This statement is grossly ill-informed. Moore's Top Heavyweight Wins: Lavorante 6'4" 211 lbs Nino Valdez 6'3" 209 lbs Bob Baker 6'2" 209 lbs Clarence Henry 6'1" 185 lbs Jimmy Bivins 5'9" 180-190lbs Curtis Shepard 5'11" 198 lbs
And how many fights Moore had at HW? 3 of those fighters are a stretch. Sheppard? Comon... I don't think that mentioning 185 lb Henry and Bivins makes my statement ill-informed.
Let's say that we have different opinions Well, I didn't said nothing about fiirst LaStarza fight or that how Charles and Walcott battered Rocky. I'm not ultimate Marciano hater, I admire him but just can't see him in my top 10 right now. And nobody would ever be objective when it comes to ranking fighters I fully understand that. It's not Marciano's fault that this was the way HW div looked like. Just as I can't blame Tyson that there was no Lewis, Bowe or Holy in his prime years. But still, I can't give him handicap because he was 49-0 in not too great era. We were discussing 4 Liston fights and 6 Marciano's. For me beating Patterson x 2, Williams x 2, Machen, Folley, Harris, DeJohn, Valdes is better and deeper than beating Charles x2, Walcott x 2, 38-year old Louis, LaStarza x 2, Layne, Moore. I think that Machen is better victory than all Rocky's wins exepct those with JJW and Ez.
-I would say Moore probably has close to 60+ HW fights. You are free to research them at you leisure, but you would be surprised to see that the majority of his opponents were not "just over 175lb" but in fact in the 190-200lb+ range. -Sheppard was a top 10 heavyweight well over 175 lbs. Please explain how this is a stretch and why you object to his inclusion? -Henry and Bivins were included because they were two of his best HW wins and about 185 when he defeated them. The only HW contender on his resume that really fits your description would be Jimmy Slade, barely 180.
Very much. I don´t think there was a real difference between the eras between the late 20s and early 80s. Before it´s hard to compare because it was a different sport and afterwards boxing is on a downward spirale in it´s biggest nations (US and UK) and thus the depth is going back. I know you are not a Marciano hater. But I see you trying to twist everything in Liston´s favour. And I call you out on that. Nobody can be objective but you can try. You know you are favouring Liston here, you posted it yourself, so, why not fixing that and try beeing more objective? The era wasn´t any worse than before or later. The top contenders of this era would have been top contenders in any era, just like the top contenders of every era. No, go back it was an argument about the depth of their resumes. No way. Archie Moore is a better win than everyone bar Patterson on Liston´s list. Please research his hw resume. It´s very impressive. He beat multiple good to very good or even borderline great fighters and only lost to 4 fighters, 3 of them were named Marciano, Patterson and Ali. I see no argument for Liston beeing higher than Marciano. Especially not when taking his complete resume into account, including his losses, and when taking their achievements - 49-0 and number of title defences - into account. Sorry.
1. Joe Louis: The Pinnacle of Perfection. Retired during his first stint with a record of 60-1 record with 25 title defenses, something that is unrivaled to this day. Muhammad beat better fighters but Joe can't control when he's born and he cleaned out the division and held on to the title for more than a decade. His reign should be the envy of all champions that come after him. 2. Muhammad Ali: Easily the best Heavyweight resume, period. Interchangeable with Joe Louis IMO for the top spot. He's one of the few fighters that if he were switch with any other heavyweight he'd likely have an easier schedule than they would. 3. Jack Johnson: For all the credit that Liston gets for his pre-title run, Jack Johnson before winning the Heavyweight Championship beat alot of great fighters (Sam Langford, Sam McVea, Joe Jeannette are a solid bunch) as the Colored Heavyweight Champ. Under his circumstances he made the best of his opportunities. Made 7 defenses of his title before being outlasted by Jess Willard. 4. Larry Holmes: Going on a streak of 48-0, 7 year reign with 20 title defenses has to count for something. Its simply not an easy thing to do. Even after the Mike Tyson loss he was 42 years old and he was able to beat Ray Mercer more decisively than Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis legitimately earning him a title shot despite being well past his sell by date. 5. Rocky Marciano: The only heavyweight champion to retire undefeated. That alone warrants a top 5 ranking. I have him behind Holmes simply because Holmes came to 48-0 with 20 title defenses whereas when Marciano was 48-0 he only had 5 title defenses. Holmes consistency carries the day since his schedule was tougher, but make no mistake Rocky Marciano is a top 5 HW Champion because his title defenses consisted of #1 & 2 ranked contenders only and of course because he never lost. 6. Mike Tyson: Solid reign, cleaned the division blemish free with 9 title defenses creating no doubts as to who the champion was nor who the best fighter in the world was. Despite having the potential to make it to the top of his list, his person demons became his short comings. But make no mistake 1986-1990 was Mike Tyson's. Incidentally he was one of the last Heavyweight Champions to rank #1 on consensus p4p lists for 3 straight years. After he lost he picked up a few good wins even winning 2/3rds of the Heavyweight Belts after a 4 year stint in jail. His resume also has alot of depth. 7. Joe Frazier: Never gets credit for clearing out the division but he did, in addition to it he had what was probably the best Heavyweight Win; he beat an undefeated Muhammad Ali solidifying his claim as the Champion. From 1969-1973 the Heavyweight Division belonged to him. Ranks below Tyson because Mike was able to remain a force after losing his title 8. Lennox Lewis: Beaten every single he's faced including his heir apparent, Vitaly Klitschko. Although his signature wins consist of fighters past their sell by date, his resume has alot depth. Although he's known for his longevity his reign as champ was from 1999-2003. 9. George Foreman: His first career is not enough to get him into the top 10 list. But when you combine his second career, then you have something that's never really been replicated in sports. It is a testament of his ability to maintain effectiveness at an advanced age. He has some great signature wins but his resume really lacks depth that the 8 fighters above him have and his reign as champ was almost always brief. 10. Evander Holyfield: Although he lacked the consistency of those above him, he almost can never be counted out evidenced by the only 4 time Heavyweight Champion. Faced of the best of the 90s and always gave a good account of himself win lose or draw. Has a strong resume with alot of depth.
