Your top 10 greatest Heavyweight of all time?

I am taking greatness to mean who is best, rather than who has done most for mankind or sport.


1. Tyson - In his Prime he was awesome, hand speed, Power, head movement he had it all.
2. Lennox Lewis - a great and very big heavyweight I can't see many old timers beating him. Too big, strong and smart - although could be boring to watch.
3. Joe Louis
4. Ali
5. Jack Johnson
6. Holyfield
7. Marciano
8. Dempsey
9.V. Klitschko
10. L. Holmes

Writing this list has made me realise what a weak division this has been historically. maybe Holyfield should be higher - on his night he would have been a nightmare for anybody.

Ali was the greatest in many ways but head to head I think Lennox is too big, too strong and too clever to be beaten and I would think a prime Tyson would KO him. Tyson has Ali's hand speed and Foreman's Power and punched in combinations like no other; for me he beats the lot in his prime. Although I realise some people may disagree.

 

Thanks for taking to the time to post your thoughts and reason behind how you chose your list. No one post ever is bang on for the next guy. The best thing to do is give your reasons and stand by them.

 

Correct ! You are the best See, great minds do think alike ...

 

Yeah - Vitali is possibly out of place but who has really beaten him? He is big and strong and I would give him a decent shout against the likes of Marciano, Dempsey and a few others, he also has a good chin. As I said the division is pretty weak. I don't think he would disgrace himself against any of them really.

 

I cannot accept any list that doesn't have Jack Johnson on it... sorry but that is a non starter... right big seamus?

 

Yep - Johnson should be on top ten HW list.

 

Correct ! You are the best See, great minds do think alike ...

 

But it is not.

Somegreat boxers are great athletes, and some great boxers are mediocre athletes.

It is very clearly not a sport where superiority hangs upon the same kind of athletic advancments as say track sports.

Plus the curent crop of heavyweights are probably the worst actual athletes in the history of the division.

 

Good list, I'm admittedly a big Tyson fan myself and have studied his fights so many damn times because I love watching them. Anyways, I saw someone else mention that Tyson goes for the one punch knockout? That wasn't Tyson at his best; that was Tyson post Douglas where he got hit a lot more because he wasn't bobbing his head or fighting defensively like he used to and then he'd go for big power punches. Tyson at his best threw punches in combinations and that's exactly what made him so deadly, because the first one might not connect but eventually they would because he was also so damn fast, plus he had an excellent jab for an inside fighter. His change probably had most to do with several factors; young age and getting older and of course losing the drive he had once he became champion and thought he was the greatest thing since sliced bread, he just didn't take it seriously like he used to. I read a great article recently about this very thing I mentioned in the SI archive after the first Ruddock fight where they talk about this exact critique of how Tyson's fighting had changed.

Anyways, despite saying that I think Lewis or Ali on their best night would probably best Tyson in his prime by decision...It's difficult for me to say that but it would probably be the case due to Lewis' size and jab work, some fighters went the distance with Tyson in his prime demonstrating this although not as good as Lewis or Ali would. I think the rope a dope technique would of been a terrible idea though for Ali to use against Tyson though with Tyson's hand speed, he'd need to fight him with a jab and lots of movement. On the other hand perhaps Tyson would be the answer to destroying Ali though as he appeared to be a faster, harder hitting (power in both hands) than Frazier ever was and waaaay faster than Foreman as well as way better defense. At his best, Tyson rarely ever got hit which I think most people completely overlook with him because perhaps most people's recollection of Tyson was the 90's version of him (post cus/rooney).

 

I agree.

In terms of resume, Louis and Ali are in a class apart.

It is very debatable who has the third best resume, but in terms of depth it is Johnson all the way.

 

Yes, I think when Tyson lost some of his defense he lost more than some of his offense in consequence. The defense let him get position, and made openings when his opponent would miss.

 

For me the problem I have for Ali vs Tyson is.... Henry Cooper. If a small fighter like him can catch and drop Ali so badly then Tyson and Lewis get the job done.

I know ALi recovered to win that fight and went on to beat bigger punchers, but I think by comparison many 70's heavies were really pretty crude compared to Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe et el.

I am not really a believer that one generation is superior to another, but I do think that poverty and hunger make for great eras and that sport does improve with time, and might be why the current heavy weight division is lacking in depth. I do think that Ali's era was and is over rated by Ali's fans and the non boxing public who go along with it, after all if you say that Frazier, Foreman Norton were great then it follows Ali must be a god. But if you say that actually his conteparies were actually pretty crude then he becomes a normal man again - but the best of his generation - which he was.

 

The thing with Ali is that one has to consider his overall impact on the sport. Forget H2H for a second and look at what he meant to his era.
You want a big money fight? Fight Ali. Want instant credibility as a fighter? Beat Ali. Heck, just do well against him.
From 1964 when he beat Liston to the time of his retirement, all roads led to Ali. That's impressive.

As for H2H, I don't understand why people place so much emphasis on it when drawing up these sorts of lists. It's too subjective and open to personal preference and speculation. If the fighters being compared are from similar eras then I can sort of see it, but it's subject to the same pitfalls.
Essentially, rating H2H is nothing more than making predictions. It's a guessing game.

 

You can't rank a guy based off mythical h2h fights.

You can only rank him for what he achieved and what he didn't.