Doug Fischer's (Ring) Top Ten Heavyweights All Time

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Larry Holmes
5. Rocky Marciano
6. George Foreman
7. Jersey Joe Walcott
8. Ezzard Charles
9. Joe Frazier
10. Evander Holyfield

Interesting list -- particularly the insertion of the often overlooked Walcott and Charles.

Interesting to see Commander Vander's name there. Do victories over Tyson, Douglas and Foreman supplant defeats to Lewis, Bowe, and Moorer and Lewis?

Very harsh on the criminally overlooked James Jeffries. Retired unbeaten and pretty much the definition of dominant during his era with wins over genuine hall of famers in Corbett and Fitz on his ledger. Very harsh on Lewis as well. I am not as sold on him as many on here but cannot make a case for Jersey Joe being above him, and I say that as a fan of Joe's.

I'd definitely place Holyfield above Lewis -- he beat better men (mind you, he also got far more opportunities to do so but that's largely by the by).

I like the list, I have to say and like having Walcott and Charles there but I can also sympathyse with the omission of Jeffries.

kingraf wrote:Interesting to see Commander Vander's name there. Do victories over Tyson, Douglas and Foreman supplant defeats to Lewis, Bowe, and Moorer and Lewis?

 
He has Douglas, Holmes, Foreman, Moorer, Tyson and Bowe. Also pushed Lewis close in their rematch (when he was past his best) and has solid wins over a resurgent Mercer and Michael Dokes (who still had something left).

Jeffries is a terrible ommission as per Jeffs comments, Walcott is an interesting selection. Jersey Joes run at the title in the late 40s is one of the great untold stories of heavyweight history. Louis was sucumbing to ring rust and becoming an increasingly inactive champion. He basically cleaned the division out before he was champion , I'm a huge admirer of Joe but one thing that sticks in my throat with him is that in 5 attempts at the crown he failed in 4 of them.

Walcott is a credit to the heavyweight history I think he did a great job of making the best out of very little. He had a virtually non-existant amateur career, and worked a full time blue collar job for most of his early pro days, until he hit wold class status. He took a lot of fights on short notice, and would often train at the gym after a long day at work. Wouldn't make my top 10 but not far off.

Cheers Rodders

Rodney wrote:Jeffries is a terrible ommission as per Jeffs comments, Walcott is an interesting selection. Jersey Joes  run at the title in the late 40s is one of the great untold stories of heavyweight history. Louis was sucumbing to ring rust and becoming an increasingly inactive champion. He basically cleaned the division out before he was champion , I'm a huge admirer of Joe but one thing that sticks in my throat with him is that  in 5 attempts at the crown he failed in 4 of them.

Walcott is a credit to the heavyweight history I think he did a great job of making the best out of very little. He had a virtually non-existant amateur career, and worked a full time blue collar job for most of his early pro days, until he hit wold class status. He took a lot of fights on short notice, and would often train at the gym after a long day at work. Wouldn't make my top 10 but not far off.

Cheers Rodders

One of the cleverest heavyweights I've seen -- an innovator and a fine boxer.

No Mike Tyson?

Thats very harsh indeed. I would put Tyson ahead of Holy.

Won't hear me arguing with that Haz , can be often dismissed as a token champion within the depth of history , he was much more than that.

Cheers Rodders

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:No Mike Tyson?

Thats very harsh indeed. I would put Tyson ahead of Holy.

Tricky one that. I believe Tyson (first version) was the better fighter and more dominant champion but Holyfield has the better record against sturdier opposition and more WTF! moments when he battled back from adversity.

Rowley wrote:Very harsh on the criminally overlooked James Jeffries. Retired unbeaten and pretty much the definition of dominant during his era with wins over genuine hall of famers in Corbett and Fitz on his ledger. Very harsh on Lewis as well. I am not as sold on him as many on here but cannot make a case for Jersey Joe being above him, and I say that as a fan of Joe's.

I think this qoute from Jeffries explains his exclusion jeff...

"I am going into this fight for the sole purpose of proving that the white man is better than the Negro''

If you count the Holmes win at face value... the defeats to Byrd, Toney and Donald should be viewed similarly, no? Makes his case a bit harder

And there's a thread: Would the Dokes who took on Holyfield in March 1989 have dethroned Tyson?

