Boxing.com 100 Greatest Heavyweights

First topic message reminder :

Matt McGrain has started to publish a top 100 greatest heavyweights list after the highly entertaining (and contentious) 100 greatest fighters project. So far, he's done 100-80:

http://www.boxing.com/the_100_greatest_heavyweights_of_all_time_part_two_90_81.html

This might be one to follow and update.

And it's already curled my eyebrow: John Ruiz over Tucker, Dokes and Cooney?

I'd agree that Louis's reign trumps Jofre's, which makes it all the more comical that some posters suggest Joe fought nothing but bums (I would vouch for Jofre being the greatest ever bantam).

Jofre was so talented he stands out alongside the likes of Jones, Sanchez, Tyson and Floyd - those types of phenoms who look unbeatable. Does that merit a place above Louis, though? Again I think it's back to people's interpretation of what we're actually debating.

Louis had the better title reign, the longer reign, more title defences and fought better fighters (save for perhaps Harada). Harada was the only bantam Jofre fought who merits consideration in an all time top 20 whereas Walcott does at heavy for instance.

De Jesus was a small lightweight, the only lightweight he ever to lost to was duran, who he also beat. His only other defeat in his prime was at light welter to Cervantes, who dwarfed him and was a great in his own right.

De Jesus was a cracking fighter that many have barely heard of.
His timing was pretty dreadful.

Had Ali been born in the Louis era, Louis could have had an identical career with one or two more losses (to Ali) and never been world champion. It's the same guy, near as damn it same career, loss to the best guy at his weight ever... hardly a crime.. Where does he rank?

Alternatively, (whilst these results are certainly no foregone conclusion, they're entirely plausible) you could drop Louis into the early 70's and see him sparked by foreman and Frazier and drop a points decision to Ali.. And he doesn't make the top 100.

That's the flaw with looking only at careers. I've no beef with your way of looking at it haz, in many ways it's the only relatively objective approach you can take...as strength of opposition across eras is hard to qualify... But its not without its flaws too.

milkyboy wrote:De Jesus was a small lightweight, the only lightweight he ever to lost to was duran, who he also beat. His only other defeat in his prime was at light welter to Cervantes, who dwarfed him and was a great in his own right.

De Jesus was a cracking fighter that many have barely heard of.
His timing was pretty dreadful.

Had Ali been born in the Louis era, Louis could have had an identical career with one or two more losses (to Ali) and never been world champion. It's the same guy, near as damn it same career, loss to the best guy at his weight ever... hardly a crime.. Where does he rank?

Alternatively, (whilst these results are certainly no foregone conclusion, they're entirely plausible) you could drop Louis into the early 70's and see him sparked by foreman and Frazier and drop a points decision to Ali.. And he doesn't make the top 100.

That's the flaw with looking only at careers. I've no beef with your way of looking at it haz, in many ways it's the only relatively objective approach you can take...as strength of opposition across eras is hard to qualify... But its not without its flaws too.

There's no perfect method - I agree but comparing a fighter based on the work they got done in their time seems as good a method as any.

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:De Jesus was a small lightweight, the only lightweight he ever to lost to was duran, who he also beat. His only other defeat in his prime was at light welter to Cervantes, who dwarfed him and was a great in his own right.

De Jesus was a cracking fighter that many have barely heard of.
His timing was pretty dreadful.

Had Ali been born in the Louis era, Louis could have had an identical career with one or two more losses (to Ali) and never been world champion. It's the same guy, near as damn it same career, loss to the best guy at his weight ever... hardly a crime.. Where does he rank?

Alternatively, (whilst these results are certainly no foregone conclusion, they're entirely plausible) you could drop Louis into the early 70's and see him sparked by foreman and Frazier and drop a points decision to Ali.. And he doesn't make the top 100.

That's the flaw with looking only at careers. I've no beef with your way of looking at it haz, in many ways it's the only relatively objective approach you can take...as strength of opposition across eras is hard to qualify... But its not without its flaws too.

There's no perfect method - I agree but comparing a fighter based on the work they got done in their time seems as good a method as any.

Mayweather has done plenty of work at the top in the last 17 years............But you don't rate him..

Beat better guys than louis..

Another strange one is Tucker quite away behind Berbick !!

Tucker beat future champ Oliver Mccall, Orlin Norris and stopped future champ James Buster Douglas....and gave Tyson a fight...

Berbick beat a half dead Tate, a Zombified Thomas and lost to the cruiserweight ST Gordon..as well as being outboxed by Snipes and Page pre title..............and lost every round to Williams just after.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:De Jesus was a small lightweight, the only lightweight he ever to lost to was duran, who he also beat. His only other defeat in his prime was at light welter to Cervantes, who dwarfed him and was a great in his own right.

De Jesus was a cracking fighter that many have barely heard of.
His timing was pretty dreadful.

Had Ali been born in the Louis era, Louis could have had an identical career with one or two more losses (to Ali) and never been world champion. It's the same guy, near as damn it same career, loss to the best guy at his weight ever... hardly a crime.. Where does he rank?

Alternatively, (whilst these results are certainly no foregone conclusion, they're entirely plausible) you could drop Louis into the early 70's and see him sparked by foreman and Frazier and drop a points decision to Ali.. And he doesn't make the top 100.

That's the flaw with looking only at careers. I've no beef with your way of looking at it haz, in many ways it's the only relatively objective approach you can take...as strength of opposition across eras is hard to qualify... But its not without its flaws too.

There's no perfect method - I agree but comparing a fighter based on the work they got done in their time seems as good a method as any.

Mayweather has done plenty of work at the top in the last 17 years............But you don't rate him..

Beat better guys than louis..

He's consistently beaten good opponents but has hand picked most of them (especially over the last decade) and chosen not to face the toughest opponents he could have. That accusation can't be aimed at Joe Louis - a point which I feel carries a lot of water.

I'm not sure he's beaten better men either - at least not at their optimum weight (which Louis did save for Conn). Who's the best he's faced? Miguel Cotto? You could argue he was better than Walcott I guess (who many would probably put down as Joe's most accomplished opponent).

Louis beat everyone; all his number one contenders (when that was actually what it suggests).

Floyd had enough top competition to win that argument but elected not to face Cotto, Mosley, Margarito, Pacquiao, Williams etc. at their best and at their best weight. His career is littered with caveats.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Another strange one is Tucker quite away behind Berbick !!

Tucker beat future champ Oliver Mccall, Orlin Norris and stopped future champ James Buster Douglas....and gave Tyson a fight...

Berbick beat a half dead Tate, a Zombified Thomas and lost to the cruiserweight ST Gordon..as well as being outboxed by Snipes and Page pre title..............and lost every round to Williams just after.

I'd have Tucker ahead of Berbick. He made Lewis look ordinary at times when past his best.

I agree about Tucker but not Mayweather Mate..

I'd have fought all Louis number 1 contenders......It's just spin to not give Mayweather is due..

His CV far exceeds Louis and you know that..........

Robbo reneged on Turpin 3........I don't hold it against him...S**t happens..

We'll never agree but fairplay.

This debate has been done to death, can we move on.

Calm down Hammer...

But you're right....Opinions are too set........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I agree about Tucker but not Mayweather Mate..

I'd have fought all Louis number 1 contenders......It's just spin to not give Mayweather is due..

His CV far exceeds Louis and you know that..........

Robbo reneged on Turpin 3........I don't hold it against him...S**t happens..

We'll never agree but fairplay.

I don't believe it does. Sincerely.

But yeah, done to death. As I say, I can see a case if you're including talent and the eyeball test but I don't - I think we're using different measuring sticks.