#3 ATG HW survey?

Valdes was the #1 contender when Marciano signed to fight Charles, and #1 contender again when Marciano signed to fight C0ckell. Agreed, it's not comparable to the Dempsey-Wills situation where Wills was overlooked year after year despite being the clear top contender, but Valdes did get a pretty raw deal. It's legitimate that his name comes up if people are going to claim that Marciano "cleaned out his era".

 

He does get recognition for that accomplishment.
Doesn't mean he's a top 3 heavyweight in history
as far as his fighting ability is concerned. Or top
10, 15, or 20 in my opinion.

 

I think you're playing it fast and loose with the term 'delighted', Rules. I'm willing to bet it won't make your day.

Perhaps 'wearily resigned but feel I have to' hear the explanation fits the bill better.

As it happens, I am not entirely of a contrary opinion to him but, if ever I were to put it down in writing, I'd have to offer more than 'he kills anyone pre-1950s', 'Louis loses to most 70s heavies onwards'. It's very arrogant and near-sighted to come onto a Classic forum and espouse such views without context or explanation beyond 'he was slow' and 'all his opponents were crap'..

I just keep my dirty little secret about what I think of Joe Louis and the other pre-50s heavies to myself and keep reading what others post so I can learn where I might be going wrong. I have to accept that, when about 90% (arbitrary figure but I bet I'm close) of boxing historians and fellow posters on here say the man is special and I don't think he is, I'm probably wrong. And if I'm actually right, I'd better start articulating a bloody good post to set my stall out because there's a lot of people to convince.

 

I honestly didn't mean to disrespect you by using the word delighted, my friend. Just very interested.

 

No disrespect taken, mate. Dear me. You're the last one around here to be disrespectful towards anyone (except for all but the most deserving cases, maybe .

No, I was just saying that I doubt any of White Bomber's posts would cause 'delight'. They're so narrow-minded and biased towards the fighters and era that he favours.

Unlike your own posts which contain nuggets of personal detail, anecdotes, fair minded and rational opinion, his are just one track pony diatribe against anything pre-1970s. Predictable and near-sighted.

I hope that clears it up. I wasn't being critical of you at all and wouldn't want you to think I were. Take care.

 

To start with he was Undisputed Heavyweight Champion of the World for about 8 years. He was big and quick, slippery defensively. Ofcourse already been stated his impact on the sport, the world.

 

1) Ali
2) Holmes
3) Louis
!

 

Now that’s a hot take. Even if I do think H2H, Holmes could take him.

 

Each to our own brother

 

I voted Holmes, but Johnson certainly has a a case. Maybe should have a voted him. His prime run was not far from perfect. The main issues was that he never faced prime Jeffries (not his fault, but still) or prime Langford. If he had he would have cleaned out his era as good as as anyone.

 

Ten years with losing only a handful of rounds all in all certainly gives him a case.

 

Which top athletes of the 80's wouldn't obliterate anyone pre 1950s in their sport you think? Might it just because of sports progressing?

Tyson didn't manage to obliterate everyone during his own time. In fact he was obliterated himself a couple of times when still around prime age. That's what means anything to me.

 

This same topic is here published about hundred times, like every 3 months: I is still nonsense; I don't have Ali on place 2, as he was too inconsistent (failed too often). Here are some user which have Marciano, others which have Johnson and few have even Lewis (though I suppose mostly Brits) at the top of the division. So it is anything else but naturally to have these two guys in front of the rest, but just ignorant like to pretend the two Rays are the best welterweights without question.
Nothing of this is undisputed and everyone ought to get possibilty to choose their own top 3, not only one of these.

As you have three times as many black boxers as white ones, this can be interpreted as racistic (particular as for one will nobody seriously vote): Tommy Burns might be the greatest Canadian heavyweight (besides of Lewis) and had 11 successful title-defences (three against Bill Squires), but most likely no one have him here in the top 15. There can be rather Schmeling, Liston, Patterson and Corbett listed, maybe even Wills.

The first three should be also ahead of Frazier. So I would replace these two and Holyfield too (as he had the little against Bowe) and put 5 or 6 caucasian boxers in it. Half of the boxers you listed have no buisness in a top 3 and most know this. It seems to be selected to get that boxer who is wanted voted here.

 

Boxing is not an affirmative action sport.

But if we're going that route, we should add Sinan Sam and Tua to redress the shocking absence of self-identified persons of Turkish and Samoan ethnic origin.