Your top 10 greatest Heavyweight of all time?

One of the worst things about your posts, is that you talk as if there was some sort of consensus behind you!

There simply isn’t!

You are the nut bag, who cant find anybody to back him up!

This situation wont get better for you, any time soon!

 

Good post !

 

I think you are confusing what's available to fighters these days compared to the past with what they are actually doing with these tools. Just because they have more available options and are bigger does not mean they are better trained or skilled. This just means exactly that their are more available options and better training available but most of the HW's don't appear to have the drive, determination or discipline (apart from a small few like Wlad) to take advantage of such things. When I watch HW fights nowadays it's so apparent compared to fights of previous generations that it's willpower, discipline that is lacking, training regime, nutritional habits, etc, it's obviously just not being used for a lot of the fighters to truly fulfill their potential. I might actually agree with that assessment if they were taking advantage of all the awesome things we have this day but it's obvious they aren't when watching the fights and seeing them come in out of shape over and over again (once again not including the ones that do, but most do not). Most lack the discipline that made fighters of the past better, period. Most HW Fighters in the past and before have better technique, came in better shape and seems to also have more hunger to win. Most of the division nowadays is fat overweight tall guys with the discipline of a park bench, just sitting around all day...okay that's not fair to the fighters as obviously it's not all of them but many appear to do just that or just eat entirely too many donuts..donuts are tasty I know, but to be heavyweight champ donuts don't substitute for good boxing skills/technique.

 

The usual suspects:

1) Ali
2) Louis
3) Holmes
4) Foreman
5) Lewis
6) Johnson
7) Dempsey
8) Frazier
9) Marciano
10) Tyson

 

This is a bridge too far even for modernist theory. Arreola is not comparable to Foreman. The forum's probably going to flame you mercilessly, so be prepared. Though you probably knew that when you wrote the post.







Personally, I've never been one for flaming, so here's a polite break from the angry tirades to come:

Size-wise, Foreman struggled to stay BELOW a muscular 225 pounds in the 1970s. He wasn't even weight training. His size was just natural bulk. Arreola...is a former lightheavyweight (like Ali) who got very, very fat.

Foreman blasted out contenders from the 1970s despite rudimentary skills, because he just hit THAT hard. Okay...but you don't think much of the 1970s, right? No problem. Foreman came back as a fat grandfather and remained a top heavyweight in the 90s.

And you know why Foreman performed so well as a geriatric? Because he hit insanely hard. That was his only physical asset. 90s Foreman was slow, his reflexes were shot, and he was laughably overweight. But for some reason, nobody wanted to trade with him.

This is significant.

Tommy Morrison, who left a trail of twitching KO victims and remains one of history's hardest punchers, didn't even try to stand toe-to-toe with Foreman. He stuck and moved.

Briggs got into a shootout with Lennox feckin' Lewis. He wouldn't trade with a 49 year old Foreman who should have been in a wheelchair. And Briggs's tentativeness should have lost him that fight, so it wasn't even like he was fighting a "smart" fight. Foreman kept his brutally hard jab right up until the end, and he pummeled Briggs with it. Briggs preferred getting outjabbed to standing in the old man's firing range.

Holyfield went to war with Bowe. Repeatedly. He swapped punches with Tyson. And Lewis. And...come to think of it, he tried to swap punches with EVERYBODY. But not old, slow, tubby George Foreman. Every time he got a taste of Foreman's power, Holyfield backed off.

It goes on.

Foreman also absorbed punches from 90's punchers without going down, and he did it as an old man. Only his opponents from the 1970s (Ali, Lyle, Young) managed to drop him at all.

Foreman was a monster who was much more physically impressive than his weight indicates. There's no way Arreola was comparable. Foreman is actually an excellent example of why fighters today wouldn't walk over their predecessors. He came back as an old man, beat some decent fighters, and won the lineal heavyweight title. Holmes, who came from the same generation, did better against McCall and Mercer than Lennox Lewis did. The difference between these eras isn't as large as many modernists believe.

 

LOL. Put Chris Arreola in the 70s and who's going to beat him? Classic.

 

Okay.

I'd call 1970s Foreman's punch much harder than Arreola's.

Especially since, as you point out later, he didn't have as much technical skill in the 1970s. The punch was one of his biggest advantages.

He was exhausted against Young and Ali, because he had poor stamina.

Lyle was not a lighter puncher. He was considered a hard puncher by 1970s standards, which your mileage will obviously vary on.

Yeah, that's fair.

Almost by definition, a man's frame is apt to look scrawny when he's trained down.

For that matter, using the formula we agreed on in the other thread, he'd be around 238 pounds today. That's a pretty big man.

Fair question.

Unfortunately, I do not have sources on hand. I remembered that Sadler was training Foreman down from previous forum discussions. And one thing that you have conceded about Classic is that they know their history.

EDIT: Here's one source I located on a ten second Google search -- http://www.thesweetscience.com/colu...-been-nothing-short-of-mind-boggling-part-two

"Saddler [sic] dehydrated Foreman before fights and cut many corners as he brought him along. Saddler was convinced no fighter could stand up to George's punch and often said so. His philosophy training Foreman was rudimentary, consisting of running and chopping wood in the morning and beating on the heavy bag and his sparring partners in the afternoon."

Good catch on the weight training. Do you remember where Arreola mentioned that?

(He's still extremely fat for a professional heavyweight.)

Oh, I actually agree with you that Arreola had a wider technical repertoire than Foreman.

