What is ur HW top 10?

Nor by objectivity, rational thought ,and common sense.:good

 

I havent done a list in ages so here goes. (most will hate it nearly as much as Frankenfranks). I give zero credence to size of opponents but try to rank opponents in relation to their standings at the time. Head to head is of limited value also, except in fights that actually took place. Most of my list is based on legacy, and i do give particularly high regard to length of dominance. This list changes every time i do it, with Ali at 1 the only constant, and even that can change depending on what i am looking at the time.

1. Ali - Faster than any other fighter, better chin/stamina/recuperative powers than any other fighter, Best improviser/general, Good power,Near untouchable in his prime (except where he was overconfident and showboating), Dominated two eras (60s) and 70s including the 70s which most say is the strongest ever, when past his best. Best fighter in the world from 1964 to 1968 - 14 years (Although not as dominant as louis, he ended up beating every decent fighter in this time period)
2. Joe Louis - Near flawless, Dominated for longer than anyone else. Pretty much the best fighter in the world from 1937 to 1948. - 11 years.
3. Jack Johnson - Totally underated by most. He dominated as much as anyone for as long as anyone. His biggest problem was overcoming politics and one or two early losses but i dont think they are of any relevance. Johnson really had totally cleaned the world of all challengers by the first year or two of his title (including pre title), from there he did fight sparingly and not in condition, but unlike other champs who did this, it took a long time for someone to finally capitalise and truth be told, if politics had not taken away a rematch, he would have continued to dominate. The undefeated streak after losing the world title was in itself phenomenal and beats anything Ancient Ali, Louis or possibly even Foreman ever did, imo. He was the best fighter in theworld from at least 1905 to 1915 which is 10 years, but arguably from about 1902 to 1920 when he crossed into america and surrenderred to authorities. If this is accepted, then his 18 years as the best fighter in the world is longer than anyone. (although he did have 2 losses during this time to fighters who while not avenged, are very unlikely to have repeated it). Johnson, is on the same tier as the more popular Louis and Ali.
4. Rocky Marciano - Rocky had a different type of career. Always in shape, he won all his fights, cleaned his division quickly and got out at the top. His career wasnt as long as Ali and others, but to be honest, he got out at the right time. I dont think he should be penalised in any way for this. I have no problem at all with him ranking higher.
5. James Jeffries - Must rate near Rocky, as his legacy is nearly identical, except he had the ill fated comeback fight. (Compared to Rockys comeback computer fight. I wonder how Jeffries Johnson would have went down if they had computers back then?). He also must rank near Johnson. Prime for prime it is a toss up fight and he was actually regarded by most as better, when both were in their primes.
6. John L Sullivan - The first really controversial call. But the reality is that from 1882 to 1892 (10 years) Sullivan was the undisputed best in the world, until age had surpassed him. And like all greats, even when age surpassed him, he stil found away to stave it off for a long time (Kilrain fight). There were some problems with quality of eras and he did seem to stay away from the good Australian fighters but the reality is he was the best in the world for most of this time.
7. Bob Fitzsimmons - The most controversial of all (and i expect a tirade of abuse) but Fitzsimmons started his heavyweight career by KO ing Peter Maher in 1892. Although he wasnt considered the best heavy in the world by most at this time, Jim Corbett (or i guess arguably Peter Jackson) was, and Fitzsimmons would prove he was better than Corbett by not just beating him, but by knocking him out (something Jackson couldnt do). I think he was the best fighter in the world from 1892. He would not be really removed from this position until 1899 when he was beaten by Jim Jeffries - a total of 7 years (though it was clear he was past prime by this time, as he no longer trained properly). But unlike others who rose and fell quickly, when past prime he went on to demolish top contenders (other than Jeffries) ie Ruhlin and Sharkey in a manner which was every bit as impressive as Liston over Patterson or Foreman over Frazier. Incidentally, this is the first time i have ever put fitz in a top 10 heavyweights list.
8. George Foreman - Normally i would rate him a bit higher, but not today. He won world titles in two eras 70s and 90s but was probably only the second or third best fighter in each era. His second career was nothing short of astounding, and imo is what lifts him in to the top bracket of ATGs, even though he was so far past his best it wasnt funny.
9. Mike Tyson - This is such a tough call when we get down to the last couple and realise so many greats are going to miss out. I picked Tyson, because his KO power (not concussive power) and finish ability is better than anyone i have seen or can imagine. Like many, his career was short and spectacular, i think he needs to rate near Dempsey for this reason. Mike totally cleaned his divsion in pretty much the same devastating manner as Dempsey, but he went on to have a better second career (post Douglas) than Dempsey did post Tunney. Though there isnt much in it, as Sharkey is a good win, and Tyson faded to Holyfield and Louis worse than Dempsey did to Tunney.

