My top 10 Heavyweight list

This is a fair analysis, but you also have to count the negatives, which J Thomas did. Foreman was tactically inept compared to other brilliant fighters and was 1 dimensional, despite being a destructive 1 dimension.

But where you have him is fine. I'd take a wonderfully skilled HW like Holmes, who lasted as a top ranked guy for so much longer over Foreman, personally.

They had those views because they lack the insight we do now with all of the correct and knowledgable hindsight we have about fighters. Obviously Louis was superior to Dempsey, I am sure the best analysts of the 60's considered this also.

This viewpoint is almost going backwards, it'd be comparable to given a respect mark to flawed scientific views of the past that have since been corrected.

Many of these ****s were also racists, I am afraid.

Tyson was more skilled however, more impressive over better fighters with better skill and finesse than Dempsey fought and more of a physical phenom. They are not even comparable, even though Dempsey was past his best, losing to a LHW so wide is utterly embarassing. The past his best Tyson was still competitive with the best and still mopped up overmatched opponents.

In my opinion, Dempsey doesn't belong in the top 10 on resume or head to head ability, he looks very incompetent on film.

This is a legitimate reason to rank him higher, I agree with this.

All valid points. However, I don't rank Lewis in the top 3 like J. Thomas, but I think he's a good mention for anywhere in the top 10.

It's impossible to rank guys like Liston over Lewis, especially lacking the resume and having embarassing losses also. Likewise for Dempsey, who's resume is really nothing at all.

Likewise for Marciano really, who's undefeated resume is way inflated and who's head to head ability is way low.

Lewis is a monster head to head, he was excellent at protecting his chin and packed a good punch and had an impressive arsenal of skills, so top 5 is reasonable from his overall resume and his head to head ability.

 

Well, in my opinon, the Tyson of the 80's fought a superior crop compared to Marciano and destroyed them much easier, even though he obviously doesn't have an undefeated record, at his peak, he ripped through a better set of fighters.

Aging LHW's, even ATG's and an aging Louis just doesn't do it for me, especially when he struggled more with these guys than Tyson did. Marciano also retired before he started declining, while Tyson stayed in to long and was fighting past his best post-prison on, yet his post-prison record up to the early 2000's was actually pretty respectable, only losing to two other top 10 ATG's.

Marciano took 8 rounds to defeat an aging Louis.

Tyson took 4 to defeat an aging Holmes, who evidently still had something serious left in the tank jugding by what he did next.

Likewise with Tyson's blowout of an ATG LHW in Spinks.

Then Tyson's H2H ability, which is very high. I find it impossible to rank Marciano higher, undefeated or not.

 

I don't count head to head too much, as that is even more subjective than evaluating achievements/accomplishments. I will admit that if you were to give heavier weight to that you could justify ranking Lewis higher, although I would still say top five is too high, because H2H Lewis' chin could always let him down, particularly against punchers. And anyway you slice it, even with H2H factored in, he still shouldn't outrank Holyfield, who arguably beat him anyway H2H when he was past his best.

 

H2H is subjective, but it's able to be analysed to accurate levels, creating a strong likely of what would have happened.

Lewis is absolutely a top 5 H2H, probably number 5, I can only pick 4 fighters over him legitimately confidence and they would go as -

Tyson, Holyfield, Holmes & Foreman.

But he could beat Holmes, Foreman and Holyfield just the same. Mike Tyson is really the only 'dead certainty' over Lewis prime/prime, because there is no way his chin will hold up to that early storm and Tyson was excellent at following up on a hurt opponent more so than the others listed.

Guys pre-60's were just too small or didn't even have the modernised skillset to compete with a guy like Lewis.

Plus, resume needs to be looked at critically, and if you do that, you'll see that Lewis has quite a good one. Holyfield being ranked over Lewis is completely fine, I have them tied in the era anyway.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on my response to your response to J Thomas on Dempsey, I felt I brought up some accurate points about using old analysts as an indicator.

 

This I thoroughly agree with - in fact, I think signing up Steward and making defensive adjustments are what prevented him from getting KOd more, frankly.

As for the rest, sure it's true Lewis doesn't have control over McCall's debilitation - but given McCall's condition, and his utter mental collapse in the ring, this hardly constitutes "brutally" avenging anything. That's sheer hyperbole - but then we all do it!

Anyway, night fellas - it's been fun as always. I truly enjoy discussing and debating all this with y'all!:good

 

I will get back to you tomorrow on that, my friend!:yep

And perhaps rejoin our old debate again, JT! :good

C-ya, fellas!:tired

 

Comparing Marciano against Louis to Tyson against Holmes, I think it is interesting that Holmes on ESPN recently said he thought that he would have beaten Tyson is he could only have lasted through the sixth round. The fact is Marciano gave Louis the worst defeat of his career and Tyson gave Holmes his worst defeat. But the length does not prove that much. As Holmes intimated, Tyson was a swift starter who weakened if he didn't finish his opponent early. Marciano got stronger as the fight went on. Holmes at least feels he would have won if he only could have lasted a couple of more rounds. I doubt if Louis felt that way about Marciano.

 

Hey, I wasn't being serious.
I was just caricaturing an argument that to me already verges on the absurd.

It's okay you saying "Vitali lost the fight with no excuses" but the when some Vitali-supporters discuss the fight it sounds like a lot of alibis and excuses to me.

Sure, Vitali fought well, (a lot better than Spinks against Tyson), but to make a big deal out of "He might have won if he hadn't been stopped" is a meaningless argument, since the stoppage was perfectly normal and fair under modern standards.

Sometimes people do try "X would have beaten Y if Y hadn't knocked him out first" as an alibi. That's my point with Spinks-Tyson. Obviously I'm not of the opinion that Lewis-Klitschko was a one-sided destruction ala Spinks-Tyson, I'm just pointing out where alibis and excuses can lead us.

Horrific cut suggests it was a fair stoppage, no complaints. As you would agree.

The way I see it is Klitschko was forced to quit because he hadn't fought well enough. The art of boxing demands you avoid the most damaging punches, which Klitschko failed to do.

To be fair to Michael Spinks, Tyson was all over him so quickly with so much speed and power that I'm not even sure I can criticize Spinks anymore for his choice of performance. He simply wasn't good enough, which I say is more or less the reason any fighter loses a fight, assuning all things are on the level.

 

In your excitment to get the list completed you missed out Jim Jeffries, Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey.