Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by hazharrison on Wed 19 Apr 2017, 11:33 pm

https://www.ringtv.com/488242-ring-greatest-heavyweight-time/

Done to death, I know, but I like the top ten. Quite where the likes of Charles and Walcott are (in the top 20), is another matter:

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

hazharrison

Posts : 7434
Join date : 2011-03-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by catchweight on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 12:05 am

Im generally not one for making lists but Holyfield has to be in there. His career as a heavyweight was phenomenal.

catchweight

Posts : 4138
Join date : 2013-09-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by rapidringsroad on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 4:07 am

Holmes far too high.Some dodgy wins on his resume,beaten twice by a light heavy.Lennox Lewis was better than Holmes in my opinium.

rapidringsroad

Posts : 381
Join date : 2011-02-25
Age : 80
Location : Coromandel New Zealand

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by AdamT on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 7:35 am

Nice to see Tyson in such a list. Liston too.

AdamT

Posts : 6229
Join date : 2014-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by Atila on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 7:54 am

Surprised to see that Lewis didn't make the top 10, I think he is more deserving of a place than Liston. Liston made what, one successful title defence?

Atila

Posts : 1316
Join date : 2011-06-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by Hammersmith harrier on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 7:55 am

Lewis and Holyfield would come in for two of Dempsey. Liston or Marciano.

Hammersmith harrier

Posts : 11569
Join date : 2013-09-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by mobilemaster8 on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 9:08 am

Id have Lewis in there around 5 and id have Klitschko at 10

mobilemaster8

Posts : 4192
Join date : 2012-05-10
Age : 30
Location : Stoke on Trent

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by Rodney on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 9:30 am

Lewis and Holyfield deserve a place - omission Mike Tyson and Sonny Liston for me.

Cheers.
avatar
Rodney

Posts : 1959
Join date : 2011-02-15
Age : 38
Location : Thirsk

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by superflyweight on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 9:45 am

Marciano far too high.  Foreman too low.  Dempsey (to an extent) , Frazier and Tyson possibly lucky to be in there.  

Lewis and Jeffries the notable absentees.

superflyweight
Superfly
Superfly

Posts : 5725
Join date : 2011-01-26
Location : Right here waiting for you

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by Rodney on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 10:04 am

superflyweight wrote:Marciano far too high.  Foreman too low.  Dempsey (to an extent) , Frazier and Tyson possibly lucky to be in there.  

Lewis and Jeffries the notable absentees.

Jeffries a shoo in for the top 10 - Marciano is a difficult one I find a place for him in my top 5 personally Never beaten and fought the best.Many will argue but this is the bottom line.

Cheers
avatar
Rodney

Posts : 1959
Join date : 2011-02-15
Age : 38
Location : Thirsk

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by Hammersmith harrier on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 10:19 am

Marciano's high ranking is a real bug bear of mine and too much emphasise is placed on his unbeaten record, I would be shocked if any of the other top 15 Heavyweights lost to his opposition to be honest.

He fought the best providing they had a name and weren't too big; Baker, Valdes, Layne and Jackson were for the time more genuine Heavyweights than Moore, Charles or Cockell.

Hammersmith harrier

Posts : 11569
Join date : 2013-09-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by superflyweight on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 10:26 am

I think Marciano has to be somewhere in the top 10 because of the record and although his opposition wasn't great, Charles and Walcott were hardly mugs (best not mention the version of Louis that he fought and Moore never convinced as a heavyweight). Somewhere around 8-10 seems right to me.

superflyweight
Superfly
Superfly

Posts : 5725
Join date : 2011-01-26
Location : Right here waiting for you

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by TRUSSMAN66 on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 10:36 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Marciano's high ranking is a real bug bear of mine and too much emphasise is placed on his unbeaten record, I would be shocked if any of the other top 15 Heavyweights lost to his opposition to be honest.

He fought the best providing they had a name and weren't too big; Baker, Valdes, Layne and Jackson were for the time more genuine Heavyweights than Moore, Charles or Cockell.

Dempsey in relation to Tyson is a strange phenomena..........Either Dempsey is too high or Tyson is too low but there is no genuine reason for the disparity..