10. Jack Dempsey - Ranking him here because he should be somewhere near Tyson, imo. they had similar careers, and i never know where to rank him anyway.

Honourable Mentions.
11. Larry Holmes - I dont think he has missed out on one of my lists before. I put him below Tyson on the list because he was so comprehensively KOd. I know that he was past it by this time, but i see Tyson doing the same thing, and therefore if Tyson did it so could Dempsey so i had to put him below these two. He also lost to Leon Spinks, twice. I know this is all past prime, but those above him were so great that they found a way to win close fights when past their prime. Holmes could definitely do this, but he was in his prime when he did it.

12 Lennox Lewis - Another who hasnt been out of my top 10 in a long time. Lennox became the best fighter in the world in 1999 with his win over Holyfield and maintained this position until 2004. 5 years is great, but not as great as those above him. There are arguments for him to have been the best for a longer period of time, since he beat Tyson and Holy, who were generally accepted as the best for most of this extra period, but i think it is accepted that both were getting older by the time this happened, and Lewis was improving at this time, as evidenced by his earlier loss to McCall. Even during the 5 year period there was the loss to Rahman (KO too). And the fighters above him simply dont have these KO losses in their prime as a general rule.

13. Gene Tunney - Underated. Although he had few fights at heavy, he did fight quality. He was the best in the world for a short time, and his reign is not that much lesser than Marciano in some ways (although it is lesser). I think he deserves a higher ranking than he is generally given credit.

14. Peter Jackson - Bob Fitzsimmons considered him his master and only politics denied his world title shot. His placing could be anywhere.

15. Jim Corbett - Must rank somewhere near Peter Jackson.

 

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Larry Holmes
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Sonny Liston
6. Evander Holyfield
7. Mike Tyson
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Joe Frazier
10. George Foreman
11. Jack Johnson
12. Jack Dempsey

 

Wow that's actually a very good list. :good:good

 

Wow, no Holmes... well...

1) Joe Louis
2) Larry Holmes
3) Ali
4) George Foreman
5) Joe Frazier
6) Rocky Marciano
7) Jack Johnson
8) Jack Dempsey
9) Lennox Lewis
10) Mike Tyson

 

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Sonny Liston
4. Larry Holmes
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Lennox Lewis
7. Mike Tyson
8. George Foreman
9. Joe Frazier
10. Jack Johnson

 

Fail.

Willard 245 lbs. KO3
Fulton 208 lbs. KO1
Firpo 216 lbs. KO2
Morris 220 lbs. KO1
Flynn 202lbs. KO1
Pelkey 206 lbs. KO1
Brennan 197 lbs. TKO6

There were many more over-200 he beat but these guys represented some of the best of the era.

 

Seamus,

Also

Tony Drake 257lb
Jack Sharkey 196lb
Athur Pelkey 200-210lb

 

I had Pelkey in there but yes, agreed. Sooner or later, where there is smoke there is fire. Dempsey could beat the bejesus out of bigger guys. He had far more trouble against smaller, shiftier fighters. His record proves this.

 

Really ?

