The Top 20 HW List is Complete

i'd like to think battling levinsky, gunboat smith, carpentier were pretty solid wins, also KTFOing Sharkey in the twilight of his career was pretty impressive

 

Decent list, right about where I'd have my picks (though Marciano wouldn't be so high).

 

those wins are solid but relatively unspectacular in the grand scheme. the sharkey knockout is impressive but he was getting dominated until a nut shot (though sharkey was a moron in turning to the ref)

 

Swarmer, its not Marciano's fault that Walcott, Charles, Archie Moore and even Joe Louis before Marciano defeated him were cleaning out and beating the young guns in the early 50's. Marciano face the best of his era, you cant ask any more from the guy.

On film Charles look just as impressive vs Marshell and Louis as he did vs Marciano in the first fight. I relly think the first Marciano fight was one of Charles best film fights, perhaps up there with Louis.

Louis was the ranked number 1 guy when Marciano beat him, so it was not like Louis was shot. Past his prime yes, but not shot, shot is Ali Holmes. Louis was still a great fighter even at that stage.

Walcott was the reinging heavyweight champion, and in the first fight, put on a amazing show, out countering Marciano, dropping him, and slugging it out with Marciano. One of my all time faves.

Moore was still going strong about ten years after the Marciano fight, so Moore was still a great fighter even at that stage.

Marciano along with Louis, Ali, Tyson, Lewis, clean out there eras, and thats relly all you can ask of a guy. Its not like you can ask Marciano to fight Ali or Tyson because they were not around. Marciano is earning of a top 5 imo.

 

Dempsey cheated in that win lol.

 

Quality post.

 

That's how I see it, too. Marciano is at least top 6 for me.

 

Good, solid list. I've only been around here for a short while and I hope to have contributed in a positive manner. I'm nowhere near the level of knowledge that some have on classic, but I am learning more everyday. Good job Reznick.

 

sweet

 

Marciano was the only legitimate contender to succeed those four. And it's actually astounding that nobody else was able to dethrone these guys despite their ring age and physical condition, ESPECIALLY when you consider that WWII had a direct effect on the careers of Louis and Charles... Arguably stole away a solid portion of their physical primes. As for the shot thing, yes i do think Louis was what you would call shot. He was beating up club level opponents. His punches had lost their sharpness and his speed and reflexes were nothing compared to his peak.

The public noticed that both Louis and Conn were greatly diminished in their return rematch, and it didn't get any better for that. Louis had already been comfortably outpointed after 2 years off from retirement- and was fighting for clearly nothing other than his debt. Ali-Holmes should not be the definition of a shot fighter. Ali was beyond shot at that point to be honest, and hell, he had won the lineal title off spinks before he fought Holmes! That's sure of a lot better than anything Louis was doing before he ran into the Rock.

I'm not saying the Rock is a bad fighter, and i'm not denying his top 10 spot. I'm saying that his best straps are near-40 year olds who'd been picked apart or started as middleweights, and his era was replete of good youthful challengers(No doubt due to WWII as well). That's not top 5 material to me. Rocky himself is no more responsible for the era than Dempsey is for Kearns and some of the establishment not letting him sign with Wills due to the color line- but it is what it is.

 

WWII may have took from Louis and Charles. Buts its often forgotting that it took from Marciano also. He did serve in the war before boxing.

 

Well, I think Lewis and Foreman are comparable overall. Lewis beat a greater number of contenders, but lost to a couple of ordinary ones by KO.
Foreman doesn't have the depth, but has a better top win, was deprived of his title only by a great fighter, and his comeback is all a bonus really.
I think both of them are generally overrated, and that's reflected by this forum's list as compiled by reznick.

Dempsey has some holes in his resume, but did remarkably well as champion considering the layoffs he took while dabbling in a movie career.
The win over Fred Fulton is underrated, considering it was almost considered a championship fight then, and would certainly rank as the equivalent of a world title belt or two in modern times.
Tommy Gibbons was a heck of a fighter to beat after a 2-year layoff. And Dempsey was past his best, but proved great stamina and pace in that one.
Brennan was pretty good, Sharkey was pretty good.
Firpo's "punch" that deposited Dempsey out of the ring was at the very least a half-push, as shown by the surviving film, so maybe Firpo caught a break too. I think Dempsey proved himself the superior fighter clearly enough, all things considered, and was already past his best. Dempsey would probably beat Firpo 5/5 times, and quickly too. A prime Dempsey would make it much cleaner.

Overall, Dempsey's results impress me.

 

Point taken, I didn't know that. Like Tunney he was an army amateur eh? Did he start his AM career before or during the military?

And I have to say, slowing down one's amateur career is quite a bit different from disrupting your title reign/run and doing exhibitions and touring- training properly on the move like that is very difficult

 

They were not middleweights by the time of there bouts with the Rock, they been heavyweights FOR YEARS. Walcott was around 14 or 15 when he turn pro, So I let the middleweight thing slide with him, but like I said, they were still the best. No one brings up Joe Louis's former middleweight victims like Conn.

 

He started in the army, but was not relly sure to go into boxing or baseball after the war, of couse after a failed try outs for the cubs, he went to boxing, and we all know how that went. so it was more of flip flopping in between.