Top Ten Greatest Heavyweights Ever

At the top of their game?

Walcott was 38 and 39 years old the two times he fought Marciano. Those were his 70th and 71st recorded, and final fights. How was he possibly at the top of his game. And if he was at the top, why not continue? Would you really say he went out at his peak? He was more a case of a guy who not so much rose to the peak but waited for the division to sink to his level.

Charles went something like 10-13 after facing Marciano. No one who has studied Charles would contend he was at his peak in 1954. He was 94 fights into a brutal and bloody career that saw him fight a phonebook worth of great fighters and had been reduced to losing to Harold Johnson and Rex Layne types, who though decent, were not at his level.

Joe Louis. You are probably going to tell me that Louis retained his former abilities and in particular quick footwork and a heavy right hand.

Moore was 175 fights into his career and panning out to be just a decent heavyweight, nothing like the fighter he was at lightheavy in years before. You have no case to claim he was at his peak.

When you are knocking out guys in the 3rd or 5th you don't get the opportunity to KO them in the 13th.

I agree with your Rocky statement. However, your Lewis contention defies all logic. He KO'd both men who defeated them in the return bouts. And he did better against Holyfield. Who else really deserved a return? Mercer, perhaps, but Lewis got his call to regain the title and after that, frankly, there were so many undefeated guys, or guys like Golota and Briggs and ultimately Holyfield that were much more exciting. Still, Lewis had three rematches in his career, all of which he outperformed his previous attempts.

Actually he won all but twice. Had Marciano continued for another 6 to 7 years at the top level I have a hard time seeing him remain undefeated.

I am ranking Lewis over Rock because he fought in such a more difficult and challenging era for such a longer time. Still, Rock is in the question of top 5 heavies. I put him somewhere near 8. I do not mock those who put him at 5 though I do disagree with them.

 

How was Walcott not at the top of his game? Who was he beating earlier in his career that would suggest he was performing to a higher level?
He was coming off two good wins against Charles who had beat Louis and even Joe himself arguably beat Louis. A prime Louis at that , as he proved when he shattered Walcott in the rematch. Joe was at the top off his game going into the Rocky fights but not coming out of them. Rocky dished out career ending beatings and Joe could not go beyond a round in the rematch. That had everything to do with the leathering he took in the first fight.
Layne and LaStarza were other highly skilled boxers tipped for the top who got savaged by Marciano.
All these great fighters were taking on and beating each other but none of them could beat The Rock. We're talking about all time greats here , not nobodies like Grant , Morovic and shot versions of Holyfield and Tyson. And Lewis still got knocked out twice.

Beyond those stats , I like to rank fighters by how they look and the skills they show. You can watch Rocky over and over and see things you never saw before. He was a very cute boxer, a lot more than he's given credit for. Lewis was just a mammoth with a jab. His size was everything.

All that alone is enough to rank Rock higher but then you have the duck jobs and getting his belts stripped off him.
Lewis had 3 opportunities to fight Bowe.
Cashed himself out the first time with King.
Refused a second offer without the involvement of the WBC
Was ko'd out of contention the third time.
Lewis wanted nothing to do with Bowe and way Bowe handled his career proved he was not worried about a loss on his record.
Eddie Fuch was convinced after watching Lewis fight Tucker that he would lose to Bowe. Newman did not get on with King and Suiliman and they stiffed him with a contract they couldn't accept. Either way Lewis never fought any top HW of his era in their prime. He also gave up belts to avoid Ruiz and Byrd.
They are multiple marks against him. Rock never ducked or avoided anyone and has nothing to be criticized for.
I don't see how Lewis can rank above Rock in anybody's book.

 

Oh come on, Harold Johnson types? Harold Johnson is a Hall of Famer and one of the finest athletes and technicans the sport ever saw. One of the all time great Light Heavies with an outstanding record against heavyweights.

In addition to Charles, he collected wins over Moore, Machen, Doug Jones, Whitehurst, Valdez, Satterfield, Henry Hall, Clarence Henry, Slade, Cotton, Bowdry, Morrow, and took Pastarno to a split while on the decline.

