Top 10 Heavyweights...again

Hi all, I'm guessing you must be boerd of all these greatest Heavyweight topics but theres a reasoning to mine.

It was my birthday recently and I was lucky enough the get my hands on 6 Boxing DVD's. Theres two DVD's about early Tyson going from fight one to his first fight with Bruno. Another DVD has the full Thriller in Manila and Rumble in the Jungle fights.

The other three is a countdown of the 10 Greatest Heavyweights of all time. I believe the DVD's were put together by ESPN so here I am ready to tell what they said and not my own opinion:

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Jack Johnson
5. Gene Tunney
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Ezzard Charles
8. George Foreman
9. Joe Frazier
10. Larry Holmes

Being of a young age I can't judge on a lot of these heavyweights but I will put together a list of the best Heavyweights of the last 20 years

I am wondering who you would have maybe instead of these 10 or maybe an adjustments. Not being old enough to know too much about Marciano, to remain undefeated perhaps warrants a higher place.

Tunney is way too high for me, seriously talented fighter but spend a good deal of his career at light heavy and had only two defences of his title. Pretty much the same can be said of Charles, who had much his better days at light heavy. The most glaring ommission from the list is Jeffries who is a top five guy for me.

I would have Ali at No.1.
Would take out Tunney and Charles and replace them with Jeffries and Lewis (or possibly Holyfield/Tyson).

1) Muhammad Ali
2) Joe Louis
3) Jack Johnson
4) James Jeffries
5) Larry Holmes
6) Jack Dempsey
7) George Foreman
8) Rocky Marciano
9) Joe Frazier
10) Lennox Lewis

Never cared much for this ESPN list; Tunney and Charles, magnificent fighters though they were, simply can't be above Holmes, for instance.

Also, as much as it usually results in me getting a kicking from a few on here, seeing Dempsey so high really does leave me a little cold. Have never been able to rank him as anything other than a low end top ten Heavyweight, and I feel his legacy is boosted massively by the fact that he took boxing on to a financial level that had been beyond the realms of comprehension only a few years before. A great fighter, a wonderful icon for the sport and also one of the key figures within it, but simply not a top three or four Heavyweight of all time, at least in my eyes.

Would always plump for Ali as top dog myself, but have no issue with anyone opting for the 'Brown Bomber', either. The two of them are separated by a fair bit of daylight from the rest of the chasing pack, for me. Personally I'd go with 1) Ali 2) Louis 3) Johnson 4) Holmes 5) Jeffries 6) Foreman 7) Lewis 8) Dempsey 9) Marciano 10) Frazier. Ask me on another day, and Liston might nick that final spot from Smokin' Joe.

Was this list compiled by Bert Sugar?

Have to say it's a fairly terrible list, Tunney and Charles are the two best fighters in the list but that's from their light heavyweight exploits more than anything, neither should be that high, Holmes is far too low while Lewis and Jeffries simply have to feature anywhere between 4 and 8.

Yes Bert Sugar put it together

See I'd go one further and suggest that I'd rank Lennox above Holmes. Not much in it in terms of best wins, and I have always felt that Lewis would win a head to head, too.

*braces himself for the undoubted backlash*

For me fists they are very close but you know what i'm going to say before I even say it, Rahman and McCall do knock him down a couple of places, without those losses he would be my number 3

Fists of Fury wrote:See I'd go one further and suggest that I'd rank Lennox above Holmes. Not much in it in terms of best wins, and I have always felt that Lewis would win a head to head, too.

*braces himself for the undoubted backlash*

Don't think you deserve all that much backlash, Fists, even though I'd disagree. I think you're bang on in saying that, both at their best, it's a difficult hypothetical match up to call and one which Lewis was more than capable of winning. But taking aside Holmes' longevity, I really don't see anything on Lewis' record (with the possible, but not certain exception of the Holyfield wins) any 'better' than what Holmes has on his, and factoring in that Holmes wasn't upset in or around his best years by relative Heavyweight footnotes, I think Holmes simply has to be a couple of places or so higher.

Fists of Fury wrote:See I'd go one further and suggest that I'd rank Lennox above Holmes. Not much in it in terms of best wins, and I have always felt that Lewis would win a head to head, too.

*braces himself for the undoubted backlash*

Did athread a while back on this fantasy fight Fists, here you go:

https://www.606v2.com/t1033-larry-holmes-vs-lennox-lewis

1. M Ali
2. J Louis
3. L Holmes
4. Johnson
5. Jeffries
6. Foreman
7. Frazier
8. Dempsey
9. L Lewis
10. Tyson (Controversial I know but while it lasted...)

Of course it's all very subjective to really tell as to how the old timers would fair up against the moderns. Think it probably goes something close to that, think Marciano hits 11 for me, but can completely understand people rating him higher than I've rated Tyson.