But for the sake of argument: Foreman was a "minimalist" like Wlad. :hey



(There's actually some truth in this, all humor aside: Foreman excelled in the three or four things that he needed to impose his physical gifts. He had a very good jab, he knew exactly how to set his feet for power punches, he had some finesse in his ability to manhandle people into punching range, and he could cut off the ring like nobody's business).

I agree.

In fact, I wouldn't even call Arreola a "slugger" in the same way that Foreman was. He's a very good puncher who makes up the difference with technical skill and chin.

Peter is a slugger. Arreola is a solid puncher with a good technical base.

But that runs against previous reasoning, for two reasons:

1) You agreed in the other thread that a fighter's "natural" size is a better indicator of their chin, since you can't improve chin by weight training. You also believed that "natural" size plays a big role in a fighter's chin. Young Foreman would be a large heavyweight today -- 238 pounds of lean muscle. That's "naturally" a large man.

2) Fighters' chins don't improve after they get old. They only get worse.


You're free to argue that Foreman's chin got better in the 90's, but you'll have to do a very good job explaining why, since:

* It can't be 1990's weight training, because we couldn't find any sources in the other thread that stated weight training improved concussion resistance.

* It can't be his age, since older fighters are generally less durable.

* It can't be 40 pounds of flab, since we couldn't find any sources saying that being fat reduces your concussion resistance either.

* It can't be because Foreman became a "naturally" larger man, since, well, he'd already been born.


...But again, I'm open to alternative explanations for Foreman's alleged rise in durability.

We're talking about 70's Foreman's physical gifts. Since 99% of the population gets weaker and slower with age, I think that looking at 90's Foreman is fair. Especially since the weaker, slower 90's Foreman fought the guys you want to compare him to, and 70's Foreman didn't.

 

I still struggle to do a top 10, but my thinking, like many, is similar to McGrain's earlier. I do think that Wlad has probably earned a place in the top 10 now though (i never thought i'd say that a few years ago). It's still really tough...for example Larry was usually my #3, but his opposition- like Wlad's wasn't great. I actually think the top 20 in 1981 was as bad, if not worse, than it is now, to be honest. But the calibre of Larry's opposition improved 83ish but by then he was fading and involved in a couple of disputed decisions.

Lennox should be quite high, but he does have those two upsets against him, but he was the only fighter who could be called dominant in a tough era.

I was always a big Johnson fan when I got into boxing, so he'd have to feature and he had a long reign and fought a host of top men; Marciano probably makes the cut too- brief reign but fought most of top contender- but ****-weak era, of faded greats and "light" heavies, all in all. Liston is difficult to call- great pre-title dominance but I do like a fighter to show greatness when he becomes the champ, when the pressure is at its highest, too many questions about motives with Liston- again a difficult call.

Holyfield- probably my favourite when all's said and done, but he was always one big fight away from losing the title (and also one big fight away from causing an upset) so unsure he will make the cut. Then again, I suppose his heavyweight reign isn't that much different from, say, Ray Robinson's middleweight reign(s), win title, a few defences... lose..regain...lose, etc...with that in mind, he's definitely a contender from 7-10. But he may miss out- tough to call.

Jeffries: dominant and deserves to be in the picture but not sure about top 10. Dempsey: probably lower top 10 at best, but may miss out.

Foreman- a definite top 10 for me but not sure which position to rank rim. I doubt he deserves to be ranked ahead of, say, Lewis for example and definitely behind Holmes.

Tyson: a brief, but very dominant reign. He probably makes it. I see his tenure as champion as similar to Don Curry at welterweight:
A reign of 3+ years
Regarded by many as the best pfp in boxing
Regarded as virtually unbeaten at the weight for a time
Truly dominant over his opponents during that spell
Beaten in a huge upset
Regained version(s) of crown (Curry at light-middle)

So all in all, I'm still not doing one. :yep

 

It is true that people always look to the past through rose tinted glasses, it's just the way it is - the way things used to be was always a bit better, people were tougher - that seems to be the way of everything not just boxing.

In most cases this is not correct, generally in sport things have really improved as things have become professional. Take motor racing - Fangio is often quoted as the best but in reality he was a fat, middle aged man when he took up the sport and just does not compare to modern day F1 drivers. The same could be said in football of Stanley Matthews when compared with C. Ronaldo - the difference is night and day. That said I do think boxing is different, I think great fighters are bred out of poverty and need the hunger which it brings and then they need the character to sustain this hunger - few fighters have this sustained hunger and who could blame them - once you earn $10m 99.9% of the population would lose it. This is where Ali, Louis, Marciano and Lewis stand out for me and where others like Tyson really fall short. However it is true that Vitali Klitscho does seem to have this in his make up.

It is easy to say this generation is useless - I happen to think it's fairly poor but Joe Louis era was pretty dreadful too and that has not affected his legacy. In years to come I think one or possibly both Klitschos will be within most people top 15 heavyweights - they do fit the bill and have the tools (although Wlads chin is not the best....) and this era was slightly below parr, but you can only beat what's in front of you.

 

Elroy, George Foreman was a very big heavyweight, he weighed in at 229lb for the Jimmy Young fight in 1977. A very similar aged Lennox Lewis weighed 227.7lb in 1992 against Razor Ruddock.

 

19 year old Foreman at 226 pounds. Anyone who thinks Foreman was not a big man is a fool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiT2ljAxxx8

 

Are you real???? They were both in top condition and around the same age! Did Foreman have lead in his boots or something?? :nut

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected