Your number 11-20 great heavyweights of all time

As a lawyer, you lack conviction.

I do feel like i'm guity of underating Wills. But bumping him up my list is a problem because it would basically involve pushing him above Dempsey and Marciano and Langford who are already guys I would like to have higher.

I don't know why I worry about it so much, it's not like it actually matters.

 

First, Frazier was never the same fighter after the first Ali fight, so your claim that Joe was in his prime is not something I accept as gospel.

Second of all, Frazier is the owner of the greatest win in heavyweight history, over the Ali that was about to run over Frazier twice and Foreamn once. You can't have a better fighter on your resume unless you get Williams era Ali (arguable) or championship Louis (also arguable).

Frazier has a combination of boxing, stamina, punching and heart that makes him a handful for any fighter in the top tier apart from George Foreman, although there are those that argue fight of the century Frazier would not be an easy victim and I sympathise.

Foreman, on the other hand, has a style which is vulnerable to great punchers and great boxers alike.

 

Or Joe Louis above Rocky Marciano.

 

Even if it's true? I won't say that Frazier was done for Foreman, or anything of the sort. But I will say that he was not the same fighter that he was after the Ali fight that he was during it. I'm quite happy with that.

How far he is from that win is of literally no importance if that is the win that shaved him of his top 1%.

As you say - but it's an example of a fighter who is generally ranked above a man who beat him, in the same division as the one we are discussing. If it makes you more comfortable I will use Lewis-Rahman, Dempsey-Tunney, Willard-Johnson etc etc.

Yes, in purely objective terms. Frazier holds a victory over the greatest heavyweight of all time making him an important scalp. ONE of the reasons Ali is regarded as the greatest of all is becaus of the two revenge wins he has over Frazier. In more grounded terms vengance and redemption are very important aspects in determining greatness I think

Did you accuse me of being asinine earlier?

Obviously you're not being serious with me but here is a reasonable example in the region we're talking about.

Sugar Ray took on Jake LaMotta six times.

Many rate LaMotta as one of the top 10 MW's of all time. Most have him top 20 and almost all have him top 30.

ONE of the reasons he is rated so highly is that he holds a win over near-peak Robinson.

Robinson holds multiple wins over LaMotta who is a top 10 or 20 MW - certainly this benifits his legacy. ,Do you think it should be otherwise? You seem to be infering that Frazier's credit for beating Ali should not be enhanced becuase some of Ali's ATG wins come against Frazier himself. I disagree.

I have never disputed this. My point is that when calculating the value of a win, the quality of opponent that the vanquished fighter has defeated becomes relevant. Just because Frazier is at both ends of the equation doesn't mean the credit he enjoys should be any less than any other fighter.

As you wish. But I would submit that in his losing effort in Manilla, Frazier gave Ali more trouble than any other fighter he fought in his pro career, excluding those fights where he was suffering from Parkinson's syndrome.

I suggest that there are many, many, many reasons why Ali is rated above Foreman all time and that the win Ali holds over Foreman is only one of them.

I actually tend to agree with you here, although there are many who don't. But that is not the crux of the thing. The crux is, Foreman has only one win over an ATG and it is against a past peak Frazier. Frazier also has only one win over an ATG and that is against a past-peak Ali. In comparing the two wins I suggest Frazier's is much, much more impressive and as good a place as any to begin any argument about their ATG status.

My picks would be: Liston, Dempsey, Tyson, Holmes, Lewis.

I wouldn't pick Johnson to beat him but I would be interested to see what he could come up with. I'd make him favourite over Jeffreis but there is always the possibility that Foreman could be outlasted - I think his stamina was suspect at the sharp end.

The bottom line here is Foreman fought two all time greats. One beat him. The other was stylisticly made for him. He looks, to me, vulnerable to both punchers and boxers, plods, hits hard, but also tends to push.

He is not in my top ten all time heavyweights currently, and has never been higher than 9. Frazier has never been outside of my top 8.

 

No, I go mad when I get into something, you have to trim it. If you want a laugh, track down Janitor's "beware the bum of the month" thread, Chris Pontius and I really get into it, one of my post had to be split in half.

Yes. But I try to be about objecitivity as much as I can. I'm not trying to score points "for" Frazier "against" Foreman - in practical terms you may be right but it is my opinion that the top 1% is the most important 1% and if a fighter loses that it's significant. Frazier is in his physical prime, probably, but i'm quite satisfied that he is past his composite prime.

Hollyfield-Bowe then. Most have Hollyfield above Bowe, but Bowe got the better of Hollyfield and they were both near peak. Point is, if two guys have a fight and one loses, that's important, but for me it's near the bottom of the list. I have Bowe at 19 and Hollyfield at 8.

