I always felt kinda bad for Kenny because unlike Ali, Frazier, Foreman and Holmes he didn't have his own era back in the 70's which I believe is from September of 1976-June of 1978. Ken clearly beat Ali in their third fight, and his wins over Bobick, Zanon, and Jimmy Young should have counted as title defenses. Instead he was given the WBC belt because Leon Spinks wouldn't fight him in March 78 and fought Holmes in a close fight but lost it 3 months later in June.
Top30 for sure. Top25 probably. Top20, barely misses out I think. He had the style to beat some greater fighters than him and at the same time to lose to some lesser fighters than him. He did both but the latter more than the former. Not that he wasn't good enough but there were others who either achieved more or have better resumes and were more consistent. He'd beat some of those ranking ahead of him though.
Agree the s#*! out of this. Personally I put him in and around a group comprising Walcott, Charles, Schmeling, Baer and Patterson. Just not sure exactly where he fits in.
Norton is tricky I mean how many quality wins does he have? Ali for sure that's one. Jimmy Young in a razor close fight some feel he lost. A badly faded Quarry. His career really hangs on the Ali trilogy. He was destroyed by every big puncher he fought not just losing but being wiped out before the 3rd round. He gets credit for the fact Ali couldn't figure him out and he fought Holmes close. (Imo Holmes won more clearly than the cards indicated) There are at least 20 guys who have more quality wins than Norton. Tough to place him. I have him around 30. I liked his style and the person but I feel the number of good wins on his resume are lacking.
I see you moved Mickey Walker way back to 91-100. Kudos, but I still think Walker should not make the top 100. While I'm not here to rip the time or effort as its generally good, I find the following placements a bit off. I'll start at below #75 with a one liner, who knows, maybe you'll re-evaluate at a future date like you did with Mickey Walker. #72 Hamas? Lucky to make the top 100 #71 Layne. Way too high. A bad pick I think #59. Fulton. Bad pick. Even the most hard core Dempsey fans would not place him this high #57. Kid Norfolk. Not in the top 75, I think #52. Loughran He's a light heavy, and should not rate in the top 75 #47. Greb. Maybe in the top 75 to 100... #31 Ray. A bad pick this high. Too many losses. No film. Perhaps a gift win over Charles. #12. Wills. Shocked. Above Jeffries, Dempsey, Langford and the Klitschko's??? #5 Frazier. I never saw Frazier this high, not even from one of the best historians / writers who absolutely loves him and has al of his films in the very highest quality. I'd pick many of the guys I rated from 1986-current that you did not mention to beat Hamas to Ray. Enclosed are my top 15 ranked heavyweights at 20-year intervals. The criteria for the ranking as follows. 1 ) Head to head vs. the field, which is strictly my personal opinion. 40% weighting 2 ) Resume of wins and losses, excluding losses that happened when a fighter was past their prime. 30% 3 ) The distinction of the fighter as champion by beating top contenders in title matches if applicable. 20% 4 ) Historians input, which matters most to fighters, not on film. 10% I will try to list each fighter only once, placing him closest to his prime years. 1885-1905 Pioneer era: The transitional time between bare knuckles and London Prize-ring rules to Queensberry rules. 1.Jeffries 2.Fitzsimmons 3A. Jackson 3B. Corbett 5. Sullivan 6. Sharkey 7. Slavin 8. Ruhlin 9. Goddard 10. Maher 11. Choynski 12. Hart 13. McCoy 14. O’Brien 15. Root 1906-1925 Black and white filmed era: 1. Dempsey 2. J. Johnson 3. Tunney 4. Langford 5. Wills 6. Jeannette 7. McVey 8. Willard 9. Greb 10. Gibbons 11. Burns 12. Miske 13. Godfrey 14. Norfolk 15. Smith 1926-1945 Great Depression to World War II: An era where war and the great depression in the USA hurt boxing. I have trouble with the bottom of this list, and the depth is rather thin. I also think very few in this timeline would be in the top ten today. 1. Louis 2. Charles 3. Schmeling 4. Walcott 5. M Baer 6. Carnera 7. Godfrey 8. Moore 9. Bivins 10. Schaff 11. Conn 12. Hamas 13. Pastor 14. Farr 15. Loughran 1946-1965 Golden age era: 1. Liston 2. Marciano 3. Patterson 4.Johansson 5. Ray 6. Terrell 7. Machen 8. Folley 9. Williams 10. H. Johnson 11. Valdes 12. D Jones 13. Chuvalo 14. Cooper 15. Harris 1966-1985: TV expansion to Cable and PPV: This era is loaded with talent. 1. Ali 2. Holmes 3. Foreman 4. Frazier 5. Norton 6. Witherspoon 7. Thomas 8. Quarry 9. Page 10. Coetzee 11. Shavers 12. Lyle 13. Cooney 14. Young 15. Weaver 1986-2000: 12 round era and super heavyweight era. This era had tremendous depth and a lot of talent. 1. Lewis 2. Holyfield 3. Tyson 4. Bowe 5. Ibeabuchi 6.Byrd 7. Morrer 8. Mercer 9. Douglas 10. Tua 11. Morrison 12. Bruno 13. Tucker 14. Rhaman 15. McCall 2001-( ratings are of 2013 ) 2021 – Eastern European dominance era. While this era is only half over, the nations producing the top talent has shifted. Once the iron curtain in Eastern Europe fell both the amateur and professional ranks have been dominated by Eastern Europeans. Since many of the below fighters careers are over, and future talent in the amateurs will arrive, this list will likely look very different by 2021. Hopefully, we will all be here to debate it! 1A. V Klitschko 1B. W Klitschko 3. Povetkin 4. Chagaev 5. Sanders 6. Ibragimov 7. Haye 8. Brewster 9. Peter 10. Adamek 11. Chambers 12. Valuev 13. Gomez 14. Solis 15. Arreola ***Joshua now at #6 and trending upward, the others move down a spot. From here on it, it seems like 8 of 10 ranked Ring Magazine heavyweight is 6'4" to 6'9" tall, so the next bracket should be named Super Heavyweight dominance. I expect young Hrgovic to rate and possibly Dycho and Usyk.
Great minds.... (11 -20 thread) [url]https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/your-second-10-all-time-heavyweights-11-20.600136/page-3#post-18967957[/url] Johnson Dempsey Holyfield Patterson Charles Walcott Corbett Wills Norton Vitali K
Yeah, not having him in the top 50 is not a position that anyone could hope to argue for. It's unreasonable. Ignorant even.
My mother is dead, thanks for reminding me. And I'm older than you. Besides, you couldn't be my son...you're too ugly to have any of my DNA.
Err even these fighters don't really deserve to be rank alongside one another. Do you really think those mentioned accomplished similar things?