Personally wouldn't be able to find a place for Walcott or Charles and in all probability they're closer to the bottom of a top 20 than they are breaking into my top 10.

Jeffries, Lewis, Dempsey and Tyson are the most obvious misses and would have to duke it out for the remianing three spots vacated by Holyfield, Walcott and Charles. Liston comes in right behind that group of 4.

kingraf wrote:If you count the Holmes win at face value... the  defeats to Byrd, Toney and Donald should be viewed similarly, no? Makes his case a bit harder

 
Holmes was still a good fighter when he faced Holyfield -- not what he was, obviously -- but good enough to upset the unbeaten Ray Mercer. He was slower and less mobile but hadn't lost his timing. I think that Holyfield was a hugely diminished fighter post-Lennox Lewis.

hazharrison wrote: and Michael Dokes (who still had something left).

One of the best heavyweight fights I have ever seen.

Actually, one of the best fights I have ever seen, irrespective of weight.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Rowley wrote:Very harsh on the criminally overlooked James Jeffries. Retired unbeaten and pretty much the definition of dominant during his era with wins over genuine hall of famers in Corbett and Fitz on his ledger. Very harsh on Lewis as well. I am not as sold on him as many on here but cannot make a case for Jersey Joe being above him, and I say that as a fan of Joe's.

I think this qoute from Jeffries explains his exclusion jeff...

"I am going into this fight for the sole purpose of proving that the white man is better than the Negro''

Most people would just appreciate it was a reflection of his times and assess his standing on his ability in the ring. "I'm the first black champion and I'll be the last" That is a quote made by the guy Fischer has at number 3.

The Top 6 is ok with the exception of Rocky being a bit high.

The rest is cobblers.

This might help to explain his picks (response to a mailbag question on Wladimir Klitschko):
 
"Yes, Matthew, I’m aware that Brock and Thompson were rated by THE RING when Wladdy beat them. Brock was also undefeated when Klitschko fought him (as was Sam Peter, Sultan Ibragimov and Ruslan Chagaev). However, Brock’s 29-0 record had as much to do with the excellent matchmaking of Carl Moretti (then with Main Events) as it did the tap-dancing heavyweight’s ability. Brock was a modest talent at best. I consider him one of the biggest overachievers I covered in the 2000s (and I say that with all due respect). Thompson is a solid, crafty technician. I think Klitschko’s late stoppage of the sturdy southpaw is one of his better performances.
 
Anyway, here’s my question to you and anyone else who wants to put Klitschko among the top 10-15 heavyweights of all time: Who the hell did Brock or Thompson ever beat? Who did Peter or Ibragimov ever beat?
 
When I rank fighters of any weight class, especially on an all-time list, I do so primarily based on who they fought – not so much on stats (titles held, title defenses, records, etc.). And I just don’t go over who they fought; I look into who their opponents fought. That’s how I know if they fought quality opposition. And going on that criteria, I rank Joe Frazier ahead of both Klitschko brothers. 

Smokin’ Joe had less fights (37) than Wladdy has knockouts (50), but he fought during the Golden Age of the heavyweight division (the ‘60s and ‘70s) and he took on the best of his era. The top-10 contenders Frazier faced include Oscar Bonavena, Jerry Quarry, Jimmy Ellis, George Foreman, and of course, Ali. Foreman and Ali are hall of famers (and most consider them to be all-time greats). Those are the only two fighters to beat Frazier. Look into who Bonavena, Quarry and Ellis fought. I guarantee you’ll see the names of men who are enshrined in the hall of fame.
 
I also rank Walcott and Holyfield ahead of Wladimir."

Noone gonna say anything about Jack Johnson at 3...?

Appreciate that Jersey Joe is probably an underrated Heavyweight in some respects, but having him at seven is an absolute insult to the intelligence, and an even bigger one to the likes of Frazier, Tyson, Liston etc, all of whom should be locks to be ahead of him as far as I'm concerned.

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

I'm pretty happy with my top three nowadays, but I reshuffle the rest of it pretty regularly. Frazier and Marciano nick the last two spots today, but in all honesty I seem them as being largely interchangeable with Liston and perhaps even Holyfield.

Came to the conclusion last year that Holmes is nailed on at number three and like Chris, I'm happy with my top 3 and confident that it's not going to change any time soon.