Hard to give a **** these days, but it's the classic one isn't it? I always think that Ali and Louis are pretty much set in stone as 1 and 2, then it's all pretty much up for grabs. Wills belongs though.
1. Louis 2. Ali 3. Dempsey 4. Johnson 5. Foreman 6. Holmes 7. Marciano 8. Tyson 9. Frazier 10. Holyfield
Look at Sheppard's record it's a spiders web weaved from W and L. 185 lb is 10 lbs over LHW limit - 4,5 kg. I would call it a borederline but you can say that he was full and good HW. I also think that earlier eras were as good as those we call modern, but I'm not convinced that early 50's were special. I don't look at fighters losses when he is way past prime (Holyfield, Charles, Walcott etc.) I'm focusing on their prime, their best years. Longer fighter has one then it's better for him. Liston had shoulder injury in first fight with Ali. 6 doctors confirmed that. He wasn't well prepared cause nobody knew what kind of fighter Clay would turn out to be. It was a draw on the scorecards but I think that Cassius was to fast for Sonny though. Second fight was very probably a fix, but also I know how mutch Liston wanted to get his revenge, he was training like in the old days, loosing pounds, standing on the head, running and beating the **** out of his sparringpartners. Then Clay got injured and the fight was postponed 6 months. Sonny get back to his bad habits gambling, drinking and roaring in his black caddilac in LV. Add to this death threats from Nation of Islam and pressure from Carbo. I don't think so, a player like Machen was on a higher level than most of top 40/50's fighters. Those heavies were tough and exciting to watch, it's a sentimental era when fighters gave fans what they paid for. That's my opinion. It depends how do you like Marciano's and Liston's opponents. I'm very high on Machen and Folley. Moore was a marvelous fighter and I see your point. But still he was one of that "small" (hate to use that word really) heavyweight losing and gaining pounds to dance between LHW and HW. I really would lock down Rocky as a top 10 HW if he fought big puncher in his prime, closest that come to mind are Q Murray or Elmer Ray but I think they might have be a little past it when Rocky was on the rise. I have to tell you that this discussion made me thinking more about Rocky in positive way.
Nice list ironchamp, that's what I'm talking about. To point out what impressed you the most in particular fighters career.
The way he was held in such regard during a time when the nation's never been so knowledgeable about boxing is impossible for me to overlook. I think it's easy today to discount what he did because we don't have many of his most spectacular performances on film and he suffers for that, but it doesn't seem fair of me to assume we know more about Dempsey and how good he was than the people who saw him fight and were there to see him take apart top contenders in unprecedented fashion. There's also never been as many fighters fighting in the division as there were then, so to climb to the top of the heap in that environment and in that fashion also scores points in my book. Do I wish the Wills fight would've happened? Absolutely. But I believe he gets routinely punished too much for that and even without that fight, I still think he has better accomplishments and a better resume than guys he's routinely ranked lower than today like Marciano and Liston. To fight with that style, with that many fights, that level of durability, and that much success at heavyweight is still unheard of. And that's not even counting the 100 or so unrecorded fights he had. There's a striking similarity in how we view Ali today (right down to the war ducking issues) and how Dempsey was viewed - both being larger than life, almost mythic figures. Even though I've played devil's advocate on Ali before, I still believe it's only fair to put alot of weight on the reputation and reverence he's held in by his peers when figuring out a ranking. By the same token, the people who know boxing (really know boxing) much better than I do, the ones who've trained champions and lived in the sport and seen him fight, all hold Dempsey in so much higher regard than the average fan and poster here. At the end of the day, the former is who I put my money on as having a better grasp of just how good he was. I also just love the dude's story and it's been really inspiring to learn more about him. Not the most objective of measures, but hey, 90% of these lists boil down to who you like best anyway. :!::good