P4P Top 10 Official Survey (Poll Closes October 27)

I agree, but with the more serious historians I'd only be able to agree to an extent. I'm not quite sure if it's just Ali but the HWs seem to have a exclusive stock on P4P lists. While they couldn't fight as much imo they clearly don't own the unique standing many historians give them. I've seen Louis frequently ahead on P4P lists... even the great Freddie Roach has Joe Louis as the P4P greatest fighter ever. Joe Louis and Ali would probably rank lower here than on a poll averaging trainers and historian opinions I figure, anyway.

Both Foreman and Klitschkos had lengthy rests/retirements after their comebacks. Foreman never really took a beating in the first part of his career and seemed to be an anomaly for some degree. Both of these fighters have a good degree of power, and Vitali has range and height to avoid from being hit. A necessary ingredient for extending your career.

What great Heavyweight do we know that had more than 100 fights? Even guys back in the day at HW didn't fight as much as Lougran, Tunney, Greb, Armstrong, etc.

Robinson who may be more technical gets constantly compared as the prototype for the HW Ali. While Robinson could punch, he clearly had his tools of speed, reflexes, and movement well into his 30's that Ali seemed to lose by the time he was in his early 30's (Say around Manilla). Robinson kept a lot of these tools to a high degree in his fights against Basilio and Fullmer while nearing 40.

Definitely, I tried to restrain from labeling Duran. He's one of the most adaptable fighters of all time, so I think you could call him each one of those things at different times within his career. And I wouldn't label him or call him that post Montreal-Leonard.

Oh, no doubt I agree. I was thinking you referring in general and my point was that we have plenty here that don't. You know, all those are interestingly apart of the Ali team. Pacheco was his doctor, Dundee was his trainer, and Hauser although a very objective journalist in boxing wrote an autobiography on Ali. I'd understand if they had their bias.

Ali was ranked #2 on the ESPN boxing poll of greatest fighters of all time. Absolutely absurd, of course. So with ESPN and the more mainstream casuals it really starts to become more transparent and apparent. At the same time like I said before Freddie Roach has Joe Louis at his #1 P4P of all time. Might say something about the HWs. And I don't think some penalize them for not being able to fight 100+ fights or have as long careers (Maybe substantial is the more appropriate word).

I see what you're saying. I can't really envision a HW having 200 fights, though. how many fights did Frazier, Dempsey, Louis, Ali, and Marciano have altogether? Around 200, probably a little more. I feel the experience criteria you share gets ignored or merely dismissed for Heavyweights. Otherwise, how do some of these guys have Louis so high as well? Forget Ali for a second... that's even harder to justify for me. I think Ali in the top 5 is little steep personally, but if its ranking based on just film then I can respect that list.

Yes, Ali's chin I think was seen as a weakness but I think during his title reign it was more perceived in the unknown since he hadn't really been hurt since and he had take a degree of punchers.

You make a good point, but you forget that when getting inside or in smothering opposition you also smother their power. Ali tries to be out of reach but when he gets caught he gets caught with full leveraged extension... as we saw when he fought Cooper. He got hit with a bodacious left hook as Bert Sugar would say. Now, I think the better question is did Duran ever get hit so cleanly so early to draw a comparison. And maybe the even better question is it fair to criticize a young and not even fully matured fighter's chin in the grand schemes of things when overlooking his career? I think it's fair to downplay those early examples of a young Cassius Clay to some extent at the very least.

 

Ali's stuff is really the stuff of legends. It's unbelievable in a sense to see a boxer-mover type like that rely on such great will to overcome. Generally we associate this type of toughness and bravado with forward-aggressive type fighters. Boxers are the ones that are supposed to be scared to get hit... that's what makes them great.

