Fixing Monte Cox`s All Time Heavyweight Ratings

I think Tyson would beat all of them, atleast if we're talking about prime Tyson, maybe Ali and Lewis not.

Lewis... he had the physical gifts but had he faced Tyson earlier he wouldn't have had Manny as his trainer.
Lewis was actually an early peaker too, he saw a period of decline until he got Steward as trainer and he peaked again.
But I don't know what kind of tactic Lewis would have used had he fought Tyson earlier, he'd probably have trained his ass off and we would probably have seen physically the best version of Lewis ever.

"Prime" Foreman was also plagued by not having the right trainer, if Tyson fought the Foreman from the Frazier fight he would faced a monster jab but Tyson was extremely quick and Foreman not really.
Rather easy to counter, Tyson could also use his faster and also great jab to get to Foreman.
Foreman was also plagued by his trainer believing dehydrating his fighter before a fight was a good thing.

Liston never faced a man even close to Tyson and won.
Too slow and Tyson would be the heavier man in this fight too.

Ali... I don't really know.

Marciano would be sad for the t-rex, no way I can see him winning.
Tyson with his very good jab could jab the man to a KO if he wanted to.

 

Cant see anyone stopping Iron Mike early, not even Foreman.
Tyson SD 12 Ali, Ali UD 15 Tyson. Foreman Tyson cant decide.
Wonder what Cox thinks of Wlad. He has a nice top 20 HW
rating imo.

 

You will have to do a search for all threads started by Mendoza and look for it. I posted it at least a year ago, and sent a link to where it could be downloaded.

 

I like what Cox is doing but I think it favours fighting a bit more than boxing.

I'm gonna use the model but change endurance to stamina. I might add a "ring IQ" column as well as a column for level of opponent (to separate the Robinsons from the mayweathers). I like it though, nice and simple and can be easily identified by watching footage of the fighter you're rating.

 

i just think heart, durability and endurance are all stats that favour those who brawl and prove they can still take shots down the stretch.

something like stamina just proves you can finish a fight strong, be it behind a jab or throwing leather.

doesn't seem to be enough in there for boxer types for my liking.

 

Perhaps it's because Dempsey was only stopped 1 time, and Tyson was stopped 5 times.

It's not something I'd argue about either way.

 

Do you agree with Cox's assessment of Jack Johnson being the equal of Muhammad Ali? How about Tracy Callis's opinion ? He rates Johnson above Ali?

 

Well I was looking at attributes and ultimately felt it was too unfairly weighted one way or the other and decided to just go for a round robin league system featuring notable fighters in the divisions history.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I said his equal, its very clearly written.:huh.
Here is Cox's own article proving I am right and, once again you are wrong.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/jack_johnson.html

"But in terms of sheer talent and ability Jack Johnson was an equal peer to Ali. It is not apparent who was truly the better athlete or better fighter. Both deserve to be recognized for their greatness. Ali has his respect. It is time for today’s generation to give the great Jack Johnson his due."




Tracy Callis makes his assessment of Johnson

Johnson is rated as possibly the best heavyweight who ever fought; He was a master on defense and almost flawless in all other aspects of pugilism; He was fast, possessed an outstanding jab and uppercut, and was practically impossible to hit cleanly.


N B All those in Callis's top ten are gloved fighters who fought under Queensbury rules.
I don't know where you get the idea he has LPR boxers in there?:huh
Now, how about you answer the original question?
How do you reconcile these rankings with your own opinion?:think

 

True and he's a good guy who answers emails n ****

 

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

1. This content is protected
2. This content is protected
3. This content is protected
4. This content is protected
5. This content is protected
6. This content is protected
7. This content is protected
8. This content is protected
9. This content is protected
10. 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