Ali
Louis
Holmes
Foreman
Johnson
Marciano
Lewis
Dempsey
Tyson
Frazier

Anyone from Marciano down is vulnerable depending on my mood and Holyfield and Liston are pretty much intechangeable with those on the bottom half of the list.

Am happy to see Johnson begin to drop down peoples lists. Not sure my next campaign to get Joe Jennette in peoples lists will meet with the same levels of success.

88Chris05 wrote:Appreciate that Jersey Joe is probably an underrated Heavyweight in some respects, but having him at seven is an absolute insult to the intelligence, and an even bigger one to the likes of Frazier, Tyson, Liston etc, all of whom should be locks to be ahead of him as far as I'm concerned.

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

I'm pretty happy with my top three nowadays, but I reshuffle the rest of it pretty regularly. Frazier and Marciano nick the last two spots today, but in all honesty I seem them as being largely interchangeable with Liston and perhaps even Holyfield.

I'm not sure how anyone can rate Lewis over Holyfield and Frazier -- Lewis only achieved greatness towards the very tail end of his career and didn't mix in the same company as the aforementioned duo. He also got pancaked twice. Mine changes often but I'd go:

1. Ali 2) Louis 3) Johnson 4) Holmes 5) Foreman 6) Marciano 7) Frazier 8) Holyfield 9) Liston 10) Tyson

I usually have Dempsey in there but I've been having a re-think on that one. Looking at Fischer's explanation I'm also beginning to wonder whether Charles and Walcott have been overlooked.

I'm a huge Lewis fan as well.

As I said, Haz, I find it hard to come up with a final ten that I'm fully happy with. Lewis in particular is a really hard one to place, I think, particularly in direct comparison to his contemporaries like Holyfield and Tyson.

I generally feel pretty comfortably putting him in front of Evander. Bit more tricky deciding between him and Tyson, though.

Holyfield had definitely slipped past his best by the time Lewis beat him (and he beat him twice, if we're being honest and fair about it here), but he was still the unified WBA / IBF champion for those two fights, had been in mostly decent form in the previous two or three years and would briefly win another strap after those two fights, so while it has a slight asterisk next to it, I can't completely ignore the fact that Lewis had the wood on Holyfield when they met and it has to be taken in to consideration, for me.

I think from regaining the WBC belt against McCall in 1997 to losing to Rahman in 2001, Lewis did at least string together a long, sustained run of mostly comprehensive victories in title fights, and became a pretty dominant champion in a way that Holyfield never really was in any of his four title stints. Granted, he didn't become the undisputed number one until 1999, but that was ultimately because the division was fragmented pretty badly for the five years or so before that point, rather than someone else reigning over it with an iron fist.

The fact that Lewis got splattered twice over in such dreadful circumstances in his championship career puts Evander well within striking distance, but I'd feel comfortable having Lewis a good three, four spots ahead of him more often than not.

No Dempsey, Chris ?

Any chance we can remove the swear filter ? so I can send Chris a bucket full of choice language his way.

Cheers Rodders

88Chris05 wrote:As I said, Haz, I find it hard to come up with a final ten that I'm fully happy with. Lewis in particular is a really hard one to place, I think, particularly in direct comparison to his contemporaries like Holyfield and Tyson.

I generally feel pretty comfortably putting him in front of Evander. Bit more tricky deciding between him and Tyson, though.

Holyfield had definitely slipped past his best by the time Lewis beat him (and he beat him twice, if we're being honest and fair about it here), but he was still the unified WBA / IBF champion for those two fights, had been in mostly decent form in the previous two or three years and would briefly win another strap after those two fights, so while it has a slight asterisk next to it, I can't completely ignore the fact that Lewis had the wood on Holyfield when they met and it has to be taken in to consideration, for me.

I think from regaining the WBC belt against McCall in 1997 to losing to Rahman in 2001, Lewis did at least string together a long, sustained run of mostly comprehensive victories in title fights, and became a pretty dominant champion in a way that Holyfield never really was in any of his four title stints. Granted, he didn't become the undisputed number one until 1999, but that was ultimately because the division was fragmented pretty badly for the five years or so before that point, rather than someone else reigning over it with an iron fist.

The fact that Lewis got splattered twice over in such dreadful circumstances in his championship career puts Evander well within striking distance, but I'd feel comfortable having Lewis a good three, four spots ahead of him more often than not.