Although interestingly enough Frazier won when they were closest to their peaks. Also he has 1/3 against his most meaningful opponent. Foreman has 0/1.

Of course there's no denying that. But I do feel that Frazier was made for Foreman, the perfect foil. Having said that Foreman makes my top 15 of theback of his physicality and these two wins, in the main.

Well knocking out Jake at MW and knocking out Frazier at HW are very very different prospects (the first may be impossible, but no heavyweight is "unknockoutable" for me). You make a good point though.

Ali was quite open about post-Manilla. "Closest thing to death" and all that there. Of course, on paper, you are correct.

I don't agree with that at all. It is the most obvious. I have Ali above Foreman because he has a much better resume, a much more difficult style, better physical attributes at peak, better mental attributes all round, more prestige as regards the title, huge longevity and phoenix in spades. The Foreman win would be below all of these on a list. But the Foreman win is near the top of the list if you were rating his specific wins.

It's possible for a loss to add to resume. Manilla certainly did this for Frazier.

And Foreman had made Frazier look like a child in the process. Meahwhile Ali had made Foreman look limited, slow, stupid. I made an appraisal of the era and have Frazier well above Foreman. Here are the most impressive results from that era IMO.

Frazier over Ali in I
Ali over Foreman
Foreman over Frazier I

Frazier wins the most important of the three (highest combined talent in the ring in terms of ratings) and loses the least important. A win over Ali is always going to be more impressive than a win over Frazier - Ali is one of the best who ever did it, Frazier is not quite in the top five.

Be interesting to see those two in the ring together. Of course Foreman sparred with a well past peak Liston - and was very impressed. He described Liston as the only man to ever back him up with a punch.

I think Foreman is a good, not great finisher, though you make a good point.

Breifly, here's my thinking - Dempsey is quick and has no rythym (pattern) coming in. He gets by Foreman. At 12, 14 inches he has Foreman firmly out fought in my view. He will tire close up, but I give him a big edge in stamina. But I see a pretty early KO.

I'm in a minority picking Tyson over Foreman. To me, Foreman is to wide, a little to open. Tyson is quick as lightning and for me, the best finisher who ever fought, at any weight. I think he would hurt Foreman at some point and be right after him.

I have Lewis in a pick em. I think people would be surprised at how much bigger Lewis is if they were seen in the ring together (peak for peak). Don't know how Foreman would cope v someone as strong who is bigger.

With a win over a heavyweight who appears on p4p lists, all time - one of only two.

The Noron performance is the best for me. He himself seems to think he wasn't "sharp" but I think he showed a reasonable patience. It's the least clumsy he's looked I think.

I may be underestimating his career and him in general. But I don't disike the man or the fighter, I have nothing against him.

I think if i was to make a re-appraisl of Foreman it would be from this second career he would draw any new juice.

It's cool discussing these things with you.

 

You make a fair point, Nick, i'll be interested to see Brit's response.

I have it Lewis (5) Hollyfield (8) and Tyson (10) but you can make a reasonable case for the reverse.

Let's see where you have each.

 

No, I don't agree. I've chosen an arbitary number in 1% which I probably shouldn't have - the point is that Frazier's best was left behind him the night he beat Ali. He is still an important scalp, still a very good fighter but he's not going to scale those heights again.

Yes, by any measure that is true. However it's not the most important thing for me - i am far more interested in head to head and tools. You get a lot of this, guys arguing from different planes - basically I see it like this - the fact that Foreman beat Frazier doesn't really interest me that much as regards their relative placings aside from the fact that it represents Foreman's top scalp.

By whatever stystem you use to measure the fighters, this can't be true. A win over the #1 is worth more than a win over a #5 - that's all. Frazier holds the single greatest win (probably) in heavyweight history. Only Schmeling competes, really. It's a very significant win. Foreman doesn't have a win anything like as good.


As you say, they both fought other guys. Both have solid records against solid competition - Foreman's pre-title competition is pretty poor but that is more than compensated for by his second coming.

It might be. All things considered this is not an unreasonable claim. If either Liston win is on the level I would rate that above it but I don't think they are, so I can't. Ali's best performance is in the Manilla fight probably, though he did some spectacular stuff in the 60s - but the Liston situation considered, you are probably right.

There is no way to make the Frazier win go away. But I agree it would make things much simpler if you could. If Frazier had never beaten Ali it would be near impossible to rate him above Foreman. Of the top of my head Frazier would probably drop to around 15 on my list and Foreman would slide in at 10.

I think Louis and possibly Liston could out shoot him but I agree that Dempsey couldn't.

I agree with most of this analysis - I would add that Lewis' very odd disease would always see him underprepared and sloppy against guys he felt he outclassed - certainly this would not be the case with Foreman.

Interesting stuff.