Louis and Ali - the only TRUE great heavyweights

The corner rule (not necessarily neutral) had been introduced in the Marquis of Queensberry rules in the middle of 19th century.

 

If you and I agree that a middling team in the NFL last year could
have beaten the 1960's Green Bay Packers or the 1970's Pittsburg
Steelers, does that make that team "greater". Such a definition of
greatness has no meaning at all to me.

 

I could knock some fighters (Holmes slightly )for not meeting certain fighters, but I would never knock Holmes for not giving rematches. A guy that busy (20 defenses) who has already beaten someone is not diminished by not beating the same someone twice.

 

i agree

 

I have Ali, Louis and Marciano in that "bracket" of being truly great - Objectively, their records stand out above all.

In the next bracket, I have the likes of Liston, Tyson, Lewis, Holmes, Jack Johnson, Holyfield, Frazier and Foreman.

Then I have the likes of Floyd Patterson, Jeffries, Dempsey, Bowe, Langford among others.

But this is not a head-to-head rating, obviously. More a pound for pound rating although not entirely.

 

I too bracket Ali and Louis above the rest.

 

Some truth to that statement.

 

Bit early to say Tyson Fury ?

 

Well, I think Louis and Ali are to heavyweight boxing what Walter Johnson was to pitching a baseball -- brilliant/dominant at their best, and very well sustained careers.
And some hvy's are like Sandy Koufax -- terrific over a shorter period; and some are like ****** Spahn -- not quite so overwhelmingly dominant, but certainly a top-rank pitcher, and very effective for a long time.
Well, I certainly wouldn't wish to hold that Walter Johnson was great, but Koufax and Spahn weren't. I'd rather say that they were all great, but that Johnson was distinguished even among the great; mutatis mutandis (with appropriate modification), the same for, say, Marciano and Johnson, and Louis and Ali.

Regarding legacy -- I think a strong consideration of legacy is valid if it's asking whether the boxer treated his opposition the way one would expect a great boxer of his style to do. A guy can only fight the fellows who are around in his day, but one can always consider (a phrase I borrow from TED SPOON) consider quality of performance in light of the caliber of opposition.

I think boxers should be considered on the basis of 1) what they did and didn't do; 2) their developed assets and liabilities; 3) natural potential and how they may have (or failed to have) adapted to other times.

 

No; he's number one!:hey

 

Sorry but they are not on Carl Froch's level. :conf