Holyfield just fought better opposition for me and while Lewis won the head to heads, he very nearly came a cropper in the rematch (which was very close). Lewis has to have an asterix against his record for not managing to get in with Bowe at least once (Bowe tends to get the blame, however, once the fight was actually signed, Lewis scuppered it by losing to McCall). Holyfield fought everyone who was anyone in the 90's: Bowe x 3, Tyson x2, Moorer x2, Lewis x2, Foreman, Holmes, Mercer, Douglas and even when he lost, he usually gave the other guy fits (knocking both Bowe and Moorer down).

Lewis only put it all together as a fighter in '99 and even then he went out meekly against, lets face it, one of the most average heavyweight champions in history. I don't think any of those other guys listed would have gone out with one shot from the likes of Rahman.

The Bowe and Tyson wins (rematch and first fight respectively) are better than anything Lewis has. Lewis's best performance came against Rahman in their rematch. He finally became a great fighter that night but only fought twice more (and receives far too much credit for the win over Tyson -- a mere husk at that point).

Separating Lewis and Holyfield causes me a headache, I agree with Haz in Evander fought and beat better opposition, however what annoys me him is the lack of consistency. With Evander you'd likely to get a 5* performance and result but that would be followed up by a lacklustre performance or a defeat, I believe Lewis win over Vitali as time has passed is now his greatest win, even though a cloud over it, Vitalis dominance since then has proved it was a terrific win for an ageing champion.

Cheers Rodders

Amazing!!!!

.....placing Hollyfield above Lewis based on opposition and using the fact he fought LEWIS twice as part of the case!

Ha ha, thought you might have something to say about that one, Rodney!

I tend to have Dempsey just outside my top ten, generally. 11th, 12th kind of deal (forgot to mention him earlier when talking about some of those interchangeable names who are on the cusp). Given that the margins are generally thin between most of the fighters involved, I could stomach him being as high as maybe number 9 or something, but anything better than that I struggle to see personally.

I think Dempsey's all-action style, as well as the fact that he almost single-handedly brought boxing on to a financial scale which had been unimaginable just a few years before, has lead to him being quite overrated historically. I don't like using that word to describe any fighter, but can't help myself when it comes to Jack.

Willard, in fairness, wasn't quite as poor a fighter as is often made out, having handled Moran a lot easier than Johnson managed to and also knocking out the number two ranked contender when he came back aged 41, four years after the Dempsey shellacking. But nevertheless, he was definitely one of the poorer Heavyweight champions so while Dempsey looked sensational in blasting him out, in terms of context it's not a huge mover and shaker in the division's history.

Willard had also been woefully inactive at title level, too.

After that, Dempsey managed only five title defences in seven years. I can appreciate that he was somewhat hindered by a few different problems (managerial, legal and marital) but still, he did grow soft around the middle and lacking in focus when out of the ring between 1923 and 1926, so in essence he had a pretty short peak.

His best win as champion was arguably against Firpo, who in fairness was on a serious roll when he faced Jack and obviously showed that he was a legitimately dangerous opponent at the time by coming oh-so close to winning the title by hook or crook when he sent Dempsey through the ropes.

That aside, I don't think his title reign befits a man who regularly gets rated top five. His win over Gibbons seems to have grown with time, but contemporary accounts seem to indicate that his performance there wasn't seen as being all that impressive at the time. I've got a degree of sympathy for Jack there, mind you, as Gibbons was ultra cagey and tried to avoid engaging whenever he could, but I think it maybe highlighted that Dempsey was a bit of a one-plan fighter, too.

That aside, Carptentier (another who is afforded way too many brownie points when it comes to rating all-time greats, for me), Miske, Brennan......Not poor opposition for a Heavyweight champion of that era, but not all that hot either.

And to top it off, he was never in the first fight with Tunney (hard to believe that such a formerly ferocious fighter could be made to look so toothless and plodding, even if he was past his best) and, aside from that long count, clearly second best in a rematch too, against the best fighter he ever fought.

Fantastic puncher, exciting as hell, did great things for the sport. No issues there. My issue has always been purely with Jack's record, opposition and achievements, and while they're all very respectable, they fall short of the frenzy which still surrounds Dempsey, for me.

Having just read a biography about Joe Jennette thought I would share a story about him and Dempsey. Jack was scheduled to box a few rounds at an exhibition for the war veterans fund or some such charity. Jennette had already offered to be in the other corner free of charge and had issued coutless challenges to Jack along the way, all of which were unanswered.

