*** Your top 15 H2H peak/prime Heavyweights***

old Foreman at 8 and Tyson at 14....atschatsch:---hi::bart:bart:huh

 

Louis at 7?

Bowe at 5?

Old Foreman in the top 10?

I think your list has a lot of problems.

 

no i'm not even close to a Tyson nuthugger. I do like Tyson tho.


Old Foreman KO'ing a prime Tyson in 6 is ridiculous. :verysad

 

george foreman is too high, your statement that only ali could beat prime foreman is unfounded and outrageous, prime foreman while powerful was still very slow, dempsey, louis, marciano, liston, Lewis, tyson,and Johnson besides ali all have more than a great chance of beating him.

why is riddick bowe placed at #5? what makes you think that

wlad's chin would keep me from placing him top 15 H2H

Tyson to me is a bit higher than you placed him(#14) H2H, all time rankings I place him a bit outside the top ten for his early career implosion.(consistency is important in all time great ranking but not so much in H2H)

Where is walcott? not my favorite list but not too bad.

mine top 5

1 Ali
2 louis
3 marciano
4 Jhonson
5 tyson

word:deal

 

Thge older George Foreman is one of the wekest of all the lineal heavyweight champions. What he acomplished was amazing given his age but he would have been brutaly destroyed by any top 20 all time heavyweight.

 

If you think about it being the best amounts to the same thing as beating the others head to head. here is my top 15

1.louis
2.ali
3.marciano
4dempsey
5holmes
6johnson
7lennox lewis
8hollyfield
9foreman
10tyson
11 baer
12jeffries
13 schmeling
14liston
15patterson

I am of the opinion that a fighter who is destined to be a linear world champion would find a way to achieve that destiny in most eras. If that sounds like I am saying all world champions are equally as good, I am not. I am saying all world champions deserved to be world champions -even if that means waiting for a better champion to get old. Some champions are better than others but they are all world champions. So for me Head to head is a funny thing. Are we to imagine all the champions take part in a battle royal and have a last man standing? Do we imagine a fighter on his best night and match him on paper against each champion with the favourite against most being the winner? or do we imagine a tournament like the “super 6 “but called a “super34” instead? I don’t care how good Ali and Joe louis were if they spent a career of fighting just world champions from other eras in a time machine they would have 60-40 records at best since there would be no build up opponents. They were all human.
the sytem I use consists of assessing a fighter in his key fights then that cuts through the crappy excuses and "off nights". a great fighter knows what a key fight is -and they win them by stopage if they are truly great. I count the number of linear champions defeated by the individual, the percentage of champions each defeated by KO. I suppose its basically rating how well they did in title fights, i.e. win a title fight =good. Win a title fight by KO = better. Beat a champion = good, KO a champion =better. Lose title fight=ok, lose a title fight by knockout=bad. obviously THOSE who get kod for the title must rate lower for doing so. at the end of the day these fights represent key fights. its the fairest way. best equals H2H, it amounts to the same thing.

 

Oh my God it's Ken Norton, AKA Chris Warren! Finally got a new username that was fitting. I think his first name was something Foreman... and so we come full circle.

 

I virtualy disregard head to head when compiling my lists.

Resume is a much more reliable system of ranking because you are dealing with what is as oposed to what you suspect. My top 5 based on resume looks like this:

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhamad Ali
3. Jack Johnson
4. Jim Jeffries
5. John L Sullivan

From there numbers 6-16 are virtualy interchangeable.

 

1) Jeffries
2) Dempsey
3) Langford
4) Johnson
5) Fitzsimmons
6) Louis
7) Ali
8) Sullivan
9) Liston
10) Corbett

 

this is a good list, each champion here made a masive impact on the world at large and went through spells where they were too far ahead of all availible world class opponents. even accepting some contenders were unfairly ignored.

 

Johnson, Jeffries, Sullivan... really? You rarely see Sullivan in the top ten these days. While I think often that there are lists which skew favoritism toward modern fighters, this would be a list that might have too much favoritism toward old-timers. I mean 3 of the fighters came before the 1920's. One during the bare-knuckle era. And I realize fighting has been around for centuries, but in an organized, structured, and popular spot it's MECCA and Rise truly began in the turn of the century (At least I think). And might have peaked during Dempsey's day.

I mean, you have three fighters grouped within a 30 year period, basically. Then the next fighter appears 20 years later (Louis), followed by a fighter that comes 20-30 years from him. And then no fight from the remaining 30+ years. Little odd...

 

not quite sure whats going on here. Johnson beat langford quite bad. it is well documented that sams manager wired a bogus report to make it sound a robery. johnson had way too many advantages over sam at that time. even so sam should have got a title shot later on.