I pick entirely on historical impact. Not on head to head guesses. 1-----Joe Louis 2-----Muhammad Ali 3-----Rocky Marciano 4-----Tom Cribb 5-----Jack Johnson 6-----Lennox Lewis 7-----Jim Jeffries 8-----John L Sullivan 9-----Jack Dempsey 10----Wladimir Klitschko I am brand new on the board. My board name is Edward Morbius. My real name is Joseph Ellsworth and I live in rural western Iowa. I am 63 years old and have always been a boxing fan. I just put up this thread to sort of introduce myself. I have been reading through some of your old threads and found several fascinating (Where should Dempsey rate? Jeffries? etc) as well as the factual data given by such as hhascup. Wonderful. And all the great films. Thanks for all of you who posted those. Anyway, hello and I hope we enjoy exchanging viewpoints.
One of the more interesting lists I have seen. Cribb, Sullivan, Ali and Klitschko on the same list. What are the criteria?
"What are the criteria?" 1. Meeting and beating the best of his time (which is why Dempsey ended up that low) 2. Dominance (did he prove himself better than his opposition-which is why Marciano ended up that high) 3. Longevity 4. Historical impact
Marciano is the only heavyweight champion to sweep his opposition, except perhaps Henry Pearce, whose record is probably incomplete. I think that earns Marciano a pretty high place.
Wladimir has met neither Vitali or Lewis who are the best of his time. He didn't even manage Holyfield.
Okay point, except it seems unfair to criticize him for not fighting Vitali, and Lennox was the champion who didn't defend against him when he was the #1 contender.
Wlad earned his spot for me over what he has done the last five years or so. I just wouldn't know who ducked who vis-a-vis Lennox. And by the time Wlad became champ, I think Holyfield was really washed up. Perhaps others disagree.
I'm not disagreeing with any of that, i'm just saying that based upon your #1 criteria Wladamir's inclusion is questionable. He isn't tested at the highest level, and that is a fact, regardless of politics or blood ties.
Okay, but I really can't blame him for not fighting his brother. This is a unique situation and I personally give both of them a pass on that one. Have brothers ever met in the ring? As for Lennox, well he's been gone for 8 years. That is quite a while by historical boxing standards and during that time Wlad has pretty much cleaned out the division except, of course, for Vitali.
That brings us to another point. If Cribb is on the list, then why not Pearce, Belcher or indeed some of the later LPR fighters such as Mace?
Sonny Liston Criteria # 1: He met and beat the best of his time: Floyd Patterson, Cleveland Williams, Eddie Machen, Zora Folley. All of these men in their primes. Criteria # 2: He dominated his top opposition. Patterson, Folley, and williams, 5-0 with 5 early knockouts. Machen a clear unanimous decision win. Criteria # 3: Longevity. Liston didn't have the longevity like other champions because he already cleaned out his division before he won the title. Criteria # 4 Historical Impact. Hmm not much...although he was mob controlled fighter who was soooo good the mob just unleashed him rather than protected him. I think he rates extremly high in your top 2 criterias, enough to move him well into your top 10. I consider Liston top 5 all time.
"On 10 December 1810 he fought an American, former slave Tom Molineaux, at Shenington Hollow in Oxfordshire. Cribb beat Molineaux in 35 rounds and became World champion. This victory was achieved through controversy though, as Cribb was clearly outclassed by the American, being humiliated round after round until he was easily defeated. This caused a riot to ensue and a mob soon descended on the ring swiftly attacking Molineaux and his black trainer. They broke his hand, six ribs and left him badly battered all over; only then did they restart the match. Molineaux fought on bravely only to be finally defeated eleven rounds later." When men were men aye, burt? They don't make them like they used to in those halycon days, lo