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

Tommorow I will make new thread "the 40 best HWs of the 1940s". Would do 50 or 60 but 40/40 is a catchier name.

I'm saying all the top 70s guys would have thrived in their respective primes. That was the point I was making.

Those are the only 3 elite talents the division has produced. LHW back in the day was producing way more than that in certain 5 year periods.

 

Sure I'd like to see it but I really don't think any of those fighters were better then guys in the 70s or 90s but prove me wrong

You’re saying all the top ‘70s guys would thrive in the ‘90s, but you haven’t explained why. We already know Foreman did well, but that doesn’t mean Frazier would have handled big punchers like Lewis or Bowe. Norton struggled with every big puncher he faced, why would the ‘90s be any different for him? Saying they’d all ‘thrive’ is just an assumption, not an argument. If you think every top ‘70s guy would dominate in the ‘90s, show how their styles match up favorably against that era’s elite heavyweights.

You admit that Usyk, Holyfield, and Haye are elite talents. So how exactly would Amos Lincoln and Kirkman ‘cut through’ modern cruiserweights when they weren’t even dominant in their own era? If those guys were as good as you claim, why didn’t they achieve more in their time? You’re just throwing out names without any actual proof that they were better than today’s best cruiserweights.

 

Again, disagree. Witherspoon fought in an era when the best had one good fight and flamed out due to obesity or crack cocaine. Don't agree at all.

Next argument!

 

At 6’3 and around 215/220 pounds he’s around the same size as Ali and a lot of the 70’s heavies.

 

Hi Buddy.
Firstly thanks for prompt reply, you are right when you say at the time, what else can we do but assess fighters at the time, when we are living that time ( make sense ? ) and of course you are right fear does not make a all time great fighter, but its a factor of sorts, as to his aging, well yes he was ( as we do ) and as to him being inactive, the gap from Patterson to the Ali fight was only 8 months, would that really make a huge difference, for what it's worth I believe Ali would indeed have the beating of Liston at his best, and I did concede the wins over Frazier and Foreman were great performances, if you think I overstated his victory over Liston, that's your opinion and I respect it, looks like when push comes to shove, we both have Ali over Louis.
stay safe buddy, chatsoon.

 

Now, not so much a cat/pigeons scenario but if we simply rate champioms on the amount of top ten fighters they beat, aren't we failing to address the elephant in the room, which is the depth of the division they fought in? For me, Ali beating Liston, Frazier, Patterson Foreman and maybe Norton make him number 1. Does anyone have a list like that. I need to be better educated on Louis because I know he was great, I know he beat lots of fighters but I don't really know how great the fighters he beat were...I do know how bad some of the ones he beat were, but I could say that about almost any champion I guess.

 

Hi Buddy.
Not quite sure if you are supportive of my stance/post, re Liston, or you are debunking it ?
Mike.

 

Well, my question with regards Ali biggest wins v Louis? Does Louis top wins compared? Yes, this will be a subjective opinion but I am interested...

 

One of the biggest flaws that I see in this "current/modern fighters are more skilled than ..." the fighters of Louis' time is that, especially for Louis, Dempsey or even back to Jack Johnson's time, the camera footage isn't anywhere near as sharp as the HD 4K that we are privileged to see today so how do you fairly assess the nuance of skills and styles on poorer frame per second footage?

More importantly and this really irks me - explain 'skill'. Which skills - are we talking about infighting - head positioning, ring positioning, trapping, collar ties, elbow blocking, shoulder rolling, framing - out boxing, are we talking about footwork, timing, parrying, jabbing and having off centre head placement, ring positioning, rhythm breaks etc.

Which exact skills are today's fighter so much more skilled than a Schmelling or a Ezzard or a Liston or an Ali or a Holmes at doing?

I've seen talk of modern elite HW fighters - in which way? What skills do they have that are an evolution on previous fighters and more importantly which skills have devolved and almost disappeared that would be exploited by the likes of a Louis or Ali?

When I learned to tuck my chin, my kru used to tell me that being in shape is a skill, being able to go through fire and take shots without showing pain is also a skill. Being big and being able to bounce around the ring somewhat, very impressive, but when often followed up with low punch output in comparison to a more efficient, seemingly stationary fighter that is always poised and balanced to throw and defend punches in combination, how impressive is it really? Unless you're prime Ali or RJJ, one style is much more sustainable and 'correct' and for most normal humans not blessed with outlier genetics and athletic ability, more conducive to greater skill development when trained.

 

I'm reinforcing it. He was seven months removed from his obliteration of Floyd Patterson. No one said the brash kid would beat the feeble old man at the time.

 

Tim was a victim of Don King's chicanery.

 

First, let’s define "skill" in boxing. It’s a blend of physical tools and mental mastery: footwork, timing, distance control, head positioning, defensive techniques (parrying, shoulder rolling, framing), offensive versatility (jabbing, infighting, trapping, combination punching), ring IQ, and adaptability. Your kru was right—durability and conditioning are skills too, but they’re enhanced today by sports science. Modern fighters benefit from structured strength and conditioning programs, nutrition plans, and recovery methods that weren’t available to Louis or Dempsey. A fighter like Floyd Mayweather Jr. or Manny Pacquiao could sustain peak performance into their late 30s and 40s, something much rarer in earlier eras due to less advanced training knowledge and sports medicine.

