Are there TEN GREAT HEAVYWEIGHTS ?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Unforgiven, Jul 17, 2015.


Page 4 of 6
  1. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,065
    Mar 21, 2007
    To who? To you? I think if you said that to most boxing people, that he was unproven after years of taking on top contenders, he would literally laugh in your face. Literally. Anyone that knows how hard professional sportsmen prepare and punch would laugh at you for that remark. That's the most ridiculous thing you've said in this thread.
     
    McGrain, Jul 17, 2015
    McGrain, Jul 17, 2015
    #46
  2. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005
    Walcotts prime was a 6 year period too 46-52
     
    SuzieQ49, Jul 17, 2015
    SuzieQ49, Jul 17, 2015
    #47
  3. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005
    Use your eyes

    Watch Wlad on film from 98-2005

    Then watch Wlad on film 2007-2012

    You will see a completely different fighter in the later version, a better fighter. One who maximizes range much better, fights smarter, uses his length and size better, controls his pace better, more physically and mentally mature


    Wlad improved and became a much better fighter in his 30s than 20s
     
    SuzieQ49, Jul 17, 2015
    SuzieQ49, Jul 17, 2015
    #48
  4. Boilermaker

    Boilermaker Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,372
    473
    Oct 6, 2004
    Starting at John L we have:

    John L - Was considered the best boxer of any weight,when in his prime. His KO record makes him an ATG. I give him a 1 although his ranking has dropped even just as a heavy from most.

    Jackson - Was considered the master and greatest fighter ever by a lot of people for a long time. Had to rank as an ATG for at least a while.

    Corbett - As above, there were some good smaller fighters but none were any better than Corbett at the time.

    Fitzsimmons - Well except for this guy. Should he be considered a heavyweight? for arguments sake say no.

    Jeffries - Retired as an undefeated champion who cleaned out the best in his division. It is hard not to rank anyone as an ATG who does this. I know the ottke comparisons happen, but ottke had controversial decisions and never cleaned out his division. Jeffries did. I think it has to be 3-0.

    Burns - Not really a great heavy, but was a great little fighter. Was actually a light heavy. I say no by the same rules as Fitzsimmons.

    Johnson - a Resounding yes. Reign for as long as Johnson did in any other division and you are an ATG. Plus, he was considered P4P 1 during most of this time. I think he is as much a lock as Louis and Ali. Take the list to 4 and i might as well make it 6 to save time.

    Langford - Definitely qualifies but count him out for the same reasons as Fitz.

    Willard - I wouldnt have thought he qualifies.

    Dempsey - At first glance resume says maybe not, but if Terry McGovern can qualify through a short but spectacular reign why not Dempsey? i lean towards a yes. He was considered the best for a long time. 7

    Wills - ARguable, but i would probably go against him being considered slightly.

    Tunney - Definitely but we will challenge him on the grounds of him being a light heavy not a heavy. Might as well KO Spinks and Charles for these reasons now.

    Schmelling - Tough one. His win over Joe Louis places him in the Joey Maxim category. I will knock him out of ATG status, just but this knocks out an awful lot of lower weight fighters, particularly in the modern era.

    Sharkey - Probably not, even though he was a good fighter.

    Carnera, Baer - not really.

    Braddock - Not considered and probably not, though he could be.

    Walcott - Another tough call, but if Schmelling misses out, Walcott pretty much does to.

    Marciano - Has to make it, i think. Not a big guy and with wins over Charles, Walcott and Louis, despite age problems, this not too far from beating say the leonard, hearns and Duran of his time. Maybe not quite the same but not too far. - 8

    Patterson - I will say no, although he was always around and was certainly not a bad fighter.
    Johanssen - Probably not, certainly if we exclude the caliber of Schmeling level fighters.
    Liston - a McGovern style reign. I think he should make the list. 9
    Frazier - Has to make the list and take it to 10.

    I must admit, it took a lot longer than i thought after I did the first couple. The main difference is that the resume's have quality rather than quantity for most champions. This is because of the obvious reasons in that the title is worth more money (or at least it used to be) and therefore has bigger distractions than the lesser weights.
     
    Boilermaker, Jul 17, 2015
    Boilermaker, Jul 17, 2015
    #49
  5. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005
    Hayden Panettierre said this too.
     
    Unforgiven, Jul 18, 2015
    Unforgiven, Jul 18, 2015
    #50
  6. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005
    Yes, but Wlad has at least managed to stand above the rank and file of his division for several years now, about 8 or 9 years straight. That makes him an exception to the general mediocrity.
     
    Unforgiven, Jul 18, 2015
    Unforgiven, Jul 18, 2015
    #51
  7. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005
    I think Wlad is a similar case to Lennox Lewis.
    Actually he's better.
    But Lewis wasn't as great as people say. I'm not sure he was a "great" fighter at all.
     