Dempsey’s proposed opponent whose name escapes me pulled out of the event and so one of the organizers got in touch with Jennette to see if he would fill the gap. Joe said yes in a heartbeat and duly turned up at ringside kitted up. When the time came Jack come to the ring and Kearns went out of his way to make a big play about the fact Jack did not have an opponent, so fearsome was Dempsey’s reputation.

At this point Jennette stripped off, and got in the ring offering to fill the void. The crowd obviously knew Jennette and that he was a more than capable replacement and so prompted by Jennette and his team began to cat call Dempsey to meet the challenge. Dempsey refused on the grounds he would not fight a black opponent and refused to budge as the cat calls and boos got louder. Obviously you never know the veracity of these stories but a refusal to go a few rounds in an exhibition with a 40 year old guy is not a story that covers Jack in glory.

Not particularly relevant to the thread but if you’re as sad as me you might find it interesting.

3fingers wrote:Amazing!!!!

.....placing Hollyfield above Lewis based on opposition and using the fact he fought LEWIS twice as part of the case!

And?

Doesn't Pollock always claim to have at least two sources when giving an account also backed up by newspaper reports.

He does tend to, but the Jennette book was not written by him, he did publish it though.

Can't for the life of me see how this list could be assembled. No idea how Walcott and Charles are so high, just can't see what they done at heavyweight to be in a top 10. Also if someone is going to rate them that highly surely Marciano going 4-0 against a pair of top 10 all timers would make him go a fair bit higher himself and certainly above Johnson who has no opponents in the same list of top 10 greats.

I always feel history looks back kindly on Joe Frazier as well. I'm not sure how there is always so much daylight between him and Norton. Both 1-2 with Ali (although most people think Norton got the short end of the stick there), both got splattered by Foreman, twice in Fraziers case. Fraziers run between 67-73 rightly puts him ahead but I really don't think there is anyone there who Norton doesn't beat as well other than a younger Ali which like the other fights would be a real close one. It's always been an anomaly to me that Frazier breaks a lot of top 10's and Norton is usually an after thought around the 25-30 area.

I think Holyfield gets too much credit for who he faced and very little emphasise placed on having a very mixed record against those men. Yes he fought Moorer, Lewis and Bowe but he was 2-3-1 in those fights and was decidedly second best to both Bowe and Lewis. Can't give him much credit for beating Foreman or Holmes who were years removed from their bests while Douglas was very much a one hit wonder albeit one with talent. When we compare him to Lewis, we're comparing a great fighter who moved up to become a very good heavyweight and a great heavyweight, if we ignore Vander being a former Cruiserweight I can't see any way he can be a top ten heavyweight. He pulled it out the bag against Tyson but again like Foreman and Holmes was years removed from his dominant best.

The thing with Norton is that he was at no point the premier heavyweight in the world something Frazier was for a good few years nor was Smokin Joe obliterated by Cooney and Shavers. Add in his wins over the very capable Quarry, Chuvalo, Bonavena, Ellis, Bugner, Mathis and Machen you have a very clear gap between the two.

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Foreman
5. Jeffries
6. Johnson
7. Lewis
8. Marciano
9. Dempsey
10. Liston

Marciano and Dempsey have started to plummet down my list in the past year or so, great as they were they are both massively over rated. Interesting fact about Marciano is that the only 6 foot 200lb heavyweight he faced was an almost retired Joe Louis, he didn't face either Valdes, Jackson or Baker.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I think Holyfield gets too much credit for who he faced and very little emphasise placed on having a very mixed record against those men. Yes he fought Moorer, Lewis and Bowe but he was 2-3-1 in those fights and was decidedly second best to both Bowe and Lewis. Can't give him much credit for beating Foreman or Holmes who were years removed from their bests while Douglas was very much a one hit wonder albeit one with talent. When we compare him to Lewis, we're comparing a great fighter who moved up to become a very good heavyweight and a great heavyweight, if we ignore Vander being a former Cruiserweight I can't see any way he can be a top ten heavyweight. He pulled it out the bag against Tyson but again like Foreman and Holmes was years removed from his dominant best.