Which Lewis beats Holmes have to be the Steward one.....

Sorry but a guy that struggles with Mercer and Bruno loses to Larry..

1)Ali 2) Holmes 3)Foreman 4)Lewis 5)Jeffries 6)Dempsey 7)Sullivan 8)Liston 9)Johnson 10)Tyson

Sullivan?

We don't really know just quite how good Sullivan is though, clearly he had something but how he would compare to these guys is very difficult to know.

Not a Louis fan Andy?

For me Alex head to head doesn't really come into it

themadworldofjb wrote:Yes Bert Sugar put it together

I bought the book Sugar and Atlas book of boxing lists and Bert Sugars ten were

Joe Louis
Muhammad Ali
Jack Johnson
Jack Dempsey
Gene Tunney
Rocky Marciano
George Foreman
Larry Holmes
Sam Langford
Joe Frasier

A bit different from this so I would be surprised if this was compiled by Sugar.

Scottrf wrote:Not a Louis fan Andy?

Ach blast your eyes, sir!
As it happens, no I am not,(particularly) well I adore him as a person but don't have him as a top three.
Incidentally ,i have always declined to post me top ten because it's too darned difficult,but the last week i have mulled it over.
Ok.
1. Ali
2.Holmes
3.Foreman
4a Louis
4b Lewis
5. Jeffries
6. Dempsey
7.Sullivan
8. Liston
9.Johnson
10.Tyson
So, er ,there's my top eleven....see how bloomin' painful it is...although if Tyson is excluded from the strict ten, can't say I'm too gutted by that.

Yeah I did battle with myself in mine to put him top ten CERTAINLY had the talent but he just didn't live up to his potential, definately had the quality to be in top 5.

AlexHuckerby wrote:We don't really know just quite how good Sullivan is though, clearly he had something but how he would compare to these guys is very difficult to know.

Au contrere, AlexHuckerby, the weight of evidence that Sullivan was a very well-rounded fighting machine is ,as Tony Blair one said," comprehensive and compelling".But seriously, I reckon he's overlooked because of a lack of primary evidence,which is a shame.You may be surprised to hear he had defensive skills, was deadly quick and accurate as well as a granite chin and almost unbelieveable stamina-those last two qualities are borne out by the record books and as such are beyond conjecture. I understand if people can't/won't include him in their lists,but the name of the game is honesty here,so...

Ali is miles ahead of anyone......

Louis lost to the two best fighters he fought albeit past his best....

It's pretty poor really how anyone has him over a guy who beat..

Liston twice, Patterson twice, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Shavers, Lyle, Young, Quarry.......

All probably better than anything Louis beat bar Walcott..

andygf wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:We don't really know just quite how good Sullivan is though, clearly he had something but how he would compare to these guys is very difficult to know.

Au contrere, AlexHuckerby, the weight of evidence that Sullivan was a very well-rounded fighting machine is ,as Tony Blair one said," comprehensive and compelling".But seriously, I reckon he's overlooked because of a lack of primary evidence,which is a shame.You may be surprised to hear he had defensive skills, was deadly quick and accurate as well as a granite chin and almost unbelieveable stamina-those last two qualities are borne out by the record books and as such are beyond conjecture. I understand if people can't/won't include him in their lists,but the name of the game is honesty here,so...

Fair enough, just I haven't got any hard evidence to back anything of that up, and could very well be guys talking about how tough and great the fighters were back then and overexagerating it to be honest.

I don't see on what grounds we could include Sullivan in a gloved list, may as well include the likes of Mendoza and Cribb as well

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Ali is miles ahead of anyone......

Louis lost to the two best fighters he fought albeit past his best....

It's pretty poor really how anyone has him over a guy who beat..

Liston twice, Patterson twice, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Shavers, Lyle, Young, Quarry.......

All probably better than anything Louis beat bar Walcott..

I also agree, when people ask me who is the best HW of all time, I don't think it's a tough question for me in honesty, the man was the most incredible fighter and was around in the most competetive era of Heavyweight boxing and the fact that he came back and beat Foreman was just the most one of the most incredible feats anyone could have ever done add that with the amount of great wins that you have also mentioned Truss makes him the greatest, but Louis gets very close imo.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I don't see on what grounds we could include Sullivan in a gloved list, may as well include the likes of Mendoza and Cribb as well

It is a slight fallacy that he was mainly bare-knuckled.He always preferred to use gloves so when given the choice he used 'em.I think he only boxed bareknuckle once after 1880.

He mainly fought under LPR rules though so whether he uses gloves or not isn't overly important, his fights of real note were against Kilrain ungloved and then against Corbett gloved which he lost, don't see how having only a loss to go on entitles him to a top 20 spot let alone top 10

Not top 20.....As modern boxing basically started with his fight with Kilrain and then Corbett....nullifies the previous stuff..

