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

But skill tends to be valued more

 

Uh, no, actually it doesn't. There are lots of guys who made ATG careers on a big punch.

Look, you have every right to believe as you like. We are talking about consensus greatness. This is not judged on head to heads, as everyone else has the some privilege-they can believe as they like. You may judge Witherpsoon higher than Baer because of your perceived head to head, not everyone would agree, period. Baer rates slightly higher in history because of his accomplishments in his own era.

 

You're treating all eras as if they're equal, but they’re not. Baer had more success in a weaker era, while Witherspoon fought in a much tougher one. If we're talking about who was the better fighter, it’s clearly Witherspoon. Historical rankings might favor Baer, but that doesn’t change the fact that beating Witherspoon is a much more impressive achievement than beating a one-dimensional slugger like Baer.

 

The 30s was a better era than the 80s. Its the 2nd best era IMO and while most have the 90s ahead of it(wrongly IMO)they'd also have the 30s third I think.

Btw I could be talked into Witherspoon being better than Baer. Witherspoons a Muhammad Ali light. He'd beat Usyk 10-2 or something.

 

Perthaps, but I'm not sure. Usyk being put down by 180+ Beterbiev by a body shot with amateur gloves would surely mean that guys like AJ, Dubouis and Fury would smash him. Except for the little fact that it didn't.

And Bakole is a Foreman 2.0 that would go through Foreman's generation of fighters like hot butter, right? Except for the fact that a CW without any particular power stopped him.

These hypotheticals are mostly a maze so I stay out of them.

 

You really think the ‘30s was better than the ‘80s and ‘90s? The top guys in the ‘30s were solid, but the depth doesn’t compare. The ‘80s had multiple skilled, well-rounded fighters, and the ‘90s had even more depth. Who after Louis and Schmeling in the ‘30s was on the level of the top contenders from those later decades?

 

He has a strong record that's for sure. He certainly got robbed in that first fight.

 

Great post.

 

The late 30s and early 40s problem is the top guys retiring quickly in their 20s. Which disguises its true strength which is a less top heavy version of the 70s with more depth. But the 90s? The top guys didn't fight each other and it was a top heavy era where practically no one who wasn't a top guy beat a top guy. The 90s reputation is temporary right now it is an age the younger middle age crowd that dominate media have nostaglia for. In 50 years i don't think the 90s will hold up very well. Take people with no cultural connection to the 90s they aren't going to be infatuated with the period. They'll likely rate the 80s higher.

Whatever you think about the 70s our opinion of the 70s is not shaped by living through it or personal connection to it. Its Foreman, Holmes and Bugner being relative to 90s elites into their golden years and other overwhelming evidence like that. 90s supremacy will never be able to replicate that because the facts aren't on their side its all vibes and culture.

I think rating decades is a stupid way to split generations but everyones doing it so I'm forced to go along.

 

What in my post alluded to Patterson ever KO'ing Klitschko or Fury?

My example was more about that how someone Usyk/Ali's size does against someone smaller isn't a scaled replica of how he would do against someone bigger.

 

You’re calling the ‘30s a deeper version of the ‘70s, but where’s the depth? Outside of Louis, Schmeling, and Baer, who else was on the level of the ‘70s contenders like Norton, Lyle, and Young? The ‘30s had a lot of guys retiring young, but that doesn’t automatically mean the era was stronger, if anything, it suggests the competition was inconsistent.

As for the ‘90s, the claim that top guys didn’t fight each other is just false. Holyfield fought Bowe, Tyson, and Lewis. Lewis fought Holyfield, Tua, Morrison, Vitali and Ruddock. Tyson fought Holyfield and Lewis. The era had major upsets too, Moorer lost to Foreman, Douglas beat Tyson, and McCall and Rahman beat Lewis. If it were just a ‘top-heavy’ era with no competition below the elite, why did so many lower-ranked fighters score big wins?

And if you’re using Foreman and Holmes’ longevity to prove the strength of the ‘70s, then doesn’t Foreman’s success in the ‘90s also prove the strength of that decade? You can’t have it both ways. The ‘90s had depth and elite talent, and dismissing it as ‘nostalgia’ ignores the actual fights and results.

 

Their historical standing puts them above just about anyone else besides Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey.

 

Late 30s early 40s was 40 deep. Its funny cause the 40s had 40 eliteish HWs. Lee Savold won a belt in 1950 I don't think he was a top 20 guy in the 40s.

The fact Foreman was almost relative to Holyfield and feared his power suggests prime version was on a totally different level. As was Ali. As was Norton as was Frazier as was Lyle and was Jimmy Young. Usyks comp in the 60s might be someone like an Amos Lincoln with a better chin. Someone like Lincoln or a Kirkman would cut through modern CW like a Thanksgiving Turkey.

7 fighters isn't depth. The early 40s was like 50 guys deep.

Upsets of the top 6-7 in the 90s generally were rarer than any period. One of your examples was in Feb 1990 another was in the 2000s.

 

You keep shifting topics every time I ask for specifics. If you believe the late ‘30s/early ‘40s was truly a deeper era, name the 40 elite heavyweights that supposedly made it so. Just saying ‘it was deep’ means nothing without actual names. If you believe the ‘90s was just ‘nostalgia,’ explain why so many top guys struggled with supposedly weaker opposition. Moorer lost to Foreman, McCall and Rahman knocked out Lewis, Mercer nearly beat Holyfield and Lewis, and Bentt crushed Morrison. If the ‘90s was a ‘top-heavy’ era with no real depth, why did these things happen?

And just because Foreman and Holmes had competitive fights in the ‘90s doesn’t mean the entire ‘70s era would have thrived in that decade it just proves they were exceptional fighters with longevity. Not every ‘70s fighter would have been able to compete at that level in their 40s. Foreman’s success is a testament to his individual greatness, not some blanket proof that every fighter from his era was better than every fighter from the ‘90s. If you disagree, then show me actual proof instead of just making vague claims.

You’re seriously comparing Usyk’s competition to Amos Lincoln? Lincoln was a fringe contender who lost to every notable fighter he faced, he got stopped by Terrell, Patterson, Bonavena, and Lyle. Kirkman was a journeyman who got obliterated by Foreman in two rounds. Neither of them were world-class. What exactly makes you think they’d ‘cut through modern cruiserweights’? Based on what? Who did they ever beat that suggests they’d dominate a division that has produced elite talents like Usyk, Holyfield, and Haye?"