The thing with Norton is that he was at no point the premier heavyweight in the world something Frazier was for a good few years nor was Smokin Joe obliterated by Cooney and Shavers. Add in his wins over the very capable Quarry, Chuvalo, Bonavena, Ellis, Bugner, Mathis and Machen you have a very clear gap between the two.

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Foreman
5. Jeffries
6. Johnson
7. Lewis
8. Marciano
9. Dempsey
10. Liston

Marciano and Dempsey have started to plummet down my list in the past year or so, great as they were they are both massively over rated. Interesting fact about Marciano is that the only 6 foot 200lb heavyweight he faced was an almost retired Joe Louis, he didn't face either Valdes, Jackson or Baker.

Using the Cooney fight as a stick to beat Norton with is like using Berbick and Holmes against Ali, Norton was nearly 40 and shot. Norton was vulnerable to punchers so Shavers may have beat him at any time as well but Norton was not at his best then either. Frazier was the premier heavyweight when the one better than him couldn't box. After that he beat a returning Ali (great win but for me Ali wins without his exile) then reigned for all of 2 fights against nobodies before getting smashed.

Bellchees, I think there's enough evidence to suggest that Norton would always prove a fairly difficult match up for Ali styles-wise, and I can understand why you might think that Frazier gets elevated too highly purely on the basis of beating Ali once in three attempts whereas poor old Norton gets left out in the cold in comparison.

But I don't think that really tells the whole story.

I don't know about you, but the first time I ever watched Ali-Norton I the first thing I thought to myself, even before the fight was underway, was that Ali was clearly well over his best fighting weight, looking undertrained and obviously hadn't prepared properly for the fight.

The difference between his and Norton's physique in that fight when they faced off against each other was marked. Ali came in to the rematch - the only time he legitimately beat Norton, for me - nine pounds lighter.

Now as I've said before, that doesn't mean that Ali's die hard fans can brush the loss off or ignore it when it comes to weighing up how great he was / wasn't, and Norton deserves massive credit for beating him regardless; as I said, Norton just seemed to have that knack for giving Ali a world of trouble, even when he was fully prepared and focussed.

But in contrast, I genuinely think it could be argued that, even though he lost the fight, the Ali who turned up against Frazier in March 1971 was still very possibly the best version of Ali the world ever saw post-exile - he was just in there against a man who produced one of the most staggeringly brilliant performances in Heavyweight history. Comparing the efforts and performances that Frazier and Norton had to produce to beat Ali in their first fights against him, there really is a big difference as far as I'm concerned.

Frazier remains, in my mind anyway, the only man who beat an Ali who was at least around his prime and in peak condition, and in doing so produced a performance beyond what the likes of Marciano, Holyfield or Dempsey would be capable of - and certainly better than anything Norton was capable of, too.

Norton was definitely hard done by in the third fight against Ali, too, but by 1976 Ali was well and truly on the wrong side of the hill, thanks in large part to the absolute hell that Frazier had put him through a year before in Manila. Again, let me stress that Norton performed excellently in that fight, and that he should have been rewarded with the title on my scorecard. Ali wasn't completely finished either - but just a quickly fading force.

Hammersmith has nicely summed up the other key things which keep Frazier ahead. I know you did say you'd have Frazier ahead in any case, of course, but I just don't think that the gap is as close as you do - but that's just my take on it.

Maybe I should have brought this up in one of those against popular belief threads. I just don't see Norton losing to the guys Frazier beat pre Ali in his championship reign and other than that Frazier gets a high ranking off the back of his one excellent win against Ali and it's a bit over looked that against the greats he fought he went 1-4 getting stopped 3 times. No one chucks Douglas anywhere near a top 30 off the back of one special win against Tyson. Frazier still has a better body of work than Norton on the whole and would be a favourite head to head but I really don't see a 15-20 place difference.

bellchees wrote:Can't for the life of me see how this list could be assembled. No idea how Walcott and Charles are so high, just can't see what they done at heavyweight to be in a top 10. Also if someone is going to rate them that highly surely Marciano going 4-0 against a pair of top 10 all timers would make him go a fair bit higher himself and certainly above Johnson who has no opponents in the same list of top 10 greats.

