Louis and Ali - the only TRUE great heavyweights

:hat

 

I agree to a certain extent.

Holmes, Lewis and Marciano (though he never quite fought "big men" on a consistent basis, his unbeaten record remains a great feat) are knocking at the door of these two guys, but no cigar.

 

I dont like it when people use the word legacy to determin a fighter's greatness.
I like to go by plain skill when determining a fighters greatness and there were a good number of HW fighters that mach up with Ali & Louis.
Fitz
Jeffries
Johnson
Dempsey
Tunney
Charles
Liston
Holmes
all come to mind as being as talanted as Ali & Louis.

 

I understand & respect your point.
I just preffer going by skill,talent ect. Legacy's to me just leave too many question marks.

 

Dempsey certainly transcended boxing, as evidenced by the huge NY Times headlines reporting the outcomes of his title defenses, but he wasn't a great active champion. That Holmes didn't rematch or go after all of the toughest opposition diminishes his resume, though he may be a candidate to win an all-time tournament.

Ali rematched Ken Norton twice, an opponent he could never look good against. He also got in the ring with Holmes rather than Weaver, although he paid lip service to taking on Hercules in the early stages of training for his eventual match with Larry. In closing out his career, Muhammad was better against Trevor Berbick (RIP) than John Tate (RIP) and Greg Page were. During Joe Louis's comeback bid, he defeated HOFer Jimmy Bivins (retroactively reestablishing himself as the top HW against the wartime champion during his military service), and a host of useful challengers. It's often overlooked that going into his final match with Marciano, Joe was still considered the number one contender, and had generated a resume following the Charles loss to support that positioning.

While I don't agree with this particular criteria defining greatness exclusively, if it's accepted at face value, then a case might be made for Joe Frazier to a lesser extent, for restoring the legitimacy of the HW Title following the void left by Ali's exile.

It's a refreshing viewpoint defining greatness, an interesting perspective.

 

The Big men of Ali's era were Foreman,Lyle,Foster(mac)Liston and most of those big guys were beaten by smaller men,Quarry DOMINATED Lyle,Foster and Liston was already beaten & dropped by 179lb Marty Marshall, Louis KO'd every big man in his era (IT was the smaller Billy Conn and Arturo Godey who gave him problems) Foreman struggled with 185lb Peralta who was a decent fighter at best. In the 50's most of the bigger men were eliminated 6"3 Nino Valdez beaten by 180lb Harold Johnson,175lb Bob Satterfield, 6"2 Bob Baker KO'd by Archie Moore and Satterfield (who was KO'd in 2 by Charles) 6"3 Rex Layne Ko'd by Ezzard Charles, Roland Lastarza beating 6'3 Dan Bucceroni (who had a 37-2 record) and 222lb Ralph Schneider and Big Bill Wilson220lbs, Cleveland "BIG Cat "Williams was also KO"D in 3 rounds by 174lb Bob Satterfield in 1954 . As far as Ali, well he was badly dropped and hurt by 185lb Henry Cooper and was in the fight of his life vs(blown up 188lb Doug Jones) Ali was dropped and beaten by 205lb Joe Frazier and given a real rough fight vs 204lb Oscar Bonavena and an aged Ali lost to a 6-0-1 195lb Leon Spinks. So I think its not where the big men where NOT, we know they were beaten but where are the Fit,Fast,hardpunching smaller heavyweights today, I think STERIODS eliminated most of them Today

 

On greatness--in the end of the century poll for the greatest athletes
(effectively North American) of the century by the Associated Press,
Ali was 4th and Louis 7th, with Dempsey 38th and Marciano 44th. In the
ESPN poll, Ali was #3, Louis 11th, with Marciano 51st and Dempsey 52nd.
I think the finishes of Dempsey and Marciano is an indication of a consensus
of some sort of greatness, if not of the heights of Ali & Louis.
I myself would put Ali and Louis in the top ten, with Marciano probably about
25th and Dempsey and Johnson in the high thirties to low forties.
Being in the top fifty of all athletes of the century shows greatness.

 

In a historical sense, this may be true. but head-to-head, I don't think Louis is a top 2 HW. Sorry.:bbb

 

Almost agree, Foreman's 1990's redemption story sneaks him a place in the greats as well IMO.

 

Evolution of eras is overrated. It's not like basketball or football where the sport has been around for only 120 years or so. Fighting has been around for thousands of years, so the difference in evolution of skill in 1940s and, let's say 1980's fighters is almost non-existant. I think it's fair to compare eras, because not much has changed from 1920 to 2000.:good