Charles and Johnson was a close split decision and scored under modern rules Charles may have edged it or foced a draw. There was also a clear knockdown against Johnson that wasn't counted as no 10-8 rule. Charles wanted a rematch and Johnson declined so he could face Archie Moore for the LHW title.

The Layne loss was said to be a bad decision by Dempsey, who gave Layne two rounds, Charles one round, and somehow scored the rest even. The fight was also just two months after Charles was knocked out cold by Walcott. Charles avenged the Layne defeat a few months later in a dominating performance.

 

There doesn't seem to be any case to claim he wasn't at his peak, other than his age and the number of fights he had.

What was he doing at Lightheavy years before that was better than his final decisive victories over Maxim & Johnson and upset knockout of Olson?

Just decent? Name another fighter with a better HW record from 50-55? There is only one, Rocky Marciano. Moore was undefeated above 175 at this time and cleaned out all the young contenders in Valdez x2, Baker, Henry, and Slade. This was the most consistent and dominating run of his career at 175 and above.

 

1# Ali
2# Joe Louis
3# Larry Holmes
4# George Foreman
5# Lennox Lewis
6# Evander Holyfield
7# Joe Frazier
8# Mike Tyson
9# Vitali Klitschko
10# Riddick Bowe
HM: Sonny Liston, Wladimir Klitschko

The final 2 spots for me are the hardest, I think those four fighters (V,W Klitschko, Bowe, Liston) all are pretty equally deserving of a spot in the top ten. I choose Vitali and Bowe because- its hard to leave out a fighter who has dominated his division for so long like both the Klitschko's have, Vitali makes it in at nine because ever since the Chris Byrd fight he has proven to be very tough and has pretty much destroyed all his opponents aside from Lennox Lewis. Against Lewis who didn't look to be nearly at his best, Vitali was doing very well slugging it out with Lewis and was winning on points but Lewis earned a legit victory by landing a huge right hand which opened up a nasty gash over Vitali's eye causing the fight to be stopped. Lewis to me is the only great fighter either of the Klitschko's have fought and though making a good account of himself Vitali was unsuccessful.

Wladimir on the other hand has dominated the division for years but his bad losses early on in his career against opponents who pressured him leaves doubt into how Wladimir would do against one of the greats if the fight got tough. IMO Vitali is over all slightly the better of the two brothers because I believe he is tougher and if they were to fight each other I believe that toughness would gain him the edge as the fight goes on even though Wladimir is the more skilled boxer.

Bowe makes my list because of his two big wins over Holyfield. Bowe in his prime showed greatness beating a prime Evander Holyfield who I consider to be one of the best heavyweights of all time. In his prime years which were very short its hard to imagine anyone really being able to beat Riddick he was so big, well schooled and contrary to what a lot of people say very tough.

Finally I decided to leave Sonny Liston out because though he beat many very good fighters he never defeated any great fighters. Two big wins over Patterson and Clevland Williams along with destroying Zora Folley plus many other solid fighters and beating Eddie Machen is very impressive. But when he met Ali who in fairness was the greatest fighter of all time he was overwhelmed. Liston clearly in the first fight couldn't handle the pressure and broke mentally this makes you wonder if this may happen to him against other great opponents. Also Liston had two other bad losses in fairness one coming early in his career against a solid fighter named Marty Marshall which I believe he avenged twice, and one late in his career a devastating KO loss to a dangerous fighter in his own right Leotis Martin. Liston's the kinda guy you could see possibly beating any fighter who has ever lived but at the same time you never know with him because mentally I believe he was at his weakest.

Marciano doesn't make my list because I just can't picture him at his size being able to handle real heavyweights. Marciano had some good wins but they were mostly against small, over the hill fighters who were at there best in lighter division's. Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney and Jack Johnson don't make my list because boxing has evolved a great deal since there time and I don't think they have nearly the skill of fighters from later generations.