Marciano Top 10 isn't as much of a problem...........Never lost and beat some good Heavies of the day...

Lewis was probably the best modern day Heavy to miss out but losing to two stiffs doesn't help......Tyson, Lewis,Holy should all be around 11/15 for me..

Liston doesn't belong in a Top 10 in my opinion....

But it is a decent list......Hard to knock it really.......Everything is subjective.

TRUSSMAN66

Posts : 36991
Join date : 2011-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by Rodney on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 10:59 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Marciano's high ranking is a real bug bear of mine and too much emphasise is placed on his unbeaten record, I would be shocked if any of the other top 15 Heavyweights lost to his opposition to be honest.

He fought the best providing they had a name and weren't too big; Baker, Valdes, Layne and Jackson were for the time more genuine Heavyweights than Moore, Charles or Cockell.

Put whatever spin on it you want but Marciano has the highest winning percentage, the highest knockout percentage, the highest winning percentage against rated fighters (since the ratings began), the highest knockout percentage against rated fighters, and the highest winning and knockout percentages against Hall-of-Famers. He was usually heavily outweighed - so where would you put him ? Lewis lost to McCall and Rahman certainly lesser fighters than some which Marciano beat.

Cheers
avatar
Rodney

Posts : 1959
Join date : 2011-02-15
Age : 38
Location : Thirsk

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by Hammersmith harrier on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 11:02 am

Rodney, he didn't have a single title fight against a bigger man, they were all naturally smaller. All of what you've said is irrelevant when you consider his opposition, old albeit great former Light Heavyweights. They look at the names without taking into account the circumstances.

Hammersmith harrier

Posts : 11569
Join date : 2013-09-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by Rodney on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 11:19 am

What's irrelevant ? You questioned his opposition stating the top 15 Heavyweights wouldn't lose to his opposition - was McCall, Rahman, Douglas any better I think not.. He beat 12 top 10 opponents.. His position is certainly cemented in top 10.

Cheers.
avatar
Rodney

Posts : 1959
Join date : 2011-02-15
Age : 38
Location : Thirsk

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by Hammersmith harrier on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 11:22 am

All you're doing is looking at the names Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore, neither of them stands a chance of beating Lewis or Tyson, neither possess the size or punch to do it.

Hammersmith harrier

Posts : 11569
Join date : 2013-09-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by AdamT on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 11:24 am

Tyson and Lewis would beat both on the same night and wouldn't take many rounds to do so.

AdamT

Posts : 6229
Join date : 2014-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by Rodney on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 11:26 am

So you two numb nuts are basing the criteria solely on your H2H matchups ???

avatar
Rodney

Posts : 1959
Join date : 2011-02-15
Age : 38
Location : Thirsk

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by AdamT on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 11:28 am

Yeah why not? You seem to like average boxers with sh1t opposition.

I prefer to rank talented fighters with good opponents. Each to their own

AdamT

Posts : 6229
Join date : 2014-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by Hammersmith harrier on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 11:31 am

Rodney wrote:So you two numb nuts are basing the criteria solely on your  H2H matchups ???
Get a grip of yourself you thick ****.

Head to head comes into it as does not beating anyone I regard as a good Heavyweight at the time, ageing Light Heavyweights doesn't do it for me.

Hammersmith harrier

Posts : 11569
Join date : 2013-09-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by Rodney on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 11:39 am

AdamT wrote:Yeah why not? You seem to like average boxers with sh1t opposition.

I prefer to rank talented fighters with good opponents. Each to their own

Oh dear Adam ! Its a wonder you don't rate them on PPV numbers thats your usual argument. So ranking them H2H - I suppose Douglas is above Tyson ? Your list should be interesting - I'm guessing you can think of 10 fighters.

Ezzard Charles (the greatest LH of all time) won 11 of his last 13 before he fought and lost to Rocky
Jersey Joe Walcott won 5 of his last 7 with the one loss being avenged twice against Charles
The incredible Archie Moore went on to win god knows how many fights after rocky and regain the LHW title twice. is that a poor fighter?

Rex Layne, LaStarza top contenders and dealt with by Marciano.

Only a degenerate idiot like you would be disrespectful and call those fighters sh1t.

