How come the strong consensus is Ali and Louis are the top 2 heavyweights of all time?

I agree Holmes avoided guys. But if you compare Witherspoon to Schmeling or Mercer to Walcott, those comparisons are not outlandish. The fact that he came back in his 40's to beat a legit top 10 contender like Mercer (who gave ATG's like Lewis hard fought fights) is remarkable.

At heavyweight, you can make a case that even a fading Norton is better than Conn, who was more of a light-heavyweight. Beating Shavers and Cooney is probably the equivalent of beating Baer etc.

I am a big fan of Louis and even though he cleaned out his era more thoroughly than Holmes, his competition wasn't exactly outstanding. He did beat good competition but it wasn't exceptional like Ali or Holyfield.

 

Ali clearly won the second fight.

 

Def not clear was a close fight i had it for Norton

 

You can make the same case for most modern heavyweights compared to Louis or even Marcanio's competition

 

I don't think the two resumes are in any way comparable. Baer, Schmeling and Walcott are all minor greats. Witherspoon is not.

 

H2H Witherspoon is a much better fighter then any of those

 

H2H is not how resume's are judged. ALL H2H between fighters who have not fought each other are hypothetical. A fighter's legacy is judged by what they accomplish in their own era.

 

Beating better fighter should count for more when you're comparing fighters of different eras that's why it's more impressive for Ali to be the top of the 70s then Louis being the top of the 30s

 

That I am not arguing about. Liston, Foreman and Frazier have better historical legacies than Baer Schmeling and Walcott. What I am saying is that it is not kosher to give Witherspoon points over Baer based on "head to head," because that is entirely hypothetical.

 

I think its clear watching both Witherspoon is levels above Baer

 

I do think that sometimes, the question of weak opposition gets muddled by head to head considerations that don't have much to do with "greatness."

Ali's 60s opposition was as strong as it could have been by the standards of the time. Who else was there? Whether these guys could've competed with the best of the 70s might, I suppose, be tangentially relevant. But the fact that they were cruiserweight-sized guys whom the 2000s+ superheavies would've beaten doesn't seem that relevant for the "greatness" debate.

So yes, I agree: It would be rather embarrassing if the modern division's best challenger for Usyk was a lightheavyweight-sized guy with back problems like Patterson. And yeah, if we were asking how much Ali's resume means for his head to head abilities against modern guys, sure -- Patterson's shortcomings would be relevant.

But the fact remains that the little guy was the best the 60s division could muster, and Ali dominated him. Ali was great because he was so much better than almost all of his peers, for a really long time. Pointing out that those peers would be unimpressive today seems beside the point.

 

Not in terms of power and durability. Skill wise, yes.

 

Agreed. But Baer is greater that Witherspoon, by the standards typically used in this forum.

If we're going by head to head, then our "greatness" list just looks like a collection of guys from the last 30 years, with one or two outlying stragglers.

 

Hindsight is 20/20. Rescoring fights when you know the outcome is a mug's game.