I always feel history looks back kindly on Joe Frazier as well. I'm not sure how there is always so much daylight between him and Norton. Both 1-2 with Ali (although most people think Norton got the short end of the stick there), both got splattered by Foreman, twice in Fraziers case. Fraziers run between 67-73 rightly puts him ahead but I really don't think there is anyone there who Norton doesn't beat as well other than a younger Ali which like the other fights would be a real close one. It's always been an anomaly to me that Frazier breaks a lot of top 10's and Norton is usually an after thought around the 25-30 area.

Frazier is usually underrated -- a heavyweight phenom. He owns the greatest win in heavyweight hisory in it's greatest fight, ruled during the division's strongest stretch and beat the likes of Chuvalo, Bonavena, Quarry, Ellis and Machen along with Ali.  

Far too easy to say "he went 1-2" with Ali but look at what he did in those fights. Those fights and those performances alone are worth an entire career of Klitschko dry humping.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I think Holyfield gets too much credit for who he faced and very little emphasise placed on having a very mixed record against those men. Yes he fought Moorer, Lewis and Bowe but he was 2-3-1 in those fights and was decidedly second best to both Bowe and Lewis. Can't give him much credit for beating Foreman or Holmes who were years removed from their bests while Douglas was very much a one hit wonder albeit one with talent. When we compare him to Lewis, we're comparing a great fighter who moved up to become a very good heavyweight and a great heavyweight, if we ignore Vander being a former Cruiserweight I can't see any way he can be a top ten heavyweight. He pulled it out the bag against Tyson but again like Foreman and Holmes was years removed from his dominant best.

I don't agree with any of that.

Like Frazier, you need to look beyond the numbers with Holyfield. The performances he put in against Bowe were some of the best in heavyweight history. The first fight was truly epic, the second a boxing masterclass and he came within a whisker of polishing Bowe off in the rubber match. He exhibited greatness in each of those contests.

Foreman may have been years removed from his best but he was still good enough to win the championship against Moorer. Holmes was still good enough to beat Ray Mercer (who many felt should have been awarded the decision against Lewis).

When Lewis got popped by journeymen in McCall and Rahman he couldn't respond; Holyfield came back against Bert Cooper. Holyfield derailed a Tyson that had the entire division gripped with fear; Lewis fought a husk of a once great champion.

What exactly did Lewis do that can trump the revenge win over Bowe and the first victory over Tyson?

Holyfield all the way. His career is a highlight reel of good fights. Qawi, Dokes, Bowe, Tyson, Foreman. You could tell even when he older against Lewis that he would have beaten Lewis if he was a few years younger with less miles on the clock. Lewis was the last genuinely top heavyweight but his career cant match Holyfields.

Ive been watching some of Joe Walcott recently and hes a great fighter. His left hand and uppercut were amazing. He put Marciano down for the first time in his career with it and absolutley flattened Charles. He had the kind of guile and craft you just dont see in the heavyweight division anymore. He came desperately close to beating both Marciano and Louis which tells you more about his ability than stinking out the place 50 times against crap.

You're looking at things from a very narrow viewpoint, personally think that Lewis beating Holyfield and Vitali trump Bowe and a disturbed Tyson. He performed with great heart against Bowe but ultimately he did lose the series while losing to Moorer is just as damaging as either Lewis lose.

You can try and paint the Foreman and Holmes wins to be better than they were but I just don't think much of them just like I don't think much of Lewis' win over Tyson who was at least on the right side of 40.

Holyfield was fighting much better fighters all the time. People mark down fighters for losing and facing tough competition and then reward boxers who fight easier competition and have better records.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:losing to Moorer is just as damaging as either Lewis lose.

Can't agree there Hammersmith, mate. Lewis got one-punched in to oblivion (twice) by McCall, who was nothing special (take a look at how he only just scraped past an ancient, tubby Holmes, who only lost because he was too knackered to mount any kind of attack in the last two rounds!) and by Rahman, who was a journeyman really, or a gatekeeper if you want to be kind.

Holyfield, on the other hand, lost a very narrow decision (which would have been a draw if Jerry Roth had scored the second round for Evander 10-8 after he knocked Moorer down) to a small Heavyweight, but one who at least was a world class performer for a while in his career and who was undefeated at the time. Massive difference, for me.

The only peak world class fighter he faced was Riddick Bowe, Moorer just wasn't from the top draw while Holmes, Foreman and Tyson were just names living off past glories. Foreman upon his return was a puncbag who could occassionally land a big right hand, he was getting embarrassed by Moorer before he got a little bit lucky.

