Are there TEN GREAT HEAVYWEIGHTS ?

Louis and Ali are the only 'pure' certainties; after that the number depends on how define and degrade the term 'great'.

 

Great for heavyweight...

But pound for pound great only Ali and. Louis.

 

Few heavyweights have true pound-for-pound-great talent and skill. Only modern heavyweight I have as a true pound-for-pound great is Ali. I'd also point out that 86-89 Tyson was well on his way before he self-destructed.

 

I think Evander Holyfield was a p4p great.. He was probably the best cruiser of all time ( for whatever that's worth. ) the heavyweight division's only 4 time champion and an easy lock for top 10 in that class. He also had some wars which made history. I've also edited this post to ad Bob Fitz.

 

If we are talking pound for pound, I would agree that Louis and Ali are the only candidates, who were also great heavyweights.

People like Fitzsimmons, Burns and Langford were great pound for pound fighters, who also happened to fight at heavyweight.

If we are talking about greatness within the heavyweight division, then I could suggest a dozen or so names.

 

I think Bob Fitz should be considered a great heavyweight on a p4p basis. He did after all win the lineal heavyweight title and was a legitimate 3 division champion.

 

Yes, if you include fighters who moved up to Heavy, Charles is a lock as well, not to mention Fitzsimmons and Tunney. The Jinx too is in with a shout.

 

Absolutely. All those men apply and now that I think about it there are quite a few p4p great heavys, but mainly only ones who ascended in weight as you say, with the exceptions of Ali and Louis.

 

Very true.. And to illustrate your point there was a light heavyweight version of Larry Holmes' reign and it belonged to Virgil Hill. Hill isn't even ranked in most people's top 20 light heavys.

 

Exactly. That's part of what I was trying to get at.

 

It's an interesting question, though you have to look at it from both sides.

Men after a certain size are going to fight differently, styles will alter to reflect what brings success.For the heavies that tended mean a simplifying\stripping down of the more technical or intricate things in the sport and an emphasis on being overwhelmingly powerful in the basics of the physical and technical side of the sport.


Still, fighters that would seem narrow, lacking or simplistic in skillset if we go through their attributes in checklist fashion have succeeded at all weightclasses.SUng-Kil Moon won fights and was on top at Bantam and Fly for similar reasons as Marciano or Dempsey at Heavy.Chitalada or Legra for much the same as Ali or Holmes.

i think the biggest skill gap tends to appear when looking at the more textbook heavy fighters.It's hard to conclude that someone like Louis, Liston or Holyfield could beat a Jofre, Robinson, Duran or Hagler in a p4p fight at first glance, and a lot of the more conventional heavy contenders look lesser in comparison to their rough equivalents at lower weights.But of course you have to wonder what those guys would have looked like as circa 200lb or plus fighters.

 

Good point. The heavyweights generally are dominated for long periods by an icon, who is far better than anything else around. That icon because he held the 'biggest prize in sports' almost by default becomes a great over the course of time rather than through accomplishments.