Cheers


avatar
Rodney

Posts : 1959
Join date : 2011-02-15
Age : 38
Location : Thirsk

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by superflyweight on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 11:41 am

You'll never win a Pulitzer like that HH.  With filth.

superflyweight
Superfly
Superfly

Posts : 5725
Join date : 2011-01-26
Location : Right here waiting for you

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by TRUSSMAN66 on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 11:47 am

Heavyweights are bigger beasts now...........Louis and Johnson are my 2/3.......

Pick Joshua to beat both...........

I'd pick Woods to beat Nicklaus too....He can hit the ball a 100 yards further......

You can only beat what is in front of you......

TRUSSMAN66

Posts : 36991
Join date : 2011-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by AdamT on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 11:47 am

Calling some one a degenerate online is a good way to show you're winning a debate!!

AdamT

Posts : 6229
Join date : 2014-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by superflyweight on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 11:49 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Heavyweights are bigger beasts now...........Louis and Johnson are my 2/3.......

Pick Joshua to beat both...........

I'd pick Woods to beat Nicklaus too....He can hit the ball a 100 yards further......

You can only beat what is in front of you......

Equipment and ball advancements are the big reason for that though. A young Nicklaus wouldn't be far behind.

superflyweight
Superfly
Superfly

Posts : 5725
Join date : 2011-01-26
Location : Right here waiting for you

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by TRUSSMAN66 on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 11:53 am

superflyweight wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Heavyweights are bigger beasts now...........Louis and Johnson are my 2/3.......

Pick Joshua to beat both...........

I'd pick Woods to beat Nicklaus too....He can hit the ball a 100 yards further......

You can only beat what is in front of you......

Equipment and ball advancements are the big reason for that though.  A young Nicklaus wouldn't be far behind.  

Conjecture............Woods is one of the biggest hitters of his day........

But like the posts above it is irrelevant.....

All you can do is dominate your era...

TRUSSMAN66

Posts : 36991
Join date : 2011-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by AdamT on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 11:55 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
superflyweight wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Heavyweights are bigger beasts now...........Louis and Johnson are my 2/3.......

Pick Joshua to beat both...........

I'd pick Woods to beat Nicklaus too....He can hit the ball a 100 yards further......

You can only beat what is in front of you......

Equipment and ball advancements are the big reason for that though.  A young Nicklaus wouldn't be far behind.  

Conjecture............Woods is one of the biggest hitters of his day........

But like the posts above it is irrelevant.....

You must think GGG is an all time great then? Has he not ruled his era??

All you can do is dominate your era...

AdamT

Posts : 6229
Join date : 2014-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by Rodney on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 11:55 am

AdamT wrote:Calling some one a degenerate online is a good way to show you're winning a debate!!

Sorry you're right - I don't enjoy or making a habit of insulting people , especially online but I make an exception for you and HH. Still awaiting you top 10 heavyweights based on H2H.

You're quite good at spouting bold nonsensical statements without any substance to back it up.

Cheers.
avatar
Rodney

Posts : 1959
Join date : 2011-02-15
Age : 38
Location : Thirsk

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by AdamT on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 11:57 am

I don't care for top ten lists, was just, making a point that Tyson would smash Charles and Moore in a round or two.

AdamT

Posts : 6229
Join date : 2014-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by Rodney on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 11:59 am

AdamT wrote:I don't care for top ten lists, was just, making a point that Tyson would smash Charles and Moore in a round or two.

But your point is completely unfounded and that of a small child.

avatar
Rodney

Posts : 1959
Join date : 2011-02-15
Age : 38
Location : Thirsk

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by TRUSSMAN66 on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 12:00 pm

AdamT wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
superflyweight wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Heavyweights are bigger beasts now...........Louis and Johnson are my 2/3.......

Pick Joshua to beat both...........

I'd pick Woods to beat Nicklaus too....He can hit the ball a 100 yards further......

You can only beat what is in front of you......

Equipment and ball advancements are the big reason for that though.  A young Nicklaus wouldn't be far behind.  

Conjecture............Woods is one of the biggest hitters of his day........

But like the posts above it is irrelevant.....

You must think GGG is an all time great then? Has he not ruled his era??

