What is ur HW top 10?

Wilfredo Benitez was shot at 24, Tyson and Bowe also were before 30 when they started declining. This is not about age. After Ali I Frazier fought with Ron Stander and Daniels - I think that it wasn't without purpose. Then was Foreman...Frazier was weaker, less dynamic. He showe a lot of heart and guts in Ali II and III but it wasn't the same fighte he was a couple of years/fights earler.

 

Thank you for your post :good

 

Damn right.

Head to head is basicaly BS.

Sombody like Jack Johnson might have beaten Joe Louis and Muhamad Ali in the same night or he might have lost to sombody like Greg Page.

Even if you compare two fighters from eras quite close together you might get a Tyson Douglas style upset that would turn your entire list on its head.

At the end of the day you could never be sure that Muhamad Ali would beat Jimmy Braddock.

If you rank fighters based on resume and acomplishments relative to their era you are dealing in givens. You have some actual data to interpret.

 

A1- Class- no order - Louis, Marciano, Ali

B2-Class- no order - Dempsey,Lewis, Frazier,Tyson, Foreman,Holmes,Johnson,Jeffries,Tunney, Langford,Tunney, Holyfield,Walcott

C3-Class- no order -Liston,Wills,Baer,Schmeling,Charles,Patterson

D4-class- no order- Primo Carnera, Jess Willard, Jack Sharkey,Tommy Burns, Bowe, Johanason,Braddock, Weaver, Witherspoon,

I know I left a few out but this came from the hip, I can not fairly rate and leave out those who match up even so I divide into brackets

 

Not entirely. I think we all have about the samet houghts on George Carpentier v. Liston or Frank Moran v. Tyson. Those head-to-heads will bring about pretty much a consensus, and thus a level of legitimacy. There are certain qualities and points of effectiveness we can draw from film and writings and come to a conclusion regarding these match-ups. To what degree we give these credence is a different matter.

In this light, I, for one, think that the fighters up to the 20's were largely unskilled in the ways of the modern ring and were informed by the brutish realities of their times. The filmed record of these fighters does nothing to shake me of this opinion. And I am not even contending their methods and abilities would not at times be effective today. But not to the degree of modern trained, amateur-schooled fighters that have been the cream of the crop for the last 60 or so years.

 

It's memorial day and Im drunk rite now. But can anyone imagine Liston vs Carpeniter? talk about a massacre!

 

Yeah, it would be like Ali-Liston II

 

You avoided the question all together...

No.. The facts are these :

1. Tyson had all the belts.. Spinks had none..

2. On the night of their meeting, Spinks was announced as the Challenger, and the Ring Magazine's champion, whilst Tyson was announced as THE CHAMP....

Those are the facts...

Not getting personal at all.. Just saying that you shouldn't make convictions on speculation..

 

Fact is, Spinks beat the man and thus was the man. Not Tyson. :deal

 

Fact is, he failed to maintain his right to be called champ and was stripped...

 

You can´t be stripped by the championship, only by belts. Fact. Or do you want to rewrite boxing history? Have fun.

 

Fine, focus on a mere technicality while ignoring the important facts if it makes you feel better.

 

By your logic, if Spinks had avoided Tyson and everyone who succeded him, while continuing to fight tomato cans, he could still in theory be champ today... I don't think most would award him the luxury...

 

Louis
Ali
Holmes
Lewis
Liston
Johnson
Marciano
Frazier
Tyson
Holyfield