who? Look at the quality of most of those opponents. The fact that he was so dominant in those fights tells us something about his opponents. Longevity only takes you so far in my opinion. Quality of resume is more important. And it is not like Lewis had bad longevitiy himself.

The RING magazine had objective criteria and a wide range of experts doing the poll. It is certainly not perfect but more reliable than a list from Wlad fans on a boxing forum.

 

An interesting factor to consider:

Joshua blew away the #1 ranked HW of the world within 3 years and 18 fights

It took WK 10 years , 48 fights and 3 losses before he faced the #1 HW in the world. And that came against a past it Chris Byrd who wasn't even a heavy weight.

Hmmmm..

 

He beat Fury?

 

Joshua beat WK - the #1 ranked HW by Ring. Ok?.. Thanks..

 

Next time how about you actually say that. Ok?.. Thanks..