All you can do is dominate your era...

GGG will be a great middle.............But he hasn't dominated his era...............In the old days 160/175..............

Now it is 160/168...........

No excuse for not dipping your feet.............By the way argue with my quotes....Don't change them !!

TRUSSMAN66

Posts : 36991
Join date : 2011-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by milkyboy on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 12:08 pm

didn't take long for this to degenerate!

for me, marciano and to a lesser extent dempsey are too high, but prob still make top 10. lewis and jeffries would make most top 10's prob at the expense of tyson and liston dropping to 11-15 group.

But i agree on 1-3 so that's something, and my top 10 today would probably be different to my top 10 tomorrow. Really not that much in it after the top 2.

milkyboy

Posts : 7480
Join date : 2011-05-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by Hammersmith harrier on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 12:18 pm

Rodney wrote:
Ezzard Charles (the greatest LH of all time) won 11 of his last 13 before he fought and lost to Rocky
Jersey Joe Walcott won 5 of his last 7 with the one loss being avenged twice against Charles
The incredible Archie Moore went on to win god knows how many fights after rocky and regain the LHW title twice. is that a poor fighter?

Rex Layne, LaStarza top contenders and dealt with by Marciano.

Only a degenerate idiot like you would be disrespectful and call those fighters sh1t.

Cheers
How many did Charles win after Marciano, he was a spent force at that stage of his career

You go on about their win records in purely number without considering who they were fighting and it makes it a redundant argument, I'm struggling to see too many genuine Heavyweights any of them beat.

Only a rose tinted old fool would look at Marciano's record and see any real Heavyweight quality on it, any other division and size becomes a big issue for some reason.

Hammersmith harrier

Posts : 11569
Join date : 2013-09-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by AdamT on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 12:26 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
AdamT wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
superflyweight wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Heavyweights are bigger beasts now...........Louis and Johnson are my 2/3.......

Pick Joshua to beat both...........

I'd pick Woods to beat Nicklaus too....He can hit the ball a 100 yards further......

You can only beat what is in front of you......

Equipment and ball advancements are the big reason for that though.  A young Nicklaus wouldn't be far behind.  

Conjecture............Woods is one of the biggest hitters of his day........

But like the posts above it is irrelevant.....

You must think GGG is an all time great then? Has he not ruled his era??

All you can do is dominate your era...

GGG will be a great middle.............But he hasn't dominated his era...............In the old days 160/175..............

Now it is 160/168...........

No excuse for not dipping your feet.............By the way argue with my quotes....Don't change them !!
!
I think you will find I done that by mistake. I wouldn't argue with you, you're a cheeky c..t to be honest by some of the tripe you send about me.

AdamT

Posts : 6229
Join date : 2014-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by EX7EY on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 1:42 pm

Lots of threads on here descending into BS again these days, some of you have far too much time on your hands. Get a grip gents

EX7EY

Posts : 482
Join date : 2013-07-22
Age : 30
Location : Salford

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by 88Chris05 on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 1:49 pm

As is usually the case (in my opinion, anyway!), Marciano and Dempsey are just too high. Marciano might get in to my top ten, but Dempsey doesn't tend to.

I love Dempsey as a fighter of great historical significance. He took boxing to a financial high that had seemed unimaginable before his reign; the first million dollar gate, and within a few short years until his retirement in 1927 he'd done it a further four times. To put that in to context, there wasn't another million dollar gate until 1948, when Louis rematched Conn.

He was a colourful character and explosive fighter, a welcome break from the more workmanlike or lumbering gloved champions which had come between Sullivan and himself, and of course even as late as Louis' reign it was commonplace to see him rated as the best Heavyweight of the lot. But there have been many decades of boxing since then and, while the records of some of his contemporaries such as Tunney and Benny Leonard have stood the test of time to ensure that they're still right near the top - maybe even at THE top in Benny's case - in the 175 and 135 lb divisions respectively, I just don't feel Dempsey's record has aged anywhere near as well. For me, he's been surpassed by too many names to justify anything like the ratings he still routinely gets today.

