[Deleted by user.]

I can't imagine how painful it was to use as much footwork as Corbett did with that thing up his ass

 

So after all these years it wasn’t actually Fitz’s solar plexus punch that ultimately saw Corbett off? - ah well, he got his just deserts for being a slave to fashion.

 

Judging from Corbett's fashion taste, I'd rather not know what 'gets him off' lmao

 

Corbett actually invented the left hand.

The film from the era is grainy, but if you look closely you’ll see all fighters before his time only had right hands with the left cut off at the elbow.

 

Boxing was never the same when they started wearing shorts. Something seem to be missing seeing the likes of Dempsey, Louis or Tyson in shorts. The sport was no longer about a man showing off lol.

 

My 2023 List (with no active fighters):

01. MUHAMMAD ALI
02. JOE LOUIS
03. EVANDER HOLYFIELD
04. MIKE TYSON
05. LENNOX LEWIS
06. GEORGE FOREMAN
07. ROCKY MARCIANO
08. JACK DEMPSEY
09. JAMES J. JEFFRIES
10. JOE FRAZIER

 

Evander Holyfield is always ranked too low, I’m glad I’m not alone in having him so high. He was the HW James Toney in terms of attitude and he deserves his dues.

 

It’s almost mandatory that current fighters cannot be fully and properly recognised before a good number of years have elapsed since they quit fighting.

The march of time itself eventually puts them into the category of old era fighters - where a degree of impartiality and reverence may then be applied.

 

He liked the taste of a jab too much and lost to Moorer… he called it too close with Holmes IMO too. If Old Holmes had beaten Evander…. A lot like Toney there is a lot of things you could say but there is so much more to suggest he was nothing short of great.

 

Great list.

I'd probably have Foreman and Lewis ahead of Evander (who is underrated) and Tyson is too high for my liking. There's no universe where Tyson should be rated higher than Foreman but otherwise it's a great list.

 

At least as far as the open division that is the HWs is concerned, I think there is some rationale to suggest in general that previous contenders and champions were “better” in terms of skill.

A good part of that rationale being that with greater size, HWs follow the P4P trend of a decline in skills - and I can see that personally with my own eyes.

In terms of size and dimensions, yesteryears HWs progressively slide down the P4P totem pole which actually places them above their current day, larger counterparts in terms of skill.

Then the question re SHWs or any given SHW becomes “Does their greater size and dimensions equate to an advantage that eclipses their comparative deficiencies in skill?

And I’m talking reasonable and fair application of their greater size and dimensions in the true spirit of a boxing match as most of us might perceive or at least desire.

I’ve said before, all credit to Joshua for fighting a clean boxing match v Usyk to facilitate a reasonably pure boxing match that specifically framed greater skill vs greater size.

 

Not sure better, but they had to fight each other more and they mix the top talent more, so the fighters were hight levels just on their competition.. But sometimes you do feel the contenders were just tougher than. Even looking at someone like Buster Drayton who was a very tough fighter.

 

Does this mean, that some sort of objective consensus among boxing experts/aficionados has named the 1940s a superior decade? I have never heard about this, but I'd like to know more - so can you elaborate on this?

 

Tyson was 10-0 in title fights in the 80s and the first heavyweight to unify the "Big 3." He also beat top contender Ruddock twice in wars, regained two titles, and beat Golota. Total tally in title fights is 12-4.

Foreman was 3-1 in title fights the 70s. He also beat Lyle and a past it Frazier before losing to Young. He regained the title against Moorer, in a fight he was losing, but gave the belts away instead of defending, unless a robbery against Schultz counts. He beat one guy in the top ten during his comeback. Total tally in title fights is 5-2 counting Schultz or 5-3 counting Morrison and Schultz.

 

when I first started my research, both in Printed Reports and Online it was the (Decade(s) at the CBZ and other sites, circa 2001, these were the Decades, 1930s - 50s) most cited and reflected to with respect to Overall Greatest Champion's, Contenders and fighters, numbers of Active Classed World Fighters, numbers of Fights for said fighters, longevity careers wise in Top Competition, the decades which throughout the most Hall of Famers, ATG's and so on...

it was cited regularly & drawn upon as such by the many, of Boxing personnel and posters in exactly the same way the 1970s is still generally cited as the greatest era for Heavyweights and as the 1920s gets cited for the Lightweights. Even here at ESB these Periods/Eras often get stated as such.

I also believe there have been many Threads on said topic over at the CBZ, BoxRec, here and of course some of the other sites that were big for a time.

I'm sure a few poster here would say the same, especially among the users that have been on these sites for 20 years or more.