Top Heavyweights Soley Based on Best Top 5 Wins

I'd probably put both Foreman and Frazier ahead of Marciano, and maybe ahead of Louis as well. Mainly because they both have one absolutely huge win apiece, backed up with some solid ones.

This kind of ranking really does Foreman a favour, though. He doesn't have much else, so if he's not top 3 in this ranking, one should wonder if he belongs in a standard top 10.

 

I think Tony should be in there:

Douglas, McCall, Norris, James Broad, Kimmel Odum.


Oh dear.



On a serious note, good thread this. :good

 

I disagree. the version of louis walcott beat in the first fight was far better than the version of louis charles beat. walcott beat louis just as bad as charles did plus 2 knockdowns, 10 rounds to 5. louis won 5 rounds vs charles, i scored the fight.....and charles did not floor louis like walcott did. louis still had his full punching capabilities when he fought walcott.

also, I dont see how you can possibly say charles was worse in the 3rd fight compared to the 2nd fight. do you know the 3rd fight took place just 4 months after the 2nd fight? so you are saying 29 year old charles suddenly aged in 4 months? im not buying it.

I could make a case charles never beat a prime walcott...that walcott was at his best in 1947 and charles neverr beat that guy.

lastly, dont forget ray and bivins. walcott beat bivins when bivins was on a 45-0 winning streak. charles beat a bivins leftover.

ray was on a 64-1 winning streak when walcott beat him, charles beat a ray leftover on the verge of retirement.

lee q murray who ray arcel called the "divsions best hitter next to louis" rates above rex layne clearly. murray was 6'3 210lb boxerpuncher.

 

A motivated Douglas was good fighter (I thought he was clearly ahead of Tucker when they fought), but too up and down in terms of consistency (or lack of). His performance againsrt Tyson was very good. A case of having his share of ability, but failing to make the most of it alot of the time. Definitely more talent than Tucker had.

McCall was decent, but the rest of Tuckers wins are a case of tomato cans here, there and everywhere ... :tong

 

Then why did many in attendance think La Starza deserved the nod if he had "little chance"?

 

agreed, Rex Layne who fought louis in a exhibition in 1950 said louis hit harder than marciano.

 

Im a huge advocate of rating walcott over charles at heavyweight. Walcott beat better compettion at heavyweight, cleaned out his division more effieciently, and h2h he rates over charles at heavyweight.

lewis did not get the decision in holyfield I, does that mean the fight is a draw in any objective fans eyes?

walcott did not get battered, poor choice of words. it was louis who got battered in the 2nd fight and needed a heroic come from behind kayo late to win the fight. walcott knocked louis down AGAIN and was well ahead on the cards entering the 11th.

I dont think so, I think walcott fought a more aggresive stylistically fight against charles in the 3rd and 4th fights, that helped him more than anything. Funny how your question if charles lost some athleticism considering charles was 29, and walcott was 37-38 years old. Charles 11th round TKO of rex layne(one of charles best performances which came after the walcott knockout loss) shows me charles was still at his best when he fought walcott in 1951 in both fights.

Ray was considerably declined by the 2nd charles fight according to a historian i talked too. told me ray had no stamina anymore and just gassed. ray was a much more live contender when he fought walcott. ray went on to accomplish things after he lost to walcott, he accomplished nothing after he lost to charles. dont forget ray also beat charles.

agreed

 

When does this myth of the chinny Patterson finally vanish. Tyson is not considered to have a weak chin despite beeing KOed as often as Patterson and by inferior punchers. :-(

Good thread though, very subjective and will lead to some interesting discussions.

 

It was more half and half either way in the first LarSarza fight.

 

Well, that was my point. It doesn't spell 'best ever win' either way you slice it. According to a Boxing News retrospective (May 65) it states that ringside press gave a slight majority to La Starza. But half/half sounds fair. :good