When comparing modern fighters to past fighters, the biggest difference is in how they fight at range and use footwork. Ali was one of the first to showcase what elite footwork could achieve, and after him, fighters refined and expanded on it, leading to masters of angles, positioning, circling, and feinting like Usyk and Lomachenko. These footwork-based strategies were far less common in the past. Fighters today are also much better at utilizing and building off the jab. In earlier eras, having a great jab was often reserved for the elite, while many fighters never fully developed one. Now, almost every top fighter has a solid jab, making it a more fundamental part of the sport.

Combination punching has also evolved. While past fighters may have thrown more punches overall, it was often on the inside, where shots were shorter and smothered. Today, most combinations are thrown at mid-to-long range, meaning fewer punches but with better extension and leverage, leading to harder, more effective shots. The shoulder roll has also seen an evolution—fighters like Archie Moore and James Toney used it primarily as an offensive tool to slip inside and counter, but Mayweather took it further by making it a defensive system that allowed him to hit, evade, and control exchanges with minimal risk.

Southpaw strategy has also advanced significantly. In the past, southpaws often relied mostly on their left hand to catch opponents off guard. Now, they are well-rounded, using both hands effectively while mastering techniques like hand-fighting and creating outside angles to land clean shots.

Despite these advancements, some skills have faded. Infighting is becoming a lost art. Joe Louis’ devastating short hooks, Dempsey’s swarming pressure, and Henry Armstrong’s relentless inside work are much rarer today. Modern heavyweights, in particular, rely more on range control and clinching rather than effective close-quarters fighting.

Overall, while certain areas of the sport have declined in emphasis, the technical evolution in range control, footwork, jab usage, defensive systems, and tactical adaptability makes modern fighters, on average, more skilled than those in the past.

 

I think today's fighters are more wary of getting hit less especially at heavyweight. A lot of the past heavyweights greats were fighting more often but taking far more punishment. The average heavyweight today is like 235 pounds and likely on PED's so you can't get hit like that at a certain point. There is a reason why mosrt all the dominant forces in boxing in modern s are fighting he try to minimize getting hit clean as much as possible

Uysk is a great balance he has both the old skillsets combined with new + his advantages in stamina and workrate which most the big guys can't quite match which so has made him a nightmare to deal with despite some disadvantages he had. Guys like Fury and Joshua could have definitely done with these facing Uysk. You obviously had the Kiltschko's who dominated for so long who perfected there styles so they didn't really have to take risks they didn't need to and overcommit it doesn't necessarily make it any less of a skill even if it might not be as pleasing on the eye.

I think there is truth on both sides. Boxing would be a better sport today if we got more of the best matchups I think that's more of a problem than the skill lacking.

 

For sure but we're starting to see more of that because of Turki so hopefully that trend continues

 

Much of this is correct but I don't see the lower regularity of exhibition in previous eras as a lack of the skill or an absolute evolution of skill - sometimes, it's as simple as changes in refereeing, gloves or down to stylistic nuances.

Fighters like Pac and Mayweather were able to be so good into their later years, partly because they arguably cheated the system and had access to PEDs and avoidance of getting caught, mostly because they were outliers that were that much better than the available competition and lots because they didn't have to fight anywhere near as regularly and as unprotected (very favourable refs and lack of rough infighting) as their pugilistic ancestors and thus avoided the wear and tear of their predecessors.

Ali was perhaps the first truly big man to use fluid motion in his legs defensively and offensively but he was far from the first. Pep and Robbie want their accolades and there are plenty of others who have used great footwork and were masters of angles and ring positioning. Consider fighters like Canto, Louis, Mantequilla, Holyfield, Foreman - all different but all with excellent footwork for their stylistic tendencies. Footwork to side step, create angles, turn and spin your opponent has been evident since the days of Joe Gans - if we are talking about the average club fighter, yes, perhaps there is more evidence of a more refined skillset to some degree, but when it comes to the very elite - I don't see that today's fighter is more skilled to any degree of certainty than a Pep, Robbie, Ali, SRL, Duran etc. with using footwork to create angles.

Joe Louis's offence was built off his jab - Dempsey wrote a seminal book championing and describing in detail the nuances of the jab. It has always been a fundamental part of the game. Perhaps it's the change in gloves and the scoring systems that have led to a change in the deploy of the jab but whilst many fighters use their jab well - they don't jab with the dexterity and variety that you get from a Hearns, a Holmes, a Sweet Pea, an Ali, for example. Most fighters today are fairly predictable combination punchers - the fight game is very much an expansion of what amateur boxing seems to have devolved to, which is one of the reasons why inside fighting and short distance combination punching is a lost art. I don't even agree that combination punching at mid to long range has evolved - where are the punchers that are superior to a Joe Louis, Ike Williams, Saddler, Robbi, Moore, Tyson, Jofre, Mantequilla, Arguello, Leonard, Duran, Hearns etc?

Where exactly do we draw the line as to where modern fighters started and in what divisions? Is it a linear cut off across all weight classes? Do we not think that Pep is skilled enough to compete today? Robbi? Louis? Ali? Canto? Jofre?