Phew...okay...here we go

1. Walcott had at least as good if not better footwork. Ali was "only" faster.

4. Wlad´s power compares very well to Liston´s as does his jab. Very well! I don´t think there is much between them anymore too. Liston is still ahead but not by much.

5. You have a point there. Joe Louis is comparable though. He is faster than Foreman, punches with not much less power and could also muscle and move big hws, see Baers, Carnera and so on.

6. For me it´s Rocky. He´d beat Dempsey too, I think.

 

1 Please watch Hopkins against Trinidad, Tarver and Pavlik to see what you can do with great footwork without great footspeed.

4. I strongly disagree. Holmes´s, Lewis´ and Wlad´s are as good.

 

If you have to break it down to who might have singular better components of their game, I still think he qualifies. Just my opinion, but I consider Holmes to have had the best jab in the history of the division.

But really, I don't agree with the approach of saying, "well, I have to rate so-and-so above this guy because he does this one thing better, and this other guy ahead of him because he has this other component going for him." I just don't think it's as easy as that. Holmes blended a lot of great attributes together that a lot of those fighters with just one or two great things going for them couldn't boast.

So if you're going to break it down into purely mathematical formulas (and I realize I'm enormously simplifying this, pardon that), do you then rate a fighter who scores a 10 in just one area above one who might score an 8 in maybe three or four areas?

I dunno, maybe that's a good (albeit hugely subjective) way to rank fighters.......make a list of maybe 20 attributes you think comprises a boxer's worth, and rank them one through ten (or one to five) in each one. Do the math, and whomever comes out with the highest score wins. I bet a lot of us would surprise themselves with what they see when they tally up the scores. I saw that method employed by a boxing magazine a couple times way back, and thought it interesting.


...........Then again, even that is too subjective to be of any real good.

 

Most would agree with this.

A mature and sensible approach, to be sure, but if the measured restraint you seem to advocate in favor of strictly the factual was adopted by every member of this forum, ESB Classic would become a rather barren landscape. Rampant subjective speculation and idle chit chat keeps the circulation going in this place when it might otherwise be dormant. Also, it results in a kind of dialogue far preferable to the juvenile discourse which permeates the General cesspool.

If challenging trivia and nostalgic reminisces were all this place subsisted on, we'd have an anorexic forum indeed. (Try deleting the fantasy match ups and ratings discussions, then try to imagine how much lower the post and thread counts would be without them!) The discussions here tend to be intelligent, articulate and well informed, and much thoughtful quality writing develops from it.

 

Agreed. Fair enough.

 

Holmes , HW Michael Spinks and Cooney were crap , explains it all .
Cooney hit a 37 years old Ken Norton while he was down , stopped Jimmy Young due to cuts , and stopped a 38 years old Ron Lyle , all were much smaller and older than himself . A partially disabled Foreman destroyed him and same can be said about a half Somali Michael Spinks .
It took Holmes 13 rounds to stop this **** and even that was much more due to exhaustion . Not to mention Holmes' "great" questionable SD win over a middle aged Ken Norton .
It is hard for me to blame Holmes in ducking anyone because his era was about as **** as today , was then a single top contender without serious stamina problems plus a suspect punch resistance ?
Oh ! Holmes had a narrow decision over Tim Witherspoon (whom later stopped Frank Bruno not only because Bruno was the usual no stamina suspect chin type , but mainly because , again , hitting him while down )

I read Holmes was a great finisher , but after watching some of his fights and regretting it , Holmes was a weak fighter .

I am ashamed I had him in my top 10 and it is the proof of the eternal (relative) lack of talent in the HW division , when the bigger men always ruled , except of the times there were no big contenders (Marciano's era) ,
or when an extremely talented small man was around (Langford's era).
And even in Langford's era , while the biggest did not really rule (blacks were ducked ) , Langford himself was far from ruling as he had his problems against the much bigger men , even if to a lesser extent than others had.

 

I rate Holmes very high, but considering the over all history of the heavyweight division anything in the top 10 is good by me.

 

8 is to high

 

Proof is in the pudding all subjective your proof my proof

 

When I think about this, I notice you don't have Frazier ahead of Holmes, and when I think about the two fighting, my gut tells me that prime Frazier beats Holmes. Holmes is one of the greatest, but there is a lot of competition there. I don't think your assessment is out of line.