Willard certainly wasn't the embarrassment of a Heavyweight champion that he's sometimes painted as, granted. He was extremely durable and knew how to make the use of his size; as others have said, there is a touch of Vitali about his habit of leaning back from jabs at the waist and countering. His performance against Moran was also well received when compared to how Johnson had struggled with him. But if you look at who those guys listed in the Ring poll had to beat to become the division's top man, Dempsey must be near the bottom of that list.

The first year of Dempsey's reign was encouraging, but he lulled in to inactivity after that and, though we can argue all day about the reasons why, failed to take care of the most noteworthy potential challenger, at least until the outstanding Tunney moved up to Heavy. And when that happened, Tunney toyed with him twice, that knockdown in the rematch aside. Dempsey looked half a step slower than he'd once been in those fights, but I don't think that's enough to completely chalk those defeats down to father time catching up with him. The gulf between him and Tunney was huge - Gene made Jack look amateurish for the most part.

He has solid wins as champion against Gibbons, Carpentier and Firpo, but the performances weren't always that commanding and they just aren't enough to offset the fact that he was technically not particularly great and didn't take on all comers emphatically. Dempsey, for me, was a product of his time and was the perfect fit for the Roaring Twenties, and as such gets elevated to a status his in-ring exploits don't really warrant.
avatar
88Chris05
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 8890
Join date : 2011-02-16
Age : 29
Location : Nottingham

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by hazharrison on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 3:46 pm

Jesus, in the words of the great Jimmy McNulty "What the f%^&  did I do (in creating this thread)?"

I think the top ten has the right ten fighters - though there's a case for Jeffries to be in there. The order doesn't matter to me too much - I could do a top ten list today and it would change tomorrow.

Really pleased to see Liston in there (the Ali debacles tend to skew his position) and Tyson, too (who many don't believe was a great fighter based on his opposition).

Marciano has to rank highly. He was a wonderful champion who beat underrated opposition.

hazharrison

Posts : 7434
Join date : 2011-03-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by hazharrison on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 3:55 pm

If you don't agree with the top ten, check out 11-20:

11. Lewis
- Holyfield
13. Tunney
14. Sullivan
15. Jeffries
16. Wlad
17. Vitali
18. Corbett
19. Bowe
20. Fitzsimmons

No Walcott, Charles, Langford, Wills, Patterson.

hazharrison

Posts : 7434
Join date : 2011-03-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by 88Chris05 on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 4:13 pm

Who underrates Marciano's opposition, Haz? Do you mean posters on here or fans / writers in general?

Personally, I'm not sure his opponents are particularly over or underrated, but I do think the legend of his '0', still unique amongst great Heavyweight champions today, is given too much weight.

I appreciate the argument that he's the only Heavyweight generally regarded as great to retire unbeaten, and it's fair enough to ask why, if his undefeated status is given overblown praise as I claim, none of the rest have managed to duplicate it over time.

But I do think Marciano was extraordinarily lucky with regards to the timing of his career. Hey, you've still gotta beat them all, which he did (well, the ones he fought anyway) and which entitles him to immense praise. But here's the rub: if he'd been 48-1 instead of 49-1, would he ever make a top ten? Would he be that much better thought off than the likes of Patterson?

If Ali's 61-5 had been 60-6 instead, or Louis' 66-3 been 65-4, or even Foreman's 76-5 turned in to 75-6, there's still enough quality in their win column, and still enough longevity to their careers, to mean that their overall reputation wouldn't have taken much of a hit. Conversely, Marciano doesn't have those to fall back on; his win column is steady rather than spectacular in the grand scheme of things, and he totalled just six world title defences.

It leads me to think that Marciano's '0' seems to add an extra 30% or so to all other factors, like the ones I've mentioned, when people evaluate him. An extra loss for most others on the Ring's list wouldn't be devastating to their ranking, but for Marciano I believe it would be. That tells me that his opposition, longevity as a high-level performer and all-round ability weren't all that compared to many other greats.

Most would disagree, but I'd put Frazier ahead of him, for instance. Some similarities in how they fought, but Frazier was much better technically and in a million years I could never see Marciano being capable of producing what Frazier did first time out against Ali. Even allowing for the fact that he ended up 1-2 against Ali, Frazier's other wins at least bear a decent comparison with the best that Marciano has on his record.

