11 - Jack Dempsey 12 - Rocky Marciano 13 - George Foreman 14 - Harry Wills 15 - Peter Jackson Ok, forget for the moment the fact that they are probably both to low, and the fighters around them and Rocky is to low - who do you have higher, Wills or Foreman? Is it reasonable to have Foreman above Wills? Who do you think would have won if they had met?
You could make an intelectualy sound case for having either higher because their records have verry diferent strengths and weakneses. Wills record hangs on sheer volume while Foremans is based on a small number of exceptionaly high quality wins. It is hard to say how they would have fared head to head. Wills would be able to counter Foreman like Lyle did but probably did not have Lyle like power. This suggests to me that his best chance would be to tie Foreman up in the clinches and tire him out while outboxing him and perhaps scoring a stopage late in the fight. So Wills chances depend on his ability to neutrralise Foreman and suvive his early assult.
No disrepect intended-but if heavies could be placed in a tournament without respect to what they represented regarding their eras-and I only saw one film of Wills well after his peak-I think Foreman could line all of them up like he did when he fought five heavy's in one night-and stop all of them.
There has never been a heavyweight champion less technicaly sound than Foreman in any era. He is the ultimate embodiment of the triumph of god given physical gifts over technique. He is therfore the ultimate proof that fighters from Wills era could be competitive in later eras.
I disagree on Foreman's fundamentals;for one thing-everybody on the above list would have big problems dealing with Foreman's jab.Also-I don't say the greats on the above list couldn't be competitive-and Wills matches up physically better with Foreman=sized heavy's than most of his contemporaries,but in regard to heavy's(only) time-I think-marches on-and this includes Foreman(my own crazy pick for all time greatest heavy).
that is the story right there. I think you could argue either one ahead of the other. I don't think there is a clear favorite. Depends how you look at it. I would normally go with Wills, because he had to be so good for so long. Legacy speaking. But then Foreman's comeback is something very unique.
Foreman above Wills overall, but not by that much. I've got: 11. George Foreman 12. Jim Jeffries 13. Jack Dempsey 14. Riddick Bowe 15. Floyd Patterson 16. Harry Wills 17. Gene Tunney 18. Joe Walcott 19. Max Schmeling 20. Peter Jackson Much of this bunch are very close to call. We can speculate and gain valuable info from reports etc stating just how great Wills was, but unfortunately he never got any title shots.
Ps: janitor, my rating of Jeffries has fluctuated quite a bit over the years (lowest I've had him was #16). I currently have him at #12 and am interested in hearing an argument for placing him in the top 10. He was a very good fighter of course but I can't see how he quite makes the cut and who he'd replace in my 'elite' list. Where do you rank Jeffries and by what criteria? I also reckon that I might rank Jackson a tad too low. Thoughts? Ps: Others feel free to join in the debate.
