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

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.

 

The thrust of @themaster458's point was that Ali's competition -- including Patterson -- wouldn't be competitive today because most heavyweights are a combination of large and athletic that was very different from what you see back then.

I agreed, but said that this doesn't matter for Patterson specifically, since we're talking greatness.

You replied to my post about Patterson with Bivol knocking down Usyk, and cited Bakole doing badly against a cruiserweight.

I took that to be relevant to Patterson's chances against the genuine heavyweights around today, since that's what I'd been talking about.

But if all you're saying is that Ali's performance against Patterson doesn't show how Ali would do against a genuine heavyweight today, I completely agree. Beating up lightheavyweight-sized men doesn't guarantee success against modern heavyweight contenders.

 

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?"

 

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.

 

How do we know Ali's division is deeper?

Or Louis's? Or Holyfield's?

People often talk about eras being strong or weak, deep or shallow, but these discussions usually aren't long on details about why.

 

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...

 

Typically, these are given as Liston, Foreman and Frazier versus Baer, Walcott, and Schmeling.

I think this illustrates my point. None of these guys competed in each other's eras. Just listing their names doesn't give us a measuring stick to compare them to each other.

Also, notice that in each case, it's the guys who got titles. (This becomes even more marked when we consider that Carnera and Braddock are sometimes given as one of the best Louis wins.) But Schmeling and Baer won their titles before Louis came around. Walcott won his after Louis left the title scene. Would these guys have achieved the same reputations if they'd fully overlapped with Louis's reign? Not necessarily. Same goes for Foreman; Ali could have beaten him earlier if he'd gotten the chance. (Probably Liston, too; Frazier is debatable.) When you cut away the bling of titles and belts, you've got two separate lists of guys who are only ranked relative to each other within their own time periods. If we're talking about strong vs weak eras, I'm looking for information that allows you to transcend that division in time and compare them directly.