How come the strong consensus is Ali and Louis are the top 2 heavyweights of all time?

Yes which is why you're pretending hes Jack Sharkey is misleading. You want Usyk to be this unprecedented P4P underdog while also saying hes bigger and better than early HWs who overcame longer odds. You can't really have it both ways but you keep trying.

These guys who aren't "legitimite HWs" overcame larger size disadvantages and had more successful HW careers than Usyk. They beat better big opponents they beat better small opponents they were better.

 

The "big men were common" line is just not reflected when you actually look at who the top contenders were. Sure, big men existed, but they weren’t the backbone of the contender pool — they were usually scattered and often less skilled. Today, most top 10s are filled with men 6’4”+, 235+ lbs, who can actually fight — not occasional Carnera-types, but skilled, athletic super-heavies.

And you’re twisting my words — being frail and being unathletic aren’t contradictions. A 6’5” guy in the 30s could be big but lacked coordination, mobility, or stamina. Modern super-heavies are big and functional. That’s the difference.

On Usyk, he's fought Chisora, Joshua (twice), Dubois, and Fury — all modern-sized heavyweights, most bigger than the biggest heavyweights of earlier eras. That’s not a few soft touches, that’s fighting at the summit of a division dominated by size.

And smaller heavyweights do exist today — they just don’t win consistently like they did when the average heavyweight was 200–210 lbs. You don’t have to "pretend" anything; the shift is in plain sight.

 

Louis
Ali
Foreman
Larry
Marciano
Lewis
Mike
Holyfield
Frazier
Riddick Bowe
Dempsey
Jack Johnson

 

My point is simple — Usyk today is seen as a small heavyweight, yet in most past eras he’d actually be considered a big heavyweight, bigger than many champions and contenders of the 30s, 40s, or even 70s.

The reason his situation is unprecedented isn’t just his size — it’s that he’s constantly giving up height, reach, and 30+ pounds to elite modern heavyweights who are both massive and athletic. Only Holyfield ever did anything close to this consistently at heavyweight.

Past fighters like Dempsey, Sharkey, and others may have beaten big men occasionally, but they weren’t doing it every other fight because the division wasn’t swarming with modern super-heavyweights like it is now. That’s the distinction.

 

I'm not sure about my gentle nature but cheers Mike. The forum is certainly better for having you in it.

 

Just watched Potevkin-Klitscho. Wlad was holding and pushing.

 

McGrains list was eye opening a couple of years ago. Joe Louis went 9-1 over the next best heavyweight to himself while Ali, in a stronger era, went 8-2. Holmes, despite loads of longevity went 1-1 and that was actually against the short version of Ali with Spinks, now top dog due to his win over Larry, *beating Holmes in their rematch.

Lewis was 4-0-1 over his next best.
Tyson 1-1
Marciano 4-0


Actually i'll paste them and the thread. It's eye opening stuff and quite defining. What's better than beating the best opponent in the world? It's a big statistic.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/which-heavyweight-champions-fought-the-best-fighter-on

James J Jeffries: 1-1
Bob FItzsimmons (W),
Jack Johnson (L)

Jack Johnson: 1-0
Tommy Burns (W).

Jack Dempsey:1-2
Jess Willard (W),
Gene Tunney (L),
Gene Tunney (L).

Joe Louis:9-1
James Braddock (W)
Max Schmeling (W)
Tony Galento (W)
Bob Pastor (W)
Billy Conn (W)
Billy Conn (W)
Tami Mauriello (W)
Joe Walcott (W)
Joe Walcott (W)
Ezzard Charles (L).

Rocky Marciano:4-0
Joe Walcott (W),
Joe Walcott (W),
Ezzard Charles (W),
Archie Moore (W).

Sonny Liston:2-2
Floyd Patterson (W)
Floyd Patterson (W)
Muhammad Ali (L)
Muhammad Ali (L)

Muhammad Ali:8-2
Sonny Liston (W)
Sonny Liston (W)
Floyd Patterson (W)
Ernie Terrell (W)
Zora Folley (W)
Joe Frazier (L)
George Foreman (W)
Ken Norton (W)
Leon Spinks (W)
Larry Holmes (L)

Joe Frazier:2-3
Jimmy Ellis (W)
Muhammad Ali (W)
George Foreman (L)
Muhammad Ali (L)
Muhammad Ali (L)

George Foreman:2-2
Joe Frazier (W)
Muhammad Ali (L)
Evander Holyfield (L)
Mike Moorer (W)

Larry Holmes:1-1
Muhammad Ali (W)
Michael Spinks (L)

Mike Tyson:1-1
Michael Spinks (W)
Lennox Lewis (L)

Evander Holyfield:2-2-1
James Douglas (W)
Riddick Bowe (L)
Riddick Bowe (W)
Lennox Lewis (D)
Lennox Lewis (L)

Lennox Lewis:4-0-1
Shannon Briggs (W)
Evander Holyfield (D)
Evander Holyfield (W)
Hasim Rahman (W)
Vitali Klitschko (W)

Wladimir Klitschko:3-1
Chris Byrd (W)
Alexander Povetkin (W)
Kubrat Pulev (W)
Anthony Joshua (L)

 

As with the consensus ratings, this reflects Ali and Louis, and then daylight before we come to Lewis and Marciano.

 

The answer to the question posed in the OP is essentially a combination of this, number of wins in lineal title fights, number of top 10 contenders beaten and quality of opposition beaten, taking into account their historical standing and how close to prime they were.

Combine these measures and Ali & Louis are just miles ahead.

 

It wasn't as bad, but it was a similar level. Like Kobe's 2004 Finals were similar to Lebron's 2011 Finals, but not as horrible.

 

Lennox Lewis at technically 5-0 has wins over Holyfield twice (he got robbed the 1st time) and over Vitali in his last fight even using this metric you could really make a case for him as well.

 

Hi Buddy.
I would also have quality over quantity, speaks for itself really, as to the Ali wins over both Frazier and Foreman, I would like to put his win over Liston for the title up there as well, lots of " Liston was an old man " and " he was a bully " lacked heart, etc, these assertions may well be true, BUT at the time he was considered unbeatable, a brooding, meanincing, figure, fighters were beaten before the first bell, not Ali, we thought it was bravado, whistling past the graveyard, he would get his comeuppance, how wrong were we, and then 10 years later he did the same to another brooding, meanincing, fighter, again we thought he was nuts, he proved us wrong, all 3, Foreman , Frazier, and Liston could conceivably be in anyone's top 6/8 , after Louis, Dempsey, Marciano, Lewis, and Holmes, it's a pick umm, so for Ali to have wins over them is pretty impressive I would say, I can't see past him being the No 1, in the words of Joan Armatrading, I have tried, oh my lord, I have tried.
stay safe buddy, chat soon.

 

Yeah, the revisioniam from some around here is downright crazy.

It's not uncommon with a "Yeah, he looked good in his 60's title run, but his opposition was weak".

Err, three wins over two concensus top 20 fighters is weak? How the hell did that conclusion come about?

 

Thanks JT, means a lot.
stay safe my friend.