What is ur HW top 10?

Not a bad list then but Liston should be ranked a little higher

 

I think it is a pretty reasonable list, with a rider that unfilmed or limited filmed fighters (pre johnson) not really considered.

 

Johnson is considered in his entirety. I think he is the earliest of the heavies where his potential head to head abilities warrant inclusion along with his legacy achievements and his competetiveness against contemporaries.

 

Tyson, Liston and Dempsey all tore holes in the division quickly then flamed out. They are unique in that sense. I am most impressed with Tyson's destruction 86 thru 89, the Dempsey's 16 thru 19, then just behind him Liston's. Head to head I think Tyson takes both the others. The other two I feel would be quite even.

 

Johnson's dominance in those early years, until he basically got married and went into semi retirement was every bit as dominant, and probably more so, than the likes of Holmes, etc and with his longevity and even his post Willard reign, while not as great as it could be, is very, very underated, it puts him in the same league as Ali and Louis from a legacy/longevity period. The only downer for Johnson is his losses in his pre prime, but, really they should be considered exactly that, and Louis is given a pass for the schmelling loss.

I havent done a serious top 10 list for ages, but if i were to do it right this second, i think i would put Johnson in at number 3.

 

What an awesome photo

 

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Lewis
4. Holmes
5. Tyson
6. Foreman
7. Marciano
8. Dempsey
9. Jeffries
10. Liston


This was the list a month ago.

Marciano got bumped up, awesome! Johnson is out, and Jeffries is in. I thought you were anti-Jeffries type guy? Actually thought you weren't a big fan of either Jeffries or Johnson. I always have some trouble understanding how Jeffries makes top 10 lists, but I do note he was great. Lake of longevity, fights, depth, and the fact he feasted on smallish men by even old HW standards is a bit hard to digest.

Don't listen to the Liston fanatics. You have him at a fine place. I honestly think having Dempsey as near the top 3-5 like some of them do is just about as off as having Liston that high. His record and blaze as you've said was quick, but any justifying either man is based on your own suspicions of him in some H2H level. Yes, Liston's wins might be a little better, but his losses could be thought of as more shameful. Anyway, what changed with Jeffy and Johnson?

 

Vassily Jirov
James Toney
David Haye


4-10 are scrubs anyway

 

What ability did their contemporaries have ?
maybe as light heavyweights .
Your votes on fantasy fights are almost every time realistic and correct (unless Ali is involved) but your HW list seems like a joke , you don't think Dempsey's , Johnson's , Jeffries' and their contemporaries' accomplishments against each other will mean anything once they get in the ring with Johnny Nelson or O'neil Bell , right ? let alone a Klitschko , McCall , Tua or Valuev whom all fall short of your list.

 

And another thing : How come Joe Jeannette and Sam Langford didn't make your list (s) then ?

 

You are such a pathetic creature. :-(

 

Yet Rumsfeld is still ahead by more than 2k posts ! good !

 

1.Muhamad Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Larry Holmes
4.Jack Johnson
5.George Foreman
6.Evander Holyfield
7.Mike Tyson
8.Rocky Marciano
9.Lennox Lewis
10.Joe Fraizer
11.Jack Dempsey
12.Sonny Liston
13.Gene Tunney
14.Riddick Bowe
15.Vitali Klitchko
16.Jersey Joe Walcott
17.Ezzard Charles
18.Sam Langford
19.James Jeffries
20.Wladimir Klitchko
21.Floyd Patterson
22.Ken Norton
23.John L Sullivan
24.Max Schmeling
25.Bob Fitzimmons
19.

 

I weigh all factors. To a larger extent you can only ask a fighter to fight who was available at the time and make the judgement from there. That is the only factual and proven aspect of the process. Then there is some room, also, to make an assessment of the quality of era in which the fighter fought. Then there is room for the highly speculative venture of imagining that fighter against competition from different eras. You seem fixated on this last, and most unscientific, portion of the process. I agree that many of those old-timers would be lost in a modern ring. However, we don't know to what extent this to be true and to what extent the reverse would be true.

In the end, the evidence for each fighter is drawn from different sources. The game and its methods of recording itself have changed so much this is an absolute necessity. Johnson and Dempsey get it in largely from the estimation of their contemporaries. Johnson also has very high quality and repeated victories over high quality opponents, which in the end outweigh a handful of poor showings. Dempsey carved up the division, and some high quality fighters, in a three year period, not with decision wins or questionable performances but with knockouts and an inordinate amount of early knockouts over high quality opponents. That period outweighs later concerns regarding inactivity and a certain number one contender who, despite what I think were earnest attempts to do so, Dempsey never met in the ring.