stujones wrote:It is very tough to name 20 greater heavyweight champions of the gloved era than the two Klitschko's. I mean champions, if you include fighters who never won the title then maybe you can find twenty. In no order.
Ali
Louis
Holmes
Lewis
Holyfield
Dempsey
Marciano
Johnson
Foreman
Tyson
Frazier
Patterson
Liston
Jeffries
Corbett
Fitz
Really from then on your clutching a bit at straws IMO. Burns? Witherspoon? Bowe? Willard? Baer? Schmeling? - Really all worse than either Klit?
Charles and Tunney are worth consideration.
Gene Tunney should definitely be there. Charles was more of a light heavyweight. He profited from the gap between Louis and Marciano. He won the title when a great many of the top men in the division were also LHWs who stepped up. Charles is an alltime great fighter, and would be pound for pound higher than a lot of that HW list above, but not as a heavyweight, I think.
To be fair he won the title from Louis who was no light heavyweight. As for the others, were Walcott, Bivins and Satterfield that much smaller than Dempsey and Gibbons? But they obviously had very different careers at HW with Charles spending a lot longer there and losing a fair few.
Not a popular view I know, but I think Tunney gets a bit overrated at HW for his two wins over Dempsey. For example Michael Spinks never gets a look in on these list for coming up from 175 and beating Homes twice (controversially obviously). Also remember Tunney was fighting in the era of a colour bar on the championship post Johnson.
The same guy who thought the semi shot errol christie fighting sean mannion was "the best fighter he had seen in a long time"
Angelo wasn't alone in thinking Christie was something special. He had a massive amount of potential. But as we all know, when you tout a prospect, it doesn't always work out.
keithmoonhangover wrote:
Angelo wasn't alone in thinking Christie was something special. He had a massive amount of potential. But as we all know, when you tout a prospect, it doesn't always work out.
I'm afraid he was alone at that point. Errol had already been Ko'd several times by then, and virtualy everyone else knew he had a chin problem. Which Ange is coinicidentally failing to notice this time too.
keithmoonhangover wrote:
Angelo wasn't alone in thinking Christie was something special. He had a massive amount of potential. But as we all know, when you tout a prospect, it doesn't always work out.
I'm afraid he was alone at that point. Errol had already been Ko'd several times by then, and virtualy everyone else knew he had a chin problem. Which Ange is coinicidentally failing to notice this time too.
If you class being knocked out twice, as 'several' times, then maybe you need to check a dictionary.
Even after the Kaylor fight, there were plenty of people that thought Christie still had what it takes.
Mannion had won eight straight fights since losing to Mike McCallum, so that was a big win for Christie.
keithmoonhangover wrote:
If you class being knocked out twice, as 'several' times, then maybe you need to check a dictionary.
Even after the Kaylor fight, there were plenty of people that thought Christie still had what it takes.
Mannion had won eight straight fights since losing to Mike McCallum, so that was a big win for Christie.
I class it as being chinny, and if you didn't think that about Errol by then, then you were either an extreme optimist or on the payrole. Christie was just about my favorite fighter but even I knew there was a problem by them ( and Mannion was known as a non puncher ). Seys, ok maybe caught cold - but when Kaylor puts you over several times, you know he's not gonna make it.
keithmoonhangover wrote:
Charles and Tunney are worth consideration.
Gene Tunney should definitely be there. Charles was more of a light heavyweight. He profited from the gap between Louis and Marciano. He won the title when a great many of the top men in the division were also LHWs who stepped up. Charles is an alltime great fighter, and would be pound for pound higher than a lot of that HW list above, but not as a heavyweight, I think.
I think a list of "ALL TIME GREATS", would be....
Johnson
Dempsey
Louis
Marciano
Ali
Holmes
Holyfield
I think if Holyfield makes it, then Lewis has to. Holyfield was always patchy at heavyweight. Lewis didn't have quite the resume, but he stuck around at the very top a long time, and his win over Vitali looks better and better with time.
Dempsey benefitted from being able to defend his title as little as once every two years at some stages.
Karl Jade wrote:If he beats both Klitschkos - never going to happen in a million years anyway - he's still only had 2 fights against genuinely good opposition at HW. Certainly doesn't have him breaking the top 20. It has him on a par with Frank Bruno at best.
BULL! Bruno beat McCall. Wins against both Klitschkos would rank him way higher than Bruno.
It's never going to happen so it's a little pointless discussing it. BUT, Bruno gets points for longevity - he fought near enough world level at HW for a decade. Haye has done nothing of genuine note at HW and has yet to beat anyone i'd put anywhere near the current HW top 15. Beating the brothers would put him up there, but no higher than the likes of Bruno.
Karl Jade wrote:If he beats both Klitschkos - never going to happen in a million years anyway - he's still only had 2 fights against genuinely good opposition at HW. Certainly doesn't have him breaking the top 20. It has him on a par with Frank Bruno at best.
BULL! Bruno beat McCall. Wins against both Klitschkos would rank him way higher than Bruno.
It's never going to happen so it's a little pointless discussing it. BUT, Bruno gets points for longevity - he fought near enough world level at HW for a decade. Haye has done nothing of genuine note at HW and has yet to beat anyone i'd put anywhere near the current HW top 15. Beating the brothers would put him up there, but no higher than the likes of Bruno.
Bruno lost to every top 10 heavyweight he fought until he got to McCall.
If Haye manages to beat Wlad and Vitali, then he easily betters anything Bruno achieved. They are considered the dominant heavyweights since Lewis retired.
I doubt he will beat Wlad, but if he does, i would venture that even that win would eclipse anything Bruno ahieved.
keithmoonhangover wrote:
BULL! Bruno beat McCall. Wins against both Klitschkos would rank him way higher than Bruno.
It's never going to happen so it's a little pointless discussing it. BUT, Bruno gets points for longevity - he fought near enough world level at HW for a decade. Haye has done nothing of genuine note at HW and has yet to beat anyone i'd put anywhere near the current HW top 15. Beating the brothers would put him up there, but no higher than the likes of Bruno.
Bruno lost to every top 10 heavyweight he fought until he got to McCall.
If Haye manages to beat Wlad and Vitali, then he easily betters anything Bruno achieved. They are considered the dominant heavyweights since Lewis retired.
I doubt he will beat Wlad, but if he does, i would venture that even that win would eclipse anything Bruno ahieved.
Hard to disagree with that
If Bruno had fought Mercer like he nearly did ( before lennox fought him) that probably would have been curtains for Frank.
Really Haye is on a par with Bruno now. Bruno won a version of the world title - as Haye has done, against the weakest champion, as Haye has done - but unlike Haye, failed to make a successful defence.
witherspoon wrote:To digress a little, I watched Tyson v Pinklon Thomas last night.
Angelo's raving rant at the doctor at the end of round one was legendary, had me in stitches
I remember that. Angelo is a true legend of the sport. His book is a fantasic read.
Thomas did well to see out the first round - Tyson was on him straight from the off.
The Shots Thomas took in the sixth are legendary. Talk about Durable...
