Would Sonny Liston rule the HW division now?

I never said anything about excluding Marciano on size.
You should exclude Marciano because he was fighting opponents below-200.

Marciano was fighting 12x against 200+ opponents. ALL of which were bums except Cockell and Louis. Compare Marciano with Mormeck, not with Klitschko.

And stop repeating that Wlad is top20. NAME the ones ABOVE HIM.

 

Good god, Knn is at is again. Who cares how big a fighter is, Frazier was 6'0 and around 215 when he beat Ali, who many consider 1 or 2 all time. I could give you several examples of a much smaller man beating the bigger man, but I'm sure it wont do any good. Marciano may have not been a natural Heavyweight, but that didnt stop many recent fighters from becoming Heavyweight champ, Holyfield, Moorer, Bryd, Spinks, every decade/era has a smaller Heavyweight that finds a way to make it to the top by beating the naturally bigger Heavyweight, it's not all about how big you are buddy.

 

not sure because I think Wladimir is actually pretty good

 

Ali was only 6' 3" 215 pounds himself when he fought Frazier... what exactly is your point? I think that you are missing the train here.

Also, you are right, some smaller heavyweights have still found success in more recent eras... which has already been pointed out. The point is that they had attributes that they could capitalize on against bigger guys. Although, the ones you mentioned didn't exactly find amazing success against bigger guys... Liston doesn't have the sort of attributes that would translate to that type of success, imo. A person who relied on overpowering opponents that were normally smaller than himself, who was able to get away with being very slow, by simply having so much more strength than his small opponents. The point is, that he isn't going to have that going for him today.

 

Look at Larry Holmes' generation of heavyweights, as well as Liston's and Marciano's, and tell me that an ATG heavyweight can't emerge out of a relatively barren landscape of overall talent. That's even jumping on a limb on my part because there's nothing saying that the young talent in the HW division won't prove to be very good themselves in the future.

Historically, the HW division is always in a lull, only exploding in excitement once a transcendent fighter makes people pay attention- a fighter that, by him mearly being there, in essence validates everyone else there because there's a measuring stick that mainstream people care about. Dempsey, Louis, Ali, Tyson....those are the kinds of fighters that generated that kind of interest and people's legacies were generally based on how they did vs them. A rising tide raises all ships. Wlad is a great fighter who doesn't transcend anything in the US, so people, as usual judging a class by it's champions, are apathetic. Lennox was the same way- people didn't rate him high at all until he wasn't there anymore, but he had more mainstream US appreciation due to fighting an old Tyson (a fight he had to take because alot of people still thought Tyson would win) and Holyfield.

That you think Wlad doesn't have the opposition to build the legacy means that you've already conceded the main point- that Wlad is the standard upon which the other HW's currently fighing get measured by. He's done it at an earlier age than Lennox did, but how long he remains it is yet to be seen. Should he continue to dominate for another few years, it'll be clear that he's the best HW of his generation- something few other fighters can claim, and he'll be an ATG accordingly. Or, he could fall on his face and go down as just a very good fighter.

We'll see as time goes on and the last chapters flesh themselves out. Speaking as if the book's already been written is pointless.

 

I see your point, but Listons jab would give many good fighters now, a very hard time in the ring and maybe only Vitali I would favor over Liston, a fight against Wlad would be an interesting one, the stare down might be enough to make Wlad a little weak in the knees.

I guess I just dont understand why size is such a big issue, fighters like Dempsey who was 6'0 195, loved fighting the bigger man, he seen weaknesses in them he could exploit, and really wasnt until he fought a similar size man in Tunney, did he find himself outboxed, but you also must take into consideration that Dempsey was pretty inactive at that point, and had his sights set towards Hollywood, he was no longer a hungry fighter at that point.

 

There were never any big men back in those days, who have the kind of talent that we are talking about. It isn't about just being big... it is about being big, and talented.

 

OF COURSE.

Who cares how 180 lbs was CALLED once.
180lbs is 180lbs no matter how you CALL IT.

In the medieval ages you could maybe become a heavyweight champ at 150+. But 150 is 150 and 180 is 180.

As I wrote in another thread: They made a HUUGE mistake by REDEFINING the heavyweight weight margins instead of using a NEW NAME. If Klitschko would box now in the superheavyweight division, then noone would even compare him to Marciano.

He has not. He has fought at 175+ (the Marciano definition of heavyweight) 10+ times.

The names like "HEAVYWEIGHT" are completely IRRELEVANT. The WEIGHT counts not the NAME for a weight.

I could call 110 lbs "mothafuggakillanigga heavyweight". It would be 110lbs nevertheless.

Just check this picture and it explains itself:
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/joe-louis-photo-01.jpg

And yes, Schmeling (193) vs Louis (198 ) was OF COURSE a cruiserweight fight. I know, I know, this will make some of old-time-fans get upset, but 193 _IS_ 193. Klitschko cannot upvalue his record by KOing anyone as light as Schmeling.

70+ fights of Louis and only 25% with 200+ lbs opponents... of course he is a cruiserweight, they just didn't use this term then. Louis belongs on Cruiserweight toplists or p4p toplists. He is one of the best boxers EVER lived.

Sam Langford is always listed on heavyweight toplists, but of 300+ fights only 120+ were against heavyweight (200+ lbs) opponents. 72 wins, 48 KOs, basically ALL of them against BUMS. He started with 140+ lbs beating opponents starting from 120+ lbs. His KO ratio against somewhat good 200+ opponents is 18%. What is this guy doing on heavyweight toplists? Being compared to Klitschko or Lennox or Ali? Unbelievable!

It's actually funny, Haye, who boxed nearly all recent fights against 195-199.5 opponents is disregarded as "a nobody at heavyweight". Yet Louis or Marciano, are called "some of the best heavyweights ever" with the SAME type of opponents.

Nah, that's too offtopic here.

Not yet, I will publish it on an own website where you can actually sort all top 300 fighters or so by different criteria like quality of opposition and KO ratio etc...

I have the huge database with every heavyweight fight and fighter.

Only so much: Wladimir Klitschko leads in basically EVERY REGARD (KOratio, WinFight Ratio, KOsInWorldTitleFights etc etc), except the quality of opposition, which is NOT AS BAD as some might think.

I actually TRIED to find something that is WORSE in Wlad's record than the ATGs and there are only 3 major things:
* the number of KO-losses
* the number of fights (some ATGs have more total fights, but hardly anyone has more wins against 200+ opposition)
* the average quality of beaten opposition (Lennox is better, Ali, Holyfield, too). Foreman is worse, Marciano is worse, Liston is worse, Holmes is worse).

I am currently adding the "Ring Magazine Ranked Fighters" to see who has beaten how many. That might be an interesting stat too.

Now I understand that you can define a boxer by "the best opponent he has ever beaten", but I think this is too limited. I prefer to take the WHOLE record into consideration.

 

.....seriously?