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

Beating better fighters is more impressive to me then "greater" fighters who would make those "greater" fighters look like chumps but yeah that's why I tend to rate more modern fighters higher then older fighters

 

And beating the more skilled fighter is more impressive to me

 

But most people would agree that power and durability are a part of the sport.

 

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.

 

Unfortunately, with each passing year, the 60s guys have to reach more and more for outliers. And even the outliers are getting increasingly stretched. I saw which way things were going on that front years ago, and it's only gotten worse since.

Yes, we can always collect a couple anomalies and decide that Patterson knocks Klitschko/Fury cold because Bivol knocked Usyk down once with amateur gloves. But if we're going down that path, we could also decide that Kovalev takes out Ali because similarly-sized Cooper almost managed it. And yet, most Ali supporters would try to bury the latter claim in laughing smileys, and a lot of their justification would boil down to size and accusations of cherrypicking. In light of that, I'm not overly worried that I might be wrong about Patterson being too small for today's division.

All that said, it's kind of irrelevant to greatness. Patterson might be a lightheavyweight by today's standards, but he was the top heavyweight contender during Ali's era, and a former heavyweight champion, and those facts don't change just because Vitali would've pulverized the other lightheavyweight that Patterson beat for his title. Same reasoning that leads us to rate Jack Johnson very high on the greatness list despite the fact that his archaic style would lose to most contenders today.

 

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.