Fighters of the Century per Futch/Dundee/Clancy/Duva/Chargin - The Heavyweights.

This is more like it. I'm glad I remembered Weaver's accomplishments, not even counting a couple of big wins after he lost the title. Check Joshua, Wilder, or Fury's resumes against Weaver's. They look pretty lame in comparison.

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Holyfield
5. Foreman
6. Lewis
7. Marciano
8. Frazier
9. Tyson
10. Wlad
11. Liston
12. Dempsey
13. Johnson
14. Vitali
15. Bowe
16. Tunney
17.Charles
18. Patterson
19. Norton
20. Weaver
21. Fitzsimmons
22. Walcott
23. Fury
24. Sullivan
25. Jeffries
25. Joshua
26. Wilder

 

Agree to disagree. I’d put a whole bunch ahead of him like Moore, Loughran, Bivins, Baer, Harold Johnson, Quarry and more all have better wins imo. But I get it do you bro!

 

bruh the eye test argument is null and void you dont know what you are watching and its a cop out used by you guys to **** on the earlier eras(you guys dont understand ) again if they were just trailblazers they would have been in the trailblazer category in the ibhof, they were put in the ibhof for being great fighters not for being trailblazers, Again 90 and 25 with kos over 4 hall of fame heavies is a very good record ,especially since guys like Liston didnt beat or even fight as many hall of fame heavies, (frazier /holmes also didnt beat and fight as many hall of fame heavies!)

 

Your trust of the IBHOF voters is revealing. They are protecting the plate of boxing historicism over actual boxing. I don't know whether it's because they were failed boxers or failed historians, but the result is embarrassing in most attempts. There are so few good boxing history books out there.

There is nothing null and void over the fact these two wouldn't last a four rounder against the likes of Liston...

This content is protected

 

Bruh you ignorant and instead of figuring out why boxers did what they did and how they got away with it ,you judge boxers back then thru a modern boxers lens, Go look at the george dixon video on youtube and look up the comment by levanthar athletics(sinister aka luis monda) he describes dudes exactly like you. Now I dont give a **** how bad you do not understand what is going on , factually speaking (not something subjective like your shitty ability to break down boxing) Langford beat more hall of fame heavies with the exception of the big 3 (ali, louis,Johnson) he is top 5 on the list period!

 

Those are admittedly some pretty great names, my friend.

 

This is one of the better lists. Most are justifiable, except for Dempsey who is way overrated. I would dump him and move everyone up and slip in Jeffries, probably behind Frazier. Harry Wills deserves consideration.

 

As much as I am a fan of Fitzsimmons, I don't think there's any case for having him ahead of Jeffries who beat him twice. Overall I think you're really under estimating Jeffries, who was a real dominant force. He certainly did a far far better job of clearing out the division than Dempsey, and in my view, likely in a better, or at the worst as good, era.

I'd suggest Harry Wills for consideration, a very good win over a near prime Sam Langford, and an exceptional run of longevity.