So according to your parameters the list should be like :
1. Rocky Marciano
2. Jim Jeffries
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Vitali Klitschko
6. George Foreman
7. Joe Louis
8. Joe Frazier
9. Nikolay Valuev
10. Lennox Lewis

You can say : who did Valuev fight , but :
Did Jack Dempsey fight blacks ? wasn't he KO'd by Fireman Jim Flynn ?
Didn't he ended his fight against Sharkey with a great combo of a low blow , left hook ? wasn't he outboxed by lightheavyweights ?
didn't he enjoy the rules which enabled him to benefit a single knockdown to the max ? and he won the title from a 38 years old man whom already quit before (was stopped).
Regarding Johnson : he didn't fight every man from his era he could fight , he ducked Langford after beating him on points over 6 rounds.
He ducked Harry Wills , Bill Tate , Fred Fulton and I bet if I looked harder I could find more.
Jack Johnson avoided almost every top opponent that was there in his time.
And was KO'd by a LMW : Joe Choynski.
I could go on with your list , but consider these 2 extreme cases .
Do they deserve to be above Hassim Rahman and Oleg Maskaev (who don't not make my top 30) ? Rahman , Byrd and Maskaev didn't duck anyone , they fought the best (Maskaev as a champion avoided top opposition , but after all , his record has almost every dangerous opponent of his time , something that can not be said about Jack Johnson).

And a higher quality of avoided opponents as I mentioned above.

The same can be said about Dempsey , Sullivan and everyone whom didn't fight blacks.

 

No Lennox Lewis in the top 10? Sorry but that is ridiculous, especially when you have Foreman at 5, a guy who won only a tiny handful of title bouts.

 

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Larry Holmes
4. Lennox Lewis
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Jack Johnson
7. James Jeffries
8. Mike Tyson
9. Jack Dempsey
10. George Foreman

I rate my list mainly based on accomplishments against the best opposition available, and to a lesser extent boxing skills. Everything else is speculative. People talking about "head to head" are mostly just guessing - if head to head could be forecast accurately, you'd be millionaires from betting on fights. You aren't, therefore it can't.

The point of boxing is to win fights, and to win genuine title fights against the best competition. Looking good, blitzing out a top opponent, being in epic wars, or fighting in a "great era", are all irrelevant compared to consistently beating the top contenders year after year as champion.

 

I don't understand some of your rankings. How can Jeffries, who beat every top contender and never lost a fight in his prime, only losing to another ATG when coming off a 6 year retirement, be ranked below Liston who only won 2 title fights, against a relatively small and erratic heavyweight champ? How can Tyson, who had 10 title victories and unified the belts as undisputed champ for almost half a decade, be below Holyfield who had a very inconsistent reign and was to some extent a beltholder rather than outright undisputed champ? How can Foreman, who won only a few championship fights, be above Lewis, who won 8 outright title fights and about another 7-8 alphabet title contests, and beat every opponent he faced?

I know some of this stuff is a matter of opinion, but just rather puzzled about how you and some other people rank fighters.

 

How do you know what is "realistic and correct" in a fantasy fight? If you could predict the result of boxing fights you would be rich from winning millions at the bookies. You aren't, so you clearly have little or no ability to do so, you are just guessing like the rest of us.

Also, it is not that important what ability contemporaries have, because boxing is about fights between contemporaries, not against some hypothetical standard. Until we invent resurrection and time travel, fights between fighters of different eras will remain completely irrelevant and total guesswork.

 

The only real test of ability is achievements. Without achievements, ability is just a case of total guesswork and idle speculation. Case in point - Don Curry. Imagine if he had retired before the Honeyghan fight, some people would have him as top 5 welterweight of all time, based on "ability".

Liston had an impressive record but it's not as impressive as winning multiple title fights against top opposition, and there are at least 10 other heavyweights throughout history who did just that. They must therefore be ranked higher than Sonny, regardless of one's personal opinion (i.e. guessing) as to how Liston coulda, shoulda, woulda done.