I cannot regard Bowe to be a better heavyweight than Vitali based solely on his series with Holyfield outside of which he was a lazy slob fighting average opponents. Being able to turn it on twice in a 45 fight career does not make you a great fighter, Golota showed him up for what he is not long after the rubber with Holyfield.

88Chris05 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:losing to Moorer is just as damaging as either Lewis lose.

Can't agree there Hammersmith, mate. Lewis got one-punched in to oblivion (twice) by McCall, who was nothing special (take a look at how he only just scraped past an ancient, tubby Holmes, who only lost because he was too knackered to mount any kind of attack in the last two rounds!) and by Rahman, who was a journeyman really, or a gatekeeper if you want to be kind.

Holyfield, on the other hand, lost a very narrow decision (which would have been a draw if Jerry Roth had scored the second round for Evander 10-8 after he knocked Moorer down) to a small Heavyweight, but one who at least was a world class performer for a while in his career and who was undefeated at the time. Massive difference, for me.

Personally Chris I think a one punch knockout loss is less damaging than losing on points, it was a close fight and rumours of Holyfields heart condition in that fight will forever be brought up.

Were it not for those two shocking losses to McCall and Rahman I could see Lewis having a very good case to be second behind Ali, he had a habit of treating his lesser opponents with contempt something Holyfield and Holmes were never able to do. The 90's heavyweights were a pretty good bunch in comparison to most possibly the second strongest era in the divisions history. I don't think Lewis gets enough credit for his win over Tua either, limited as he was, he's one of the most dangerous heavyweights there's ever been, he had a left hook that for blunt force trauma is unmatched.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're looking at things from a very narrow viewpoint, personally think that Lewis beating Holyfield and Vitali trump Bowe and a disturbed Tyson. He performed with great heart against Bowe but ultimately he did lose the series while losing to Moorer is just as damaging as either Lewis lose.

You can try and paint the Foreman and Holmes wins to be better than they were but I just don't think much of them just like I don't think much of Lewis' win over Tyson who was at least on the right side of 40.

And you're looking at things from your usual c*ck-eyed perspective.

Can't even be bothered to pick that nonsense apart.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:losing to Moorer is just as damaging as either Lewis lose.

Can't agree there Hammersmith, mate. Lewis got one-punched in to oblivion (twice) by McCall, who was nothing special (take a look at how he only just scraped past an ancient, tubby Holmes, who only lost because he was too knackered to mount any kind of attack in the last two rounds!) and by Rahman, who was a journeyman really, or a gatekeeper if you want to be kind.

Holyfield, on the other hand, lost a very narrow decision (which would have been a draw if Jerry Roth had scored the second round for Evander 10-8 after he knocked Moorer down) to a small Heavyweight, but one who at least was a world class performer for a while in his career and who was undefeated at the time. Massive difference, for me.

Personally Chris I think a one punch knockout loss is less damaging than losing on points, it was a close fight and rumours of Holyfields heart condition in that fight will forever be brought up.

Were it not for those two shocking losses to McCall and Rahman I could see Lewis having a very good case to be second behind Ali, he had a habit of treating his lesser opponents with contempt something Holyfield and Holmes were never able to do. The 90's heavyweights were a pretty good bunch in comparison to most possibly the second strongest era in the divisions history. I don't think Lewis gets enough credit for his win over Tua either, limited as he was, he's one of the most dangerous heavyweights there's ever been, he had a left hook that for blunt force trauma is unmatched.

A one punch kayo loss to a pudding is a better result than a narrow points loss to a world class heavyweight? Do you just argue for the sake of it? What utter tripe. This has to be a parody account?

catchweight wrote:Holyfield all the way. His career is a highlight reel of good fights. Qawi,  Dokes, Bowe, Tyson, Foreman. You could tell even when he older against Lewis that he would have beaten Lewis if he was a few years younger with less miles on the clock. Lewis was the last genuinely top heavyweight but his career cant match Holyfields.

Ive been watching some of Joe Walcott recently and hes a great fighter. His left hand and uppercut were amazing. He put Marciano down for the first time in his career with it and absolutley flattened Charles. He had the kind of guile and craft you just dont see in the heavyweight division anymore. He came desperately close to beating both Marciano and Louis which tells you more about his ability than stinking out the place 50 times against crap.

Agree with you on all counts.