The Best 3 All Time Heavyweights - Primes.

That's why I had him at 3.

But his resume isn't that of Joe Louis, who was HW champ for 11 years with 25 title defenses...

 

H2h aside,based on greatness and acievements
1-Ali of course
2-Louis
3-Holmes
4-Marciano
5-Lewis

 

I rate Lewis verry highly.

He beat a large volume of ranked contenders and a superb title reign.

What knocks him out of the 3 bracket is the durability issue. I think that if he had a slightly better chin (even Joe Louis grade) he would have been almost unbeatable.

 

Yes later in Tyson's career he rallied to beat Botha when he was behind on the cards. But most people simply dismiss this due to Botha not being an elite fighter.

Against Douglas, Tyson was getting beat up bad but in the 8th round he rallied to drop Douglas and possibly would of finished him off had the bell not rang. Tyson went out on his shield.

Tyson losing to Lewis reflects nothing on him in his prime, all he had left was power and it was still enough for him to win the first round and get the title shot in the first place. The Douglas and Holyfield fights do hurt his legacy but it was clear it was not the same Tyson that fought Spinks, Biggs, and Holmes. If you fault Tyson for losing to Douglas, and Holyfield I can fault Foreman for losing to Jimmy Young.

Foreman's win over Frazier overshadows any single win on Tyson's resume, but Tyson's overall body of work overshadows Foremans. Tyson had wins over Spinks, Holmes, Tubbs, Biggs, Ruddock, Bruno, Thomas, Tucker, Berbick, Golota if you want to count him, Stewart, Williams, Bonecrusher Smith who were all solid top ten fighters. Foreman has Frazier, Norton, Moorer, and Lyle. An old Chuvalo and Peralta are OK fighters. Foreman won the title at 45 that's a great accomplishment but Tyson was the youngest HW champ ever at 20, so that evens it out.

 

Great post!

 

Tyson gets sold short in one key respect.

Although his title reighn was short he actualy beat a huge volume of ranked contenders.

If you ranked the heavyweight champions based on how many curently ranked contenders they beat Tyson would be one of the best (honestly). He was beating the kind of ranked contenders that make up parts of some all time greats resumes late into his career.

To put what I am saying in perspective, the "shell of Mike Tyson" was still beating guys like Golotta.

How many fighters beat guys like that when they were shells?

 

Maybe what you're saying is that in their primes they are interchangable, and that if we want to throw in a series of three all bets are off.

 

Great post. People say Tyson was simply a shooting star, but when he was at his best for those 4 years he beat as many or more good fighters as pretty much anyone else in history.

I also agree with your Golota example, Tyson had little of the technique, body work, hand speed, stamina of the 80s but still was beating ranked and highly regarded fighters late into his career.

I'm just saying that due to Louis having the huge amount of title defenses/longevity on top/beating a huge number of ranked contenders and staying dangerous while old like Tyson (Louis was much better as he got older, actually), puts him above him in terms of just his overall resume/accomplishments. Head to head Tyson knocks him out imo.

 

1. Ali 1966-67. Just too fast and skillful. Unreal in some regards.
2. Lewis late 90's. It feels like a toss-up between Louis and Lewis, but I'll go with Lewis just to stand out a bit. No one with that size, strength and power has ever been as skillful as Lewis. Could lose focus, but I'm working from the assumption that everyone brings their A-game here.
3. Louis 1939-1942. Perfect punching machine. Deadly finisher. Like Lewis he was a killer in rematches as well.


Liston or Tyson could perhaps occupy a slot if they hadn't shown such failings when faced with adversity (especially when it comes to Tyson). Since more or less every match-up against other ATG:s would include a serious risk for adversity this is a bad defect to have in these kind of scenarious.

 

Why in the world more with Tyson? Liston lost his title by quitting on his stool after 6 rounds against a lighthitting Clay. Tyson had to get beat on for 10 rounds by Douglas and he still rallied to knock Douglas down late in the fight and went out like a champion. The Tyson of the 90s was mentally weak, yes, but the young Tyson pre prison never showed me that he crumbled or had any failings when faced with adversity...

 

Jack Johnson. Even if some people say Jeffries wasn't prime or that he took a dive against Willard, Johnson was ahead of his time and is arguably the best defensive heavyweight of all time.

Joe Louis. His title reign atop the heavyweight division for nearly 12 years is still unchallenged to this date. He had some close calls and controversial decisions with Conn, Galento and Walcott, but he's arguably right beside Johnson as the best heavyweight of all time.

Rocky Marciano. Nobody can argue with perfection. Yeah, the Louis he beat was far past his prime, Archie Moore had him in trouble and some thought Charles deserved the nod in their contest, but Marciano has done what others still haven't done in their careers.

 

I don't see why post-prison Tyson would be weaker. Usually you get mentally stronger with age.

He floored Douglas and KO'd Botha, but he would always have a punchers chance. When things started to get rough for him they just went rougher. I wouldn't say he crumbled exactly, but often it seemed like he just went through the motions when he stopped believing in his chances too win.

 

Hm, you knock Foreman for beating an old Chuvalo but count Holmes. A bit strange imo. the other thing i want to correct is that Tyson isn´t the youngest hw champ, that´s still Patterson. When Tyson won the linear title he was older than Patterson when he won the title.
Beside this, solid post :good

 

Based on resumes:

1. Joe Louis

2. Muhammad Ali

3. Rocky Marciano

(Louis gets it this month--next month I may go back to Ali--Lennox Lewis I have at #4, Larry Holmes at #5)