who is your number three and why?

Louis and Ali, to me and many others, are in a heavyweight class by themselves. Not only were they largely the dominant forces in the division for long periods of time, but they, by and large, fought just about everyone who was around when they fought and won the vast majority of these fights. Their critics can pick up on certain things, but to me, it is nearly impossible to put any other heavyweight over them in terms of doing more to secure a top one-two spot.

Next there are around 12 guys who operate within a lower, but still extremely impressive teir. They all have more glaring critiscisms that can be made about them, but what makes one of them stand out and be the bridge between the great greats and the greats? I have seen all 12 of them ranked third by various people. Who's pros outweigh their cons? why? I am sure I am forgetting some of the pros and cons, but you get the idea and should know anyway.

Jim Jeffries:
Pros. never beat or knocked down in his prime. KO power in both hands. Beat the champ, solid number one challenger, and previous champ within one year. A natural and gifted athlete. Rise to the title was extremely fast. Champ for six years, retired undefeated. In my opinion, beat an extremely hard punching guy with loaded gloves. Gave rematches to anyone who did reasonably well against him. A very durable and strong fighter. Size. Heart.

Cons. Did not fight Johnson. May have got to the top based largely on athletic ability alone, by the time he developed true fighting skills, the divison was running low = his best was never really seen. Top opponents all had size disadvantges against him. Lack of title defenses by modern standards. Guy with loaded gloves was a super middle.

Jack Johnson:
Pros: A natural and gifted athlete. Except for Hart decison and Jeanette DQ, was not beat between 1902 - 1915. Uppercut. Ring instincts. Champ for seven years. If given a title shot sooner, could very well have been champion for another couple before hand. Was the winner of several of the most one sided bouts at the championship level. Cleaned out the divison before being champ. A very smart and crafty fighter who could punch. Could unleash his knockout power at anytime. Size. Heart.

Cons: Championship era competion very lacking. Could/should have fought Langford, Jeanette, possibly McVea, Clark, G. Smith, Wills while champion.
Knocked down by middleweight Ketchel. Life style caused him not to always be in top shape for fights. Won title in a very weak era.

Jack Dempsey:
Pros: Knockout power in both hands. Exciting style. Extremely fast starter. Carried knockout power through later rounds. Could box and swarm. Only time knocked out is dubious. Other than that, and relatively meaningless four round bouts, was never beat until he lost the title which happened after a three year layoff. Heart. More so than any other champ, fights were events. Left Hook. Signed to fight Wills. Champ for seven years. May have won title back in long count. Could swarm and box. Fair to good opposition.

Cons: Did not fight Wills, possibly Greb. Inactive as a champion. Took things easy and became a Hollywood actor during championship years instead of ring dedication = could have beat more of the top ten fighters of his layoff periods. Small for a heavyweight. Could box and punch, but rarely showed mastery of both in same fight.

Rocky Marciano:
Pros. Never beat. Heart. Constant pressure and constant power throughout a fight. Consistantly in fantastic shape. Ko power in both hands. Could knockout a fighter with one punch. Fair to good opposition.

Cons: Size. Some of his wins were extreme come back from behind situations. Opponents can be criticised as being past their best. Short championship era when compared to Ali, Johnson, Holmes, Louis, etc.

Sonny Liston:
Pros: Outstanding jab. Knockout power in both hands. Resume very strong before champion. "Uncrowned champ" in years before he was given title shot. Avoided after he lost the title. Had fought less than two rounds in two years before he lost the title. Highly questionable rematch. Strong. Long reach. Other than Ali, was only beat twice, once at the very beginning and once at the very end of his career, easy to excuse. A time span of nearly 15 years.
Cons:
Short amount of time as champ and just one title defense. Quit in his corner and most likely threw another fight. Could be knocked out cold.

Joe Frazier:
Pros: Fast rise to the championship. Great left hook. Pressure applied was constant. Cleaned out most of the divison before taking the vacant title. Bested Ali. Heart. Carried power throughout the fight. Never lost to a non champ. Never knocked down for a ten count. Best years were during a strong era. Different fighter pre and post Ali fight.
Cons: Lost four out of five in legacy fights. Losses to Foreman extremely one sided. Short lived, poor competion, heavyweight championship years. Slow starting for a swarmer.

George Foreman:
Pros: Hard punching. Knockout power in both hands. Size. Chin. Uppercut. Became champ in two different eras seperated by twenty years. Two full successful careers. 68 knockouts.
Cons: Stamina during his first career. Slow. Neither career seperately would put him on the list, could have fought more top ten opponents both times out.

Larry Holmes:
Pros. Great Jab. Solid chin. Winning record nearly as long as Marciano's.
Seven years as champion. Fairly successful second career. Twenty title defenses. Under appreciated when he was champ (which made him work harder to gain respect). Smart fighter. Never lsot in his peak years.
Cons: Did not unify the other belts. Did not give rematches in some of his closest fights. Championship defenses can be criticised for inexperience of opponents.

Mike Tyson:
Pros: Exciting style. Extremely fast starter. Knockout power in both hands. Strong chin. Aggresive. Extremely fast rise to the top. Put the divison together like no fighter before or since. Fast. Extremely well developed during the early part of his career.
Cons: Solid, but not spectacular, opponents defeated. Short prime, fast decline. Tokyo. Lack of wins in legacy type fights or soild opponents over a large stretch of time.

Evander Holyfield:
Pros: Heart. Well rounded. Strong chin. Durable. Always in great condition. Stepped up to face the better competion of his era and took on all comers. Long carrer.
Cons: Power as a heavyweight. Lost some of his most important fights. No real specialty punch. Last seven years of his career could detract from his legacy.

Lennox Lewis:
Pros. Size. Long reach, strong. Power. Uppercut. Well rounded. Wide variety of opponents beat. Jab. Ten years as a premier fighter in the division and beat many solid fighters during that time. The most dominant fighter of his era. Lack of fighting best fighters of his era not his fault.

Cons: Two peak era losses, which cut down on his dominance as a title holder. Did not fight the better fighters of his era sooner. Could be accused of having a dull style.

 

ok. Perhaps he gets a bad rap for that, though. It is one of his criticisms by more than a couple of fight fans. Does Lewis get your number three vote?

 

cool. One vote for Sonny then!

 

Holyfield II. Mavrovic. a few of his early bouts when learning his trade (Bullups, Occasio). Tony Tucker was dull, but that's tucker for you. Akinwande was dull, not Lewis fault though, of course.
Compared to Dempsey, Marciano, Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Tyson, even Holmes I would say Lewis fought in a more dull style than they did. Not that it didn't serve him well.