He lost to Valuev, or have you reversed that one too? This is an interesting one actually, because The Ring published a poll conducted by a Swiss newspaper that had 47/51 ringside pressmen scoring for Valuev. Ring were in the building and had Valuev winning too. I thin this is the first "internet robbery" where guys watching on tv then posting articles on the internet named it a robbery...when it sounds like it wasn't. How about Louis? 8-2 in the fifties and only lost to ATG's (apparently).
well I actually watched the fight myself and Valuev was as **** as ever. every round was pretty much valuev taking 3 minutes to throw a jab whilst holyfield lands two punches and sidesteps. in general though my rankings and viewpoints are veyr personal to my own interpretations. I'm not gonna credit Valuev with what I saw as a losing performance. God help Holy though if justice would have been done. the thought of him being in with the version of wlad that battered chagaev makes me glad for corrupt judges. I distinctly remember his promoter after the fight saying he scored it a draw, that's a big indication into what his camp actually believed.
How about Louis? No. Louis was certainly one of the better "3rd decade" contenders, but I can't see it. I would rate the fifties Marciano, Charles, Walcott, Patterson, Johansson (with Moore sixth and Harold Johnson seventh)
Really Ruiz deserves to be in for 00s. Wins over Rahman, Oquendo, Johnson, and Holyfield. And officially Golota. He eventually lost to Chageav..but still.
That's the point though - maybe justice was done. Some fight translate badly over television. I find it hard to believe that Ring and all those other watching boxing men got it totally wrong. Remember that if Holyfield had won, a press card in his favour would have been harder to find than it was to find one for Schmeling against Sharkey, and the ratio of 1/3 pressmen finding against Walcott in Louis II becomes astronomical.
While rating eras, you have to look at the learning curve in the sport, no way were 1890s fighters as sophisticated or as deep an era as the 40s but the Ring rates them higher. **** Off The Ring
Taking this list, (and I probably made some mistakes), I totaled the number of top five fighters beaten (one per fighter, no doubling if a fighter is rated in two decades)--And I also list the highest ranking fighter these ATG defeated (2*-means rated second to this ATG in that decade) Jeffries--3 (2*) Johnson--5 (1) Dempsey--1 (4) Louis--6 (2*) Marciano--3 (1) Liston--1 (4) Ali--6 (2*) Frazier--2 (1) Foreman--1 (2) Holmes--3 (1) Holyfield--4 (1) Lewis--3 (1) Vitali--0 Wlad--2 (4) *I didn't count the 2010 on decade as it has just begun Dempsey, Liston, and Vitali stand out. Ali, and Louis, also stand out. **The 1930's list behind Louis certainly is unimpressive, though. ***the 2000-2009 decade is rated low, but if David Tua is subbed for Chagaev, I would take this group to be able to win 3 of 5 from any other decade if properly matched.
maybe they haven't got it wrong. maybe I just view boxing differently to those watching it. however I put myself as the ultimate authority. perhaps naive and egotistical but when giving my own opinion, I have to trust myself.
James 'Jimmy' Albert Ellis Jimmy was a good heavyweight, but the #5 Ranking in the 1960's only tells us how weak the division was. Victories over; Johnny Persol and Leotis Martin in 1967 are good marks. His late-1967 12-round/2-knockdown decision win over Oscar Bonavena was his most impressive victory. 1968, with wins over Jerry Quarry (not impressive) and Floyd Patterson (controversial) do not pull high grades. 1969, no fights. Overall, 5-0-0 is just not enough for 3 'prime years'.
It always amazes me the many different statistical connotations people come up with and Ali and Louis stills tand head and shoulders above the rest. You missed tyson btw :good