KIlrain v Sullivan is regarded as the first superfight...

However Kilrain alone plus his pedigree puts him above stiffs like Willard for me..

I still don't understand why people keep trying to put Lewis in the top ten ala alangf. Quality, yes, but not top ten. He lost against pedestrian opposition, which scores against him

Foreman lost to Jimmy Young, whilst a decent fighter he was nothing special, do we take him out the ten based on that?

No because styles make fights or sometimes guys who are overmatched land the big one such as barkley-Hearns..

Junior Jones beat Marco twice.....doesn't stop Barrera from being great.

My point exactly Truss

bhb001 wrote:I still don't understand why people keep trying to put Lewis in the top ten ala alangf. Quality, yes, but not top ten. He lost against pedestrian opposition, which scores against him

He did but it wasn't like he was outboxed or anything though, he switched off... Fair enough but he avenged both of those defeats in stunning fashion. And took out most of the top fighters in his time maybe having Tyson earlier would have been better but a lot of guys ducked him aswell knowing they could be very tough nights or possibly in too deep against LEwis. I think when Lewis was in against real difficult opposition/ Dangerous opposition he was always at his sharpest and best and rarely made a mistake. Think he ranks in the lower end of the top 10 for me.

Well,as mentioned above, am not going to argue the toss, if you do not rate JLS fair enough,however plenty of boxing pundits still do,including Thomas Hauseur,(who wrote perhaps the best Ali biography) who speculated that Sullivan was probably the greatest fighting machine that had ever lived. Considering his long lay off ,the Ryan result is a very impressive one,and he lost to Corbett, no slouch himself, after another long layoff,when he was an obese shadow of his former self.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Not top 20.....As modern boxing basically started with his fight with Kilrain and then Corbett....nullifies the previous stuff..

..

I don't think you will be allowed back in Boston, so you had better start liking this place a bit more...

Timing was everything with Lewis.....

Holy, Bowe or Tyson in 90 would have been diffeerent propositions entirely...

Not sure Lewis comes back from a Tyson drubbing which if let's face it mccall stiffs him would likely have happened....

fair is fair great heavy though lennox.

It's not a case of not rating him I just don't think he should be rated among the queensbury rules fighters before which he's around 3/4 behind Mendoza, Cribb and Mace, I just don't know where you draw the line between guys like Corbett, Sullivan and Mace

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Timing was everything with Lewis.....

Holy, Bowe or Tyson in 90 would have been diffeerent propositions entirely...

Not sure Lewis comes back from a Tyson drubbing which if let's face it mccall stiffs him would likely have happened....

fair is fair great heavy though lennox.

Not sure the Tyson who got beaten convincingly by Douglas could possibly beat Lewis Truss, simple excuse but Lewis did not take his greater challenges lightly, can't see him making the same mistakes he did against Rahman or McCall against Tyson or Holyfield

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Timing was everything with Lewis.....

Holy, Bowe or Tyson in 90 would have been diffeerent propositions entirely...

Not sure Lewis comes back from a Tyson drubbing which if let's face it mccall stiffs him would likely have happened....

fair is fair great heavy though lennox.

Well you never know really I mean it's for a different thread entirely but if Buster Douglas is counted out in 1990 then the entire HW scene could have been completely different, perhaps he would have reapplied himself and trained properly for Holyfield and then maybe a Lewis further down the line?
Also it's not really entirely Lewis' fault Tyson was ducking him as was Bowe, though if he had taken them he could have a very strong case for being top 5 imo.

You don't think 1990 Tyson was better than mccall...I do..

Correa lewis had a lot of faults.

That's the point Truss, Tyson was far better than McCall

Yes but Truss that's not the point is it?
McCall sparked him but he didn't exactly outbox him he caught him really hard, it's a stone cold fact that LEwis was so much better against the guys he genuinely thought were dangerous ala Tua and such. Meaning imo he wouldn't be giving the same performance agaisnt quite possibly one of the most dangerous Heavies ever as he did against McCall.
Also Correa Lewis mainly was troubled with people with good jabs, it's not like Tyson had a reach advantage in this fight is it?

Sure, guess it's horses for courses. For me the era of Sullivan/Corbett /Fitz/Jeffries is as strong as any era.Naturally I feel JLS adapted well to Queensbury rules and was indeed an advocate of the rules.
Most folks will not include him for the reasons you mention;I give him special dispensation ahead of say Mace partly because of his record and partly because there is even less primary evidence for him in existence.

No but mccall was setting him up fopr the right hand because Lewis was gagging for it and was wide open when he threw his punches..

He negated this later on..

1990 Lewis would've been gagging for a Tyson right..

1990 Lewis was at Domestic level so.... I'm guessing you're right Truss. xD