 

He was beating Satterfield, Bivens, Billy Smith, Sheppard and Williams which was pretty impressive. I grant you that Moore hung on at a high class at lightheavy, but the only reason he made a dent in the heavies was the dearth of quality competition over 175. He beat a Baker who had lost two out of three and was no stranger to the canvas. Slade was a lightheavy, who barely cracked the Ring Annual list in that class. He did seem to have Valdez's number, though. In retrospect, Moore seems to be the best defense of his reign.

 

-Not as impressive as ending Maxim's reign, and defeating much younger prime Hall of Famers in Olson & Johnson.

-The 50s seems to get trashed but with only one title defended twice a year and guys fighting monthly it was rather competitive with the contenders in an endless cycle against each other, distorting records. Of course these guys had the occasional bad streaks or losses. And on film they look quite good, Baker and Henry in particular showed good skills.

Those two losses of Baker were against Archie Moore victims, he would have the longest and most significant win streak of his career after those defeats. You question his chin but only those three massive punchers in Henry, Moore, and Satterfield stopped him. Despite a long extended career after he fell out of the rankings as a gate keeper, he would never be stopped again.

-You are also forgetting Moore earned a title shot against Ali after destroying Lavorante. Take his achievements above 175 as a whole, you get a much better HW resume than most. He beat Bivins, Sheppard, Henry, Baker, Valdez, Lavorante, and lots of fringe and near-men types while only losing to Marciano, Patterson, and Ali.


-Yes, Moore certainly is. In 1955 he was possibly the #1 P4P fighter on the planet if there was such a distinction than. Think about how much he had to do to earn his shot at the HW crown in the 50s in contrast to other challengers post color line. Maybe only Liston did as much, it deserves some consideration.

 

Which title was this for? Who was Ali?

 

Harold Johnson was great.

 

You said he only made a dent in the heavies because of a lack quality in Marciano's era, so I pointed out he destroyed one of the top contenders of the early 60s to earn a second shot.

 

Exactly. So the phrase "Harold Johnson type" shouldn't be used to negate someone. We could use more "Harold Johnson types"

 

What was Harold Johnson as a heavyweight? A Harold Johnson type in the context I used it was that of a lightheavy trying to break into the heavies with middling success.

 

When was this second shot? He exposed a pumped up tomato can. Ali did not exist. Clay did not hold the title at the time, Liston did. What are you talking about?

Look, you don't have to convince me that Moore was a great fighter. One of the coolest moments of my life was getting a chance to meet him. But he was a greater light heavy... by far, than he was a heavy. And still, he was arguably Marciano's strongest defense.

And back to the main point of discussion, I am not taking giant whacks at Marciano's legacy. He's still a top 10 guy and I would even entertain number 5 or so. I usually have him about 8. So, he is IN THE DISCUSSION. My point from earlier was that Lewis IS IN THE SAME DISCUSSION.

 

Johnson beat Charles and Jimmy Bivins. And Nino Valdez. And Henry Hall, Bert Whitehurst, Wayne Bethea, Clarence Henry, Howard King, and Eddie Machen. Marty Marshall too.

underrated guy was Johnson.

 

Well done you have managed to match Houlooni, with the most revisionist bull****, down right lying post on a thread.

1. Yes Lennox did beat the **** out of the future ****** filth, in D'Amato' s gym when he was 17 and the nonce was 16.

2. Yes he did pay Lennox step aside rather than face him and fought Holyfield instead. Tyson didn't unify any fvcking thing by fighting Seldon. He went into the Holy fight with just the WBA strip, because he surrendered the WBC rather than fight Lennox.

And as for that lowlife subhuman scum kunt King. He wanted OPTIONS on Lennox, who not being a thick Yank moron, told King to go fvck himself.

3. Yes the ****** did only fight Lennox in 2002 because he was fvcvking skint, and actually thanked Lewis in the ring afterwards for getting him out of the ****, and begged him to do it again so he could get some money for himself.


So please save your bull**** for like minded fans of *** offenders, and not the rest of us.