Classic Forum Collective Top 10 All-Time Heavyweights--POLL CLOSED!

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Ps. I don't want to get into an argument about Tyson's status as an ATG. That issue has been argued to death before. But in any case, I would pretty much prefer to see a thread opened specifically for that topic, instead of cluttering this thread with posts that have little to do with the original topic: the collective top 10.

 

Do you ask these questions of every single heavyweight that you put on the list?

Yes everyone in the top 10 does have records and titles to show, but only one was the youngest ever champion. The first to unify all the heavyweight titles and win two titles after a long lay-off in prison. Yes he HW division so lower compared to the 70s but that could be said for over half the heavys in the top 10 so that's not just relative to Tyson. Holmes for example fought at an era worse than Tysons and still didn't smash through the ranks and unify the titles as Tyson did.

This is a fair analysis on Tyson, but again many other top 10 heavys are similar. The elite fighters are often nothing without their elite trainers, see how Lewis excelled with Manny, would Ali have been as good without Dundee? we all know the stories of how it was difficult to train him. Surely when skills are looked at and judged its unfair to do so when the fighter is past his best and they should be judged when they are exhibiting there skills at there best ability.

I'm struggling a bit to see why balance matters and what you mean by regularity. Different fighters have peaks at other times and certain fighters aren't built for longevity such as Frazier, Tyson and Dempsey, even Foreman didn't have longevity. Tyson did lose shockingly to Buster and yes there are excuses but Lewis lost to Rahman and McCall, Dempsey to Meehan: fighters Tyson would have no trouble with. Sadly for Tyson he didnt have the opportunity to rectify this loss with a re-match. A quick note, age isn't the determining factor for your peak.

This content is protected

Yes but not many fighters were, a very harsh comparison imo.

As for Vs other ATG, it would be very long winded going into that, i do think Tyson has a chance against the Majority of the other top 10 heavies tho

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

1) Joe Louis
2) Ali
3) Marciano
4) Jack Dempsey
5) Jack Johnson
6) Mike Tyson
7) Joe Frazier
8) George Foreman
9) Sonny Liston
10) Evander Holyfield

 

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Lewis
4. Tyson
5. Liston
6. Holmes
7. Marciano
8. Foreman
9. Frazier
10. Johnson
HM: Harry Wills, Dempsey.

 

If either had beaten the other, they would of been locks for the top ten imo. If Dempsey beat Wills, he may be a top 5 fighter. The same goes for Wills.

 

After this month (June) I'll make a listing -- give me a week -- of all the fighters that appeared in top-10 lists in this thread, for lists that are dated

This content is protected

to July; and I'll indicate how many times the fighter placed at a certain spot, eg., #3/7 would indicate seven third-place rankings. That way you can all apply what ever points-system you wish.

 

I'm taking this to mean 'Was his longevity and consistency in proportion to his peak ability and performance'.

To take an example from another sport: Sandy Koufax, Warren Spahn, and Walter Johnson. Johnson was terrific at his best, and also had a very well sustained career. Koufax was comparably terrific at his best, but had a much shorter period of being a dominant pitcher. Spahn at his best was a very fine pitcher, not so dominant as Johnson or Koufax, but he was very consistent over a long time.

 

This is rated by watching films, their records, who they beat and when, head to head, and what other top boxing historians stated.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. George Foreman
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Jack Johnson
7. Sonny Liston
8. Joe Frazier
9. Lennox Lewis
10. Rocky Marciano


The only one that gives me trouble is Lewis. I want to put him a lot higher BUT being stopped by McCall and Rahman makes that hard, even if he did KO both of them in return bouts.


Also, head to head I think Tyson would have beat Marciano BUT Rocky's overall career was much better.

 

I don't know. Marciano has that 49-0 record that's hard to argue with, but Tyson beat more top ten contenders than Rocky. Heck, he beat more top ten contenders than Marciano, Dempsey, Foreman, Frazier, AND Liston. It's just the popular thing to say that Tyson's career stunk, where in reality his resume has depth.

 

I never said it stunk, BUT he did lose to Douglas and twice to Holyfield. A lot of people say that he was past his prime when he lost to Douglas, BUT he was only 23 years old at the time.

It's very hard to take Rocky out of the top 10 with his perfect record BUT your right when you say Tyson fought more contenders then some of the others.

Tyson fought 23 different boxers 26 times, that were rated in the Top 10 at one time or another in 58 bouts.

Marciano fought 13 different boxers 16 times, that were rated in the top 10 at one time or another in 49 bouts.

Foreman fought 22 different boxers 24 times, that were rated in the top 10 at one time or another in 81 bouts.

Liston fought 19 different boxers 25 times, that were rated in the top 10 at one time or another in 54 bouts.

Frazier fought 13 different boxers 19 times, that were rated in the top 10 at one time or another in 37 bouts.

Dempsey fought 15 different boxers 27 times, that were rated in the top 10 at one time or another in 83 bouts.
NOTE: These ratings was based on annual ratings, as Ring Ratings didn't start until 1925.

 

Thanks, hehascup, for this interesting post regarding a way to measure the level of competition these top HWs fought, ie, their ranking as top 10.

May I ask you, or anyone else with the information, to do the same for Joe Louis, Ali and rest of those fighters generally placed in the top ten? If there is another thread on this topic I would like to know.

I am especially interested to know the level of competition Louis fought in his 25 title fights as well as all of his pro bouts. Can you supply that info?

A general question also. Do most of you boxing experts believe this method of determining the level of fighter is the best method?

Thanks again.

 

Where did you got those annual ratings on Dempsey's opponents from?


Also, wouldn't you say #4 is a bit high for Foreman, considering his record against currently ranked contenders is 50/50 or close to it? One could omit his second career saying he was old then, but then you're left with 5-2 or something, which in my opinion is too shallow to justify a spot in the top5 of all time. Note that Marciano was 11-0 (10 KO) within that same age cutoff against currently ranked opponents, and he ranks much lower.

 

Who are the five you're referring to?

 

Probably Frazier X 2, Norton, Lyle and maybe, maybe Peralta. Was LeDoux top 10?