Frazier has four defeats on his record, but they were all to genuine Heavyweight greats of the top tier - and there were none of those around in Marciano's heyday to test his mettle against. Given all that, I ain't putting Marciano ahead of Frazier simply because he never lost whereas Joe did, and unless I'm missing something I think that's the only justification why anyone would.
avatar
88Chris05
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 8890
Join date : 2011-02-16
Age : 29
Location : Nottingham

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by hazharrison on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 4:45 pm

88Chris05 wrote:Who underrates Marciano's opposition, Haz? Do you mean posters on here or fans / writers in general?

Personally, I'm not sure his opponents are particularly over or underrated, but I do think the legend of his '0', still unique amongst great Heavyweight champions today, is given too much weight.

I appreciate the argument that he's the only Heavyweight generally regarded as great to retire unbeaten, and it's fair enough to ask why, if his undefeated status is given overblown praise as I claim, none of the rest have managed to duplicate it over time.

But I do think Marciano was extraordinarily lucky with regards to the timing of his career. Hey, you've still gotta beat them all, which he did (well, the ones he fought anyway) and which entitles him to immense praise. But here's the rub: if he'd been 48-1 instead of 49-1, would he ever make a top ten? Would he be that much better thought off than the likes of Patterson?

If Ali's 61-5 had been 60-6 instead, or Louis' 66-3 been 65-4, or even Foreman's 76-5 turned in to 75-6, there's still enough quality in their win column, and still enough longevity to their careers, to mean that their overall reputation wouldn't have taken much of a hit. Conversely, Marciano doesn't have those to fall back on; his win column is steady rather than spectacular in the grand scheme of things, and he totalled just six world title defences.

It leads me to think that Marciano's '0' seems to add an extra 30% or so to all other factors, like the ones I've mentioned, when people evaluate him. An extra loss for most others on the Ring's list wouldn't be devastating to their ranking, but for Marciano I believe it would be. That tells me that his opposition, longevity as a high-level performer and all-round ability weren't all that compared to many other greats.

Most would disagree, but I'd put Frazier ahead of him, for instance. Some similarities in how they fought, but Frazier was much better technically and in a million years I could never see Marciano being capable of producing what Frazier did first time out against Ali. Even allowing for the fact that he ended up 1-2 against Ali, Frazier's other wins at least bear a decent comparison with the best that Marciano has on his record.

Frazier has four defeats on his record, but they were all to genuine Heavyweight greats of the top tier - and there were none of those around in Marciano's heyday to test his mettle against. Given all that, I ain't putting Marciano ahead of Frazier simply because he never lost whereas Joe did, and unless I'm missing something I think that's the only justification why anyone would.

I think generally Chris, Marciano is accused of beating old fighters in Charles, Moore and Walcott. As we can see in this poll, Charles and Walcott are underrated heavyweights. I'd have both in an all time top 20, myself.

Marciano exhibited greatness in adversity like no other heavyweights outside of Ali or maybe Holyfield. Climbing off the floor to beat Walcott and Moore; pulling out the win against Charles when under threat of being stopped due to his lacerated nose. And he didn't just win (like some of today's lot who are happy to win a hit-and-hop-it 12 rounder), he knocked them out in exciting fashion.

But yeah, I agree the 49-0 paints Rocky in a romanticised light, to a degree.

hazharrison

Posts : 7434
Join date : 2011-03-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by andygf on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 7:25 pm

superflyweight wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Heavyweights are bigger beasts now...........Louis and Johnson are my 2/3.......

Pick Joshua to beat both...........

I'd pick Woods to beat Nicklaus too....He can hit the ball a 100 yards further......

You can only beat what is in front of you......

Equipment and ball advancements are the big reason for that though.  A young Nicklaus wouldn't be far behind.  
Are we even sure that Jack Nicklaus even existed?
avatar
andygf

Posts : 956
Join date : 2011-01-26
Location : It's not where yer from ,it's where yer at,right.