    Unforgiven, Jul 18, 2015
    Unforgiven, Jul 18, 2015
    #52
  8. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,727
    29,077
    Jun 2, 2006
    Jeffries didn't," clean out the best in his division" he never fought Hart ,Martin, McVey, or Johnson.
     
    mcvey, Jul 18, 2015
    mcvey, Jul 18, 2015
    #53
  9. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,065
    Mar 21, 2007
    What 1 or 2 things do you think keeps Lewis from being great? If you had to keep it short?
     
    McGrain, Jul 18, 2015
    McGrain, Jul 18, 2015
    #54
  10. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005
    His KO losses to second-raters, and the disputable status of him as a "champion" and "the #1 HW" through much of his career, the 'paper' titles etc.
     
    Unforgiven, Jul 18, 2015
    Unforgiven, Jul 18, 2015
    #55
  11. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,065
    Mar 21, 2007
    He's got two spells of three yeas (which i think is unprecedented off the top of my head?) where he's lineal and pretty much undisputed though - you don't mean to dispute those spells, I take it?
     
    McGrain, Jul 18, 2015
    McGrain, Jul 18, 2015
    #56
  12. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005
    I'd say from 1999 - '01 and from '01-retirement'04 he's very much undisputed.
    Then again, he was dumping belts then too.
     
    Unforgiven, Jul 18, 2015
    Unforgiven, Jul 18, 2015
    #57
  13. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,065
    Mar 21, 2007
    Indeed - so let's agree that the rest of the time, he wasn't number one and he wasn't champion. That's still extremely impressive, especially as he did it a bit later in life.

    Second - you've raised the issue of his losing to "second raters" but also indicate you rank Wlad above him. Wlad lost to three "second raters" but as I understand it, you wouldn't "count" these (for want of a better word) as they occured outside his prime. It is perceived that Wlad's prime began with Steward's involvement, would that be right?

    What I would say to you is: so does Lewis's. Lewis's first loss to a "second-rater", Oliver McCall, occurred outside his prime if you consider that Wlad's three losses occurred outside his. Wouldn't you agree that is reasonable?

    Rahman beat him in his prime, but this was immediately and devastatingly avenged. As to your categorisation of him as a second rater, I guess i'm less comfy with this. It depends. If you have first raters - Wlad, Lewis, Holyfield - and second raters, if that's your tiers, I think it's ok. But I would like to point out that Rahman, whatever your (and my) feelings surrounding his appearance on film, was ranked in the Ring top 10 at the weight for six years, and for three of these he was in the top five.

    I would also like to suggest that if he fought in Wlad's time (you know what I mean) he would be one of Wlad's better scalps - he would be one of the better fighters that Wlad beat.

    Either way I would suggest that Lewis's two time lineal reign (even Foreman could only manage a single year and a three year spell), the large swathe of contenders he defeated, his allegedly superior resume to Wlad's, is enough to a) is a reasonable basis for his being considered a great heavyweight and b) a reasonable basis for considering him greater than Wladimir.

    Do you find any of that particularly disagreeable?
     
    McGrain, Jul 18, 2015
    McGrain, Jul 18, 2015
    #58
  14. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005

    I'd allow excuses for Wlad's loss to Purrity to be "pre prime", because he was an inexperienced boxer who hadn't gone many rounds, but not so much his losses to Sanders and Brewster.
    That's not to say that he hasn't tightened up his style and improved since the Brewster loss. But he was already #1 contender and in his physical prime, and with wins over some top 10 Hws before facing Sanders, I believe.
    Sanders and Brewster were "prime losses". And Lewis was in his prime when he lost to McCall and I'd say he was still prime when he lost to Rahman, and arguably a better fighter than he'd been in 1994.

    But in Wlad's favour, Brewster loss was 11 years ago. He's gone 22-0 since.

    The gap between Lewis's losses to McCall and Rahman was 7 years. He went 13-0-1 in that time (14-0 if we adjust for the bad decision).
    Wlad has done better than Lewis here, clear enough.


    Rahman was okay.
    Oleg Maskaev stopped him twice.
    Even allowing for headbutt, a 2002 Holyfield was at least on even terms with him.
    Ruiz beat him. Toney drew with him.
    He's in that general soup of 'nothing special' HWs.

    Well, I'm questioning whether 5 or 10 HWs in the whole of history can even be considered great, so clearly Lewis is not immune from the chop.

    The only basis for considering him greater than Wladimir seems to be the alleged superior resume.
     
    Unforgiven, Jul 18, 2015
    Unforgiven, Jul 18, 2015
    #59
  15. HerolGee

    HerolGee Loyal Member banned Full Member

    41,974
    4,029
    Sep 22, 2010
    theres 2 who rate above the others, but theres 5 who are undisputed atgs, they cant be touched.

    ali lewis holmes Marciano Louis.

    Marciano might be considered the weakest given his opps, or holmes given his partial ownership of the world title. lewis again. which is why ali and joe come out above the rest.

    but the next five is open for debate.
     
    HerolGee, Jul 18, 2015
    HerolGee, Jul 18, 2015
    #60
Page 4 of 6