Boxing.com's heavyweight poll - the result

Dempey didn't make it, nor did Holy who should have replaced Johnson at number ten. See what I get for being magnanimous?

 

Andrew(Drew101) 06:12pm, 05/16/2012

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

A couple of notes:

I automatically exclude active fighters from these types of list, simply because it’s unfair to rate their standing within a division before their entire body of work can be examined. That means Holyfield, or the Brothers Klitschko couldn’t be included (though I will fully acknowledge that Evander might well be up for consideration by the end of the year if he doesn’t step into the ring.)


Liston, Charles and Jefferies just miss the cut, and have made the list in the past. But, this is what I came up with today, and that’s what’s being submitted for consideration.

 

Tunney, Dempsey & Vitali... with no Tyson. :huh

Also, how could anyone think Vitali has achieved more than his younger brother? :huh

 

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Marciano
5. Jack Johnston
6. Jeffries
7. Langford
8. Wills
9. Foreman
10. Dempsey

 

Jeffries, Langford, Wills & Dempsey... but no Tyson. :-(

 

I have him 5.

 

Thinking about my list now, I wonder if I give Holmes too much slack.

For me, 1-2 is easy, then it branches 3-8, and then there's a 9-12 divide. The 9-12 grouping is Johnson, Holyfield, Liston, and Dempsey. You should be able to figure out 3-8, which can really be ranked however you like I feel.

Maybe I overrate Foreman. Tend to think his achievements are nearly unparalleled not just in boxing but sport. He did so much with so little and proved greatness despite his lack of dimensions and H2H prowess. I may overrate Frazier, but he's got FOTC and a great list of names. His losses come to 2 fighters that should be in everyone's top 10 list. His brave performance in Manilla deserves not just admiration, but a relative level of credit considering his condition and opponent. I'd rather rank a guy that fought nearly everyone with the heart of a champion than a guy that didn't do all that he could've or should've, even if he may be the "greater" or superior fighter.

 

Just can't do it. He beat an old washed up Holmes and ...no one. Maybe it's not his fault, or maybe he just had great timing, but Ferrari's don't get trophies because they have a nameplate...they have to beat Porshe and Audi on the track first...

 

Sometimes it's not who you beat but how you beat the competition. I don't see a whole helluva lot of heavies capable of doing what Tyson did. He completely obliterated the division like no one before, or after, him. The Holmes victory is better than you think.

 

Tyson: 44 KO's in 58 fights

Marciano: 43 KO's in 49 fights

I think Rocky ran roughshod over that division moreso than Tyson
..and again, Mike was KO'd himself 5 times. Rocky never lost a fight.
so, using your criteria....Where does the Rock rank?

 

don't hurt me lol


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

 

You look back at those 4 old timers I listed from your top 10 with rose tinted glasses & overrate their opposition to high hell. Then you look at Tyson & totally devalue all the skillful "Grade B" opponents who were ranked contenders & beltholders he beat, usually in devastating fashion, & pretend it doesn't mean ****. Well how many "Grade A" wins do Jeffries, Langford, Wills & Dempsey have over Heavyweights? Zero. One perfect example of Dempsey getting vastly better treatment than Tyson is his win over Old Willard vs. Tyson's win over Old Holmes. Willard had been retired for 3 years, was fat & almost 38 years old, as for his skill it was crap to say the least (do we award extra credit for the extremely suspicious injuries Dempsey caused?). Holmes had retired for 2 years, just turned 38, but had had 3 months of training camp to get from 250lbs to 225lbs, & fought several exhibitions over 12 & 15 rounds to shake off some rust. Following their losses, Willard went on to beat one Cruiser, before being KO'd by the very crude Firpo. Larry on the other hand was never stopped again (or beforehand, unlike Willard), upset undefeated ranked contender Mercer 4 years later, & 7 years after losing to Tyson he'd outbox the powerful WBC Champ McCall (who was coming off a huge upset win over Lewis), but got shafted by King's judges who were no longer on his side. Yet despite all of this, Dempsey gets a ton of credit for beating a man who was literally a fat unskilled tub of lard, but Tyson gets his win devalued to worthlessness by his legions of detractors.

 

That, my man, is as solid an argument for Tyson as opposed to the old timers as I have ever heard. I'm not sure it will change my mind, but it will certainly make me look a little closer to see if my "rose colored glasses" might need a little cleaning. Well done.

 

1.j.louis
2.m.ali
3.l.holmes
4.j.johnson
5.r.marciano
6.lennox lewis
7.j.frazier
8.j.dempsey
9.george foreman
10.e.holyfield