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by andygf on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 7:49 pm

Rocky Marciano,great guy,but average reign ad a champ.Gifted a win against Roland LaStarza;he didn't really deserve the decision.("New York Daily Herald;"it was a paper thin and exceedingly odd decision".)Some just called it a miscarriage of justice....Rocky's manager, All Weill,was matchmaker for The Garden.
Of his 49 fights his title fights numbered only seven.
The writer Monte D.Cox says,"Rocky was a great but limited slugger who is admired for his toughness,endurance, conditioning and punching power. When rated against other all time great fighters he compares to them in punching power only.His place can be argued amongst the top ten but top five seems too high due to his lack of competitors. "Amen to that
avatar
andygf

Posts : 956
Join date : 2011-01-26
Location : It's not where yer from ,it's where yer at,right.

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by horizontalhero on Thu 20 Apr 2017, 8:58 pm

Frazier above Foreman for me, both should be above Marciano. Lewis should in there, so reluctantly no room for Liston. Putting them in order is the hard part...

horizontalhero

Posts : 909
Join date : 2011-05-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by Atila on Fri 21 Apr 2017, 1:11 am

88Chris05 wrote:As is usually the case (in my opinion, anyway!), Marciano and Dempsey are just too high. Marciano might get in to my top ten, but Dempsey doesn't tend to.

I love Dempsey as a fighter of great historical significance. He took boxing to a financial high that had seemed unimaginable before his reign; the first million dollar gate, and within a few short years until his retirement in 1927 he'd done it a further four times. To put that in to context, there wasn't another million dollar gate until 1948, when Louis rematched Conn.

He was a colourful character and explosive fighter, a welcome break from the more workmanlike or lumbering gloved champions which had come between Sullivan and himself, and of course even as late as Louis' reign it was commonplace to see him rated as the best Heavyweight of the lot. But there have been many decades of boxing since then and, while the records of some of his contemporaries such as Tunney and Benny Leonard have stood the test of time to ensure that they're still right near the top - maybe even at THE top in Benny's case - in the 175 and 135 lb divisions respectively, I just don't feel Dempsey's record has aged anywhere near as well. For me, he's been surpassed by too many names to justify anything like the ratings he still routinely gets today.

Willard certainly wasn't the embarrassment of a Heavyweight champion that he's sometimes painted as, granted. He was extremely durable and knew how to make the use of his size; as others have said, there is a touch of Vitali about his habit of leaning back from jabs at the waist and countering. His performance against Moran was also well received when compared to how Johnson had struggled with him. But if you look at who those guys listed in the Ring poll had to beat to become the division's top man, Dempsey must be near the bottom of that list.

The first year of Dempsey's reign was encouraging, but he lulled in to inactivity after that and, though we can argue all day about the reasons why, failed to take care of the most noteworthy potential challenger, at least until the outstanding Tunney moved up to Heavy. And when that happened, Tunney toyed with him twice, that knockdown in the rematch aside. Dempsey looked half a step slower than he'd once been in those fights, but I don't think that's enough to completely chalk those defeats down to father time catching up with him. The gulf between him and Tunney was huge - Gene made Jack look amateurish for the most part.

He has solid wins as champion against Gibbons, Carpentier and Firpo, but the performances weren't always that commanding and they just aren't enough to offset the fact that he was technically not particularly great and didn't take on all comers emphatically. Dempsey, for me, was a product of his time and was the perfect fit for the Roaring Twenties, and as such gets elevated to a status his in-ring exploits don't really warrant.
I don't want to start an old continuing debate about a certain fight, but I can't hold the Tunney fight against Dempsey, or presume that the gap between Dempsey and Tunney was "huge".

If we accept (and I've said this before) that a fighter who hasn't fought in three years is at a big disadvantage, then why should I hold Dempsey's loss to Tunney against him? Dempsey had taken part in two fights in the previous five years, and was the older man. Also remember, that their first fight took place in 1926, there were no protein shakes and no vitamin pills, training and conditioning must have been hard for the older Dempsey. Should be no surprise then that Dempsey lost.

