The ring's hw top 5 decade by decade.

I dont think Liston should have made the top 5, much less being number 2.

2 years of work should not over write the works of Walcott, Charles, Moore, Patterson, Ingo and a few others(Layne or Matthews perhaps, but that is a debate)

I think Liston was one of the all time greats, but base on his 1950's work, he should not crack the top 5, imo.

 

Even the writers are wrong from time to time, and they made a few key mistakes here.

Liston and the 50's, Ellis in the 60's, Jackson does not crack a top 5 in the late 1800's.

 

Sonny Liston should make the Top 5 in the 1950's, but no way at #2.

Maybe #4 or #5.

As for the 1960's, I'd insert George Chuvalo as #5. The guy was the only one to
stay rated in the Top 10 for the whole decade.

And Ernie Terrell accomplished more than Jimmy Ellis also.

 

Ok Marciano, Walcott, Charles lock down the top 3 perhaps.

But would you really put Liston over Moore who has been beating top contenders for a few years and knocking at Rocky's door for a title shot.

Or Patterson who had a pretty good rein, winning the title youngest ever, and being the next darling after Marciano? Yes Liston would go on to blow Patterson out 2 times in 1 round in the 60's, but we cant add that in the 50's. I would take a longer rein champ like Patterson over a contender who just happen on the scene in the very end of the decade.

Ingo should also be rank over Liston, for knocking out Machen in 1 round, being the number 1 contender and in 59 ends the decade as the heavyweight champ. Liston would make a 6th, but he really is in debate over that when Layne, Matthews and even old Louis here.

Liston started getting ranked over said guys once the 60's hit.

 

Unless I missed that these are head to head lists I can't see why Lewis is over Wlad in the 00s. Overall achievements surely favour Wlad. I remember a thread a couple of years ago discussing rankings of the 00s heavyweights and practically nobody had Lewis at number 1.

 

Dismantling Vitali's face is better than anything Wlad has ever done. Wlad also got poleaxed by Sanders, Brewster, nearly beaten by Touch of Sleep and flopped around the ring against Peter in their first fight.

 

Adamek is a strange pick for the current decade, he seemed to struggle in every Heavyweight fight he's been in regardless of how shamefully shoddy the competition. Plus he hasn't beaten anyone relevant, other than a razor-close war with a Morbidly Obese Arreola, in which he was rocked & in trouble several times, but Arreola didn't have the finishing ability to put him away. I guess this decade has only just begun, being slightly less than a quarter of the way through, so soon enough Adamek will lose his top 5 ranking, probably to Seth Mitchell.

 

One of the cases of a guy expected tio getting dominated does a lot better than expected and makes it relativly close thus looking better than he actually was due to the low expectations. IMO Valuev won.

The fight should still bump Holy, good effort despite beeing terribly past it but then, it was Valuev.

It was a different sport. There was no "learning curve" as you think there was. There was adaption to different rules and different equipement. That´s it.

... and putting on the rosy-tinted Modernist glasses! :-(

You aren´t any better than the people you criticise.

And it was but most of it was post-Dempsey and pre-Louis just like the late 70s/early 80s were post-Ali and pre-Lewis/Holy/Tyson.


On the list: overall I actually like it. There are some debatable "chosen ones" but you can´t please everyone. The grades are also overall pretty good with a few beeing off, 30s, 80s and 00s should be all a bit better IMO.

 

Agreed. IMO Byrd, Chag and Ibragimov would be Top10 contenders in any era, and Top5 in some. Lewis, Wlad and Vitali would be Top5 in all eras and Top3 in many if not the number one. The problem with the 00s and 10s I have is the lack of depth. In the past most of the time you had a whole bunch of good contenders, now you have very few. But those who are there aren´t worth than those of the past.

 

Did you watch it McGrain? I honestly thought the decripit mummified ancient remains of beyond Shot-to-**** Holyfield edged it closely against The Missing Link... I mean Valuev. Actually, I think he won more clearly than Haye did. When I watched the Haye-Valuev fight live, me & three mates thought Valuev had edged it (despite all strongly rooting for Haye at the time), & so did the very Pro-Haye nationalist Sky Sports unofficial scorecard.

 

I don't agree with the list entirely, thought I will agree that the 70's and the 90's were EASILY the best eras for heavyweights. During both these time periods, there was no racial discimination (at least in boxing terms), and we had the most skilled big men ever seen so far. The 90's could have easily eclipsed the 70's if it were not for the fact that several super-fights didn't happen, and if they did, they happened when either one or both fighters were past their prime. Plus Tyson was in prison for the first half of that decade, so we have no idea how that would have affected things. Nonetheless the 90's was a literal hotbed of HW talent.

 

I'd actually have Ingemar above Patterson in the 1950s. He destroyed #1 contender Machen in 1958, and destroyed Patterson in 1959. He ended the decade undefeated and world champion.

Marciano, Charles, Walcott would probably make up the top 3.
Ingemar at number 4.
Patterson or Moore at #5 ?

Liston would be behind those 6.