Quite a handful to respond to but I'll try. I think Heavyweights are more damaging and therefore these big men can't take these big punishing blows go on to have as much fights. And while you mention that little men throw more punches and how a damaging war can be more debilitating, you have to factor the fact that HW wars are bigger punchers and in a division where 1 punch has more impact to change the course of history, it can also change the course of the psychology of a fighter. It's got to shake you up. I'm sure it did when Shavers nearly had Holmes a defeated champion after one huge right hand.

I also don't think Patterson was an active fighter offensively like you describe. At least if he is that's setting a low standard which many many lower end fighters can surpass and match. Patterson seemed to have two careers, though. And while the younger Patterson was more aggressive, he was still a fairly patient fighter as we see in his title fights against guys like Roy Harris and such. In his second run, he was a boxer-mover and racked up a little quality wins being patient coming in and out, etc. Holyfield was also not the most high-output fighter offensively. I think you'd be surprised at some of his punch totals in some of his HW title fights. Only when he was brought to war did he try to out-will and out-tough his opposition.

It's also kind of hard to use rest less as a method of setting this judgment. Holyfield and Patterson use plenty of energy, but I wouldn't call them very high output guys... well at least Patterson. I'm not sure I would call Ali a highly active offensive fighter either. But he hardly rested, so I can't dispute that judgment. I think that theory can hold fairly well across all divisions generally speaking (Lower divisions do seem to spawn more defensive counter-punchers with the exception of James Toney). Are you suggesting smaller fighters are more patient or smarter?

I also think there are plenty of counter examples to your theory. Gene Tunney was the master of strategy, patience, and ring guile and look what he did to Dempsey. His idea wasn't to attack but to counteract (Counterattack). Lennox Lewis, Larry Holmes, Jim Corbett, Jack Johnson are all great HW counter-examples that like to control the pace by slowing it down and being patient and sometimes counter-punching.

As for your example of how someone like Marciano would do. Considering his legendary almost MW like stamina at HW, I'd imagine his stamina would be freakish and unsurpassed against smaller opposition as well. I think he'd also be lighter on his feet and perhaps more able to fire his firepower at fighters more often. And with his already awesome P4P power I don't see how LaMotta would have a pray against him. I think LaMotta was greatly skilled, and I do feel his defense was a little superior (Though they fought similarly, Jake's had to have better defense). Marciano would brutalize him with power and pace and I don't feel like their skills are that far separated. In fact, Marciano does some things better. I think Marciano has better punch variation and unpredictable awkwardness to his attack. I think he throws a better uppercut and gets better leverage coming from the ground up (Jake has a tendency to sometimes fight hunched during exchanges. He doesn't get nearly as good leverage as Rocky). I also think his will is on another level. How much better is someone like Chavez than Marciano as far as P4P and or skills? Chavez throws better combination, but Marciano was an superior puncher with even superior stamina. Their chins, heart, and defense are comparable (Actually, Marciano might have an argument for a superior defense).

Think of someone like Basilio at what he did with heart and stamina. Surely he had good skills and could counter-punch but his skills weren't merely winning him fights. Imagine if he was even a better puncher. This is a sport where the mind is nearly as important as having all the tools.

Frazier was the reincarnation of Henry Armstrong style. Archie Moore said he was the only one to successful duplicate Armstrong's swarming style. Speaking of Frazier, how many fights did he have in comparison to the lower weight guys like LaMotta, Chavez, and Armstrong?

Fair enough. It's hard to find an ATG HW with superior durability, though.

 

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Willie Pep
5. Roberto Duran
6. Joe Louis
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Ezzard Charles
9. Benny Leonard
10. Charley Burley

Sorry, I don't know as much as most of you guys. I also don't know enough about Sam Langford to include him.

 

I don't think anyone can justify not including Napoles in these "Top 10 fighters we have extensive enough film of" lists.

 

But you can excuse Ali? You're just trying to be different so you seem more knowledgeable.

 

No, dip****, I go on what I ****ing see, alright? The last time you questioned my placement of Napoles over Ali I gave a clear analysis as to why I did it and you were nowhere to be found. If all you're interested in is making dismissive comments then **** off and join the shower of gobshites over on General.