Atila

Posts : 1316
Join date : 2011-06-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by paperbag_puncher on Fri 21 Apr 2017, 8:39 am

Always going to be subjective with a solid 12-15 competing for a top 10 spot. No real complaints with the top 10 and happy to see Liston in there who always makes my list.

paperbag_puncher

Posts : 2510
Join date : 2011-02-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by andygf on Fri 21 Apr 2017, 10:24 am

"Protein shakes",Atila?!
Are we playing the "cliches from 2010 " game.Because if so ....Jack Dempsey didn't exist.
avatar
andygf

Posts : 956
Join date : 2011-01-26
Location : It's not where yer from ,it's where yer at,right.

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by Atila on Fri 21 Apr 2017, 10:33 am

Honestly don't know what you mean?

Atila

Posts : 1316
Join date : 2011-06-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by milkyboy on Fri 21 Apr 2017, 11:07 am

Atila wrote:

If we accept (and I've said this before) that a fighter who hasn't fought in three years is at a big disadvantage,.

Are we accepting this Atila... after all these years!!! Very Happy

milkyboy

Posts : 7480
Join date : 2011-05-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by Rodney on Fri 21 Apr 2017, 11:25 am

88Chris05 wrote:As is usually the case (in my opinion, anyway!), Marciano and Dempsey are just too high. Marciano might get in to my top ten, but Dempsey doesn't tend to.

I love Dempsey as a fighter of great historical significance. He took boxing to a financial high that had seemed unimaginable before his reign; the first million dollar gate, and within a few short years until his retirement in 1927 he'd done it a further four times. To put that in to context, there wasn't another million dollar gate until 1948, when Louis rematched Conn.

He was a colourful character and explosive fighter, a welcome break from the more workmanlike or lumbering gloved champions which had come between Sullivan and himself, and of course even as late as Louis' reign it was commonplace to see him rated as the best Heavyweight of the lot. But there have been many decades of boxing since then and, while the records of some of his contemporaries such as Tunney and Benny Leonard have stood the test of time to ensure that they're still right near the top - maybe even at THE top in Benny's case - in the 175 and 135 lb divisions respectively, I just don't feel Dempsey's record has aged anywhere near as well. For me, he's been surpassed by too many names to justify anything like the ratings he still routinely gets today.

Willard certainly wasn't the embarrassment of a Heavyweight champion that he's sometimes painted as, granted. He was extremely durable and knew how to make the use of his size; as others have said, there is a touch of Vitali about his habit of leaning back from jabs at the waist and countering. His performance against Moran was also well received when compared to how Johnson had struggled with him. But if you look at who those guys listed in the Ring poll had to beat to become the division's top man, Dempsey must be near the bottom of that list.

The first year of Dempsey's reign was encouraging, but he lulled in to inactivity after that and, though we can argue all day about the reasons why, failed to take care of the most noteworthy potential challenger, at least until the outstanding Tunney moved up to Heavy. And when that happened, Tunney toyed with him twice, that knockdown in the rematch aside. Dempsey looked half a step slower than he'd once been in those fights, but I don't think that's enough to completely chalk those defeats down to father time catching up with him. The gulf between him and Tunney was huge - Gene made Jack look amateurish for the most part.

He has solid wins as champion against Gibbons, Carpentier and Firpo, but the performances weren't always that commanding and they just aren't enough to offset the fact that he was technically not particularly great and didn't take on all comers emphatically. Dempsey, for me, was a product of his time and was the perfect fit for the Roaring Twenties, and as such gets elevated to a status his in-ring exploits don't really warrant.

What you're saying are solid points Chris and we've been at logger heads for many years over Dempsey, does he get a tad overrated ? possibly. But a definite top 10er of all time for me the blazing run-up to the title, including five straight Ko's in the first round for an overall 20-1-1 in a year and a half, is extraordinarily prolific and most definitely unheard of in many eras especially today. The destruction of a champion who outweighed him by at least 4/5 stone a mere cruiser against a superheavyweight with serious power, would be impressive enough on paper. But the film evidence surpasses fiction - one of the great wins in Heavyweight history. I'm sorry if Tyson is getting a spot so is Jack. He was exciting, dynamic, powerful, technical, The million-dollar gates and the Golden-Era explosion in boxing interest would be quick to follow.
Cheers
avatar
Rodney

Posts : 1959
Join date : 2011-02-15
Age : 38
Location : Thirsk

Back to top Go down

Re: Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum