The Best 3 All Time Heavyweights - Primes.

No. His influence ****ed it up. Maybe the yanks are all gung-ho over the guy- and he was truly great for a while- but that clinching, clowning, holding the ropes, holding behind the head, pandering to the audience and judges, the sense of entitlement that he dragged into the ring that he was BETTER than the sport RUINED the boxing for decades. Hundreds of less talented fighters tried to emulate that **** and ended up turning the sport into an arena for candy-assed whiners.

No, sir, you are wrong.

 

1-Balboa
2-Butterbean
3-Audley Harrison

 

1 - Ali
2 - Louis
3 - Lewis

 

Here, here!

 

Well said.

Ali may not be the best boxer of all time, but he is by far the most well known.

He was a damn good influence, and was idolised by many of the fighters that came after him (if it wasn't for Ali we could have lost some of our best pugilists of the last few years to other sports/occupations).

 

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Larry Holmes

 

For me the best 3 by a fair margin are Rocky Marciano, Mohammed Ali and Joe Louis. The only tricky part is getting them in the correct order.

JOE LOUIS: By mid 1948, Joe Louis was 60-1-0. It’s hard to argue that by then he wasn’t the best there’d ever been (until that time). His only blemish had been a loss to Max Shmelling in 1936, and 52 of his 60 wins had been by KOs. The only doubts that can be raised on Louis are the extra bouts he had after this time (in order to pay the taxman) and the quality of some of his earlier opponents. But his record, especially for longetivity as World Champion, is unique.

ROCKY MARCIANO: When Marciano retired undefeated in 1955 his record read 49 wins, 43 of them by KO. He beat amongst others Jersey Joe Walcott, Joe Loius, Ezzard Charles & Archie Moore. In my mind he’d probably surpassed Joe Louis. Louis was certainly a better boxer, in the purest sense. But Marciano was a wrecking ball! The fact that Marciano retired undefeated was the cream on the cake of a brilliant record.

MUHAMMAD ALI: In 1977, when Ali defeated Ernie Shavers, his record read 55-2-0. His wins included Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Patterson & Liston, and the only blemishes earlier losses to Frazier & Norton, which he later avenged. At this point it could be argued Ali had surpassed Louis. Mainly because he fought and beat better opposition (there was no Frazier or Foreman around during Louis’ reign). It was mainly downhill for Ali from late 1977 on-ward. That’s partly why Marciano’s unbeaten record puts him ahead in my mind.

So for me, it’s 1/ MARCIANO 2/ ALI 3/ LOUIS and a fair gap to the rest.

 

If yxou call a meaningless belt hw title than you are right. I don´t.

 

Louis '38
Ali '67
Liston '60
Holmes '81
Lewis '99
Tyson '88

 

If I look at a roster of greats and put Tyson up against them and look at what he actually did....

I'm not one who believes in his mythical 'prime'. In fact the word 'prime' in a thread title is usually ruse to try and think up a new way of putting Mike at the top of the tree.

What I see is a very mobile big man, good hand speed, decent defence for an attacking minded fighter (though way overrated these days). I look at this evidence and see that Mike actually had the ability to beat anyone on his day. Though he was always too easily handled on the inside and often frustrated at close quarters. Then I look at the defeats (because this is where you see a man stripped bare). This is where you really see what is there, in their core...

If Tyson is in a competitive fight we see a similar pattern. He loses his composure from as far back as Mitch Green. Loses his focus. looks for an easy way out. This begins with the search for the KO blow to finish it. If that doesn't come the frustration grows... Against the greats he's going to be in a lot of competitive fights. He's going to win some by jumping all over his opponents but he's not going to win any fight that continues to be competitive.

Which Tyson fight is really that impressive? His best wins were Berbick and Thomas, both of whom were inconsistent and faded by the time he faced them. A far more worn out Holyfield split him in two and pulled his heart out of his chest. Douglas beat him up with a straight up guard and a limited repertoire made up of jab, one-two... Many will tell you oooh but that's not prime Tyson!!! he was mid 20s... He never won a fight that compares with guys like Louis, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Holyfield...

Tyson was a deeply flawed fighter who flattered to deceive... Ability always gives him a shot but realistically, based on what he actually did only some partisanship and myopia can justify him being in the top 3.

 

good post

 

Marciano, whilst he rates high overall would suffer more on a head to head basis. In my view anyway.

 

I tend to think that Marciano is the type of fighter who would create a smaller version of hell for any fighter regardless of their style, and that in order to beat him you would have to be prepared to pass through it.