 

And I was talking about a H2H list of fighters on film anyway. So stupid and blind...

 

Yes, and fighters who fought 100+ times have to get some credit. Fighters fight and the less they fight, the less credit they earn in that department. HW's fight less -and it's probably biological reasons why (like the big lions) but dems dah breaks.

Sure, but Robinson is an anomaly. He's up in the stratosphere. And Ali was an unusual HW -relying on speed and combinations and mobility more than damn near every HW ever. Thus his success -he fought like a smaller man and that was also part of the comments about him.

I agree and so emphasized prime-for-prime. Prime Ali would pull back from shots and step out of range. He moved outside of the oponents reach and that is easier. Now, of course he paid for this as he aged and younger guys began closing that distance, but his defense was of the safer sort. Duran was maneuvering inside the zone -at puncher's range to invite shots so that he could counter, and yes inside. However, to get inside there are windows of opportunity. There are less when you have a 6'3 specimen moving around like a butterfly and shooting straight shots from outside that are 81 inches away.

 

I'm not so sure that the HW power differential is much more than relative. In other words, sure they hit harder, but they also have large frames with necks that absorb the shock better than, for instance, mine. But if you look at pure, one-punch KO artists up there, there just isn't as many as there are in the lower divisions. I think that the main reason for that is SPEED. What guys like Julian Jackson, McClellan, Hearns, et al. did was turn out the lights. Bigger guys typically club you to death. And the shots are wider and easier to see.

So, HWs have heavier guns, yes, but laser-type power is more severe, they also punch wider, slower, and less. I don't think that stats bear out your thesis that the division is more dangerous. I'll have to check and see but I believe that the lower divisions have more ring fatalities.

I'm suggesting that lower divisions have more to deal with in terms of offense and aggression. And those HW examples I offered were more active as compared to other HWs -not the lower divisions. Frazier was busy, busy, busy, Holyfield was as well until roughly '93. Ali punched in blistering combination. Marciano did not stop...etc. Check out the punch stats of damn near all HW fights in the last ten years for confirmation. Compare those to the undercard.

Sure, and then you have the punchers. I'm saying that HWs with big outputs tend to do better because most of their peers are not busy.

Well-said. You may be right. These are "shrinky-dink" debates though and they are too speculative to make sense, though I see that you can make it interesting. Perhaps a thread might pop up about Marciano vs. LaMotta sometime. I'd join it.

Yep -and that hurts his legacy and is one of the factors that keeps me from launching him into an elite status.

Damn right. And I'll tell you, his durability was bolstered by his will. He was not, in my opinion, structured as duracel-tough as a Marciano or a Jeffries, but he enhanced it with a will that is absolutely shocking. He had a will that would match Marciano and exceed even Holyfield's.

.....................
* Let me say that yours was an extraordinary post. You're a thinker and you know your stuff very well. It's a pleasure to disagree with you.

 

This is my feeling on the issue too, I have to say.

 

I`ll admit, if the footage is not that great for me to enjoy, I do struggle for motivation when researching these guys.

 

How on earth is video supposed to "justify" what's on their records? What they've done, they've done, and that isn't going to change whether you happen to see video of them or not. Their accomplishments justify the video, not vice versa.

How is it "ridiculous" to exclude a fighter from a top 10 list when 10 other fighters with equal or better achievements can easily be found? :huh

 

I watch boxing because I enjoy watching it & I haven`t seen 10 boxers that deserve to be ranked over Ali.

Hope thats OK with you.

 

That still doesn't explain why you think it's "ridiculous" that OTHER PEOPLE'S LISTS wouldn't have Ali on them. That means that not only you think everyone else should limit their lists to only fighters they have seen extensively, but also that no one has seen footage you haven't.

 

Oooooohhh ****! He gotchu, Bill. He gotchu!