My Top 15 Heavyweights

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 06 Sep 2005, 17:51

wait qwho said norton would beatocky?

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 06 Sep 2005, 18:28

Rory McCloskey wrote:wait qwho said norton would beatocky?

Seasoned vet has Norton rated higher.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 06 Sep 2005, 18:41

thats retarded

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 06 Sep 2005, 18:45

Rory McCloskey wrote:thats retarded

It's his opinion, and it's certainly no more bizarre than some of the other opinions expressed on this forum, including some of yours.

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 06 Sep 2005, 18:57

The Great John L wrote:
Rory McCloskey wrote:thats retarded
It's his opinion, and it's certainly no more bizarre than some of the other opinions expressed on this forum, including some of yours.

It's almost as bizarre as Chamberlain beating Alilol.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 06 Sep 2005, 22:01

i neever said chaimberlain would beat ali.. i was the one saying he wouldnt stand a chacne in hell

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 06 Sep 2005, 22:02

and i dont think ive had anythin more outta control then norton being better then marciano

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 06 Sep 2005, 23:06

what i dont understand is season veteran puts Dempsey at # 3 yet he puts marciano all the way to 14th??????

ive hardly seen anyone not put rocky in top 10

iceman21287 · Post by **iceman21287** » 06 Sep 2005, 23:51

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:what i dont understand is season veteran puts Dempsey at # 3 yet he puts marciano all the way to 14th??????

ive hardly seen anyone not put rocky in top 10

Though I don't particularly have a problem with someone putting Dempsey at #3, it does seem a bit strange not to have Rocky in the top 10. Say what you will about his competition, the talent of the era, etc. the man was 49-0 with 43 KO's while fighting the best competition available to him. I guess one could make a case for not having Rocky in the top 10, but I don't personally agree with that.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 07 Sep 2005, 01:05

i have no problem with dempsey being 3, but to have rocky at 14 is ludicrous. and rocky and dempsey are a lot alike yet u have them so far apart.

and thats bull about rocky not facing tough competetion.

both dempsey and marciano are easily in the top 10, and i rate marciano 3rd all time and dempsey around 6th

iceman21287 · Post by **iceman21287** » 07 Sep 2005, 02:09

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i have no problem with dempsey being 3, but to have rocky at 14 is ludicrous. and rocky and dempsey are a lot alike yet u have them so far apart.

and thats bull about rocky not facing tough competetion.

both dempsey and marciano are easily in the top 10, and i rate marciano 3rd all time and dempsey around 6th

Yeah I agree with you Brockton. In fact, I think they're both top 5 all-time. On my list I have Dempsey 3 and Marciano 4, but you could switch the two or put either one a little lower than top 5. In my opinion though, there shouldn't be a debate on whether or not Rocky is top 10, because to me he clearly is. Same with Dempsey. I put Dempsey a little higher than Marciano, because with the exception of Ali and Joe Louis, there has never been a heavyweight champion that changed american (and world) culture as much as Dempsey. Dempsey was really the man that brought boxing to the forefront of american sporting culture in the late 1910's and into the 1920's. Besides Babe Ruth, there wasn't an athlete in the world more famous than Dempsey while he was champ. He was more well known than Walter Hagen, Bobby Jones, Jim Barnes, Knute Rockne, Bill Tilden, and even "The Galloping Ghost" Red Grange.

I didn't rate Dempsey higher solely on his influence of american culture, but I believe that in any sport, including boxing, you have to take into account more than just raw numbers. A list of the greatest fighters doesn't necessarily mean a list of the most talented or a list of the best in the ring. Greatness, in my opinion, encompasses more than just an athletes on field or in ring accomplishments. As brockton said, Dempsey and Marciano are a lot alike, so when it came down to deciding who to put at 3 and who to put at 4, I gave Dempsey the edge.

Seasoned Veteran · Post by **Seasoned Veteran** » 07 Sep 2005, 03:10

Ken Norton fought Ali three times and while he made 1 - 2 against him, after watching all three fights, you would be hard pressed to say that Ali dominated his two wins and even more, you could give both losses as wins to Norton as they were that close.

Marciano didn't face the opposition that Norton did, pure and simple. Would Rocky have beaten Norton? Maybe, maybe not.

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 07 Sep 2005, 07:25

Rory McCloskey wrote:i neever said chaimberlain would beat ali.. i was the one saying he wouldnt stand a chacne in hell

I know Rory, it was me who said he would win.
LMAO.

But Marciano is always top 10 or always above Norton no matter what, I have norton nowhere near top 10.

SteveO · Post by **SteveO** » 07 Sep 2005, 08:27

Here's my contribution:

1. Muhammed Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Larry Holmes
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Lennox Lewis
7. George Foreman
8. Jack Dempsey
9. Mike Tyson
10. Sonny Liston
11. Joe Frazier
12. Gene Tunney
13. Ezzard Charles
14. Jersey Joe Walcott
15. Evander Holyfield

How about a list of the WORST heavyweight champions - just for fun :-)

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 07 Sep 2005, 08:51

iceman21287 wrote: Besides Babe Ruth, there wasn't an athlete in the world more famous than Dempsey while he was champ. He was more well known than Walter Hagen, Bobby Jones, Jim Barnes, Knute Rockne, Bill Tilden, and even "The Galloping Ghost" Red Grange.

I didn't rate Dempsey higher solely on his influence of american culture, but I believe that in any sport, including boxing, you have to take into account more than just raw numbers.

Iceman

Jack was famous all over the world and no disresepct to Ruth but nobody outside of North America knew who he was.

I understand your argument that greatness means transcending the sport in a way that Ali, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano and even Tyson did whereas Holmes, Lewis and Charles didn't... But you can't rate a champion because of his influence on American culture. For the most part the heavyweight championship has resided in USA but it encompasses the world and is more important than any national cultural identity.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 07 Sep 2005, 12:30

season vet, norton beat a past his prime ali then lost twice to a past his prime old ali.
ali in his prime would have taken apart norton over 15 rounds. norton was a greta fighter and i rate him top 25, but he does not deserve to be in top 15 let alone be rated over marciano.

u dont think marciaon competetion was great????/ haveu ever hear of ezzard charles, jersey joe walcott, archie moore?????

u cant rate someone based soely on competetion, marciano was the only undefaeated heavyweight champion who fought wars in the ring, norton never even WON a title fight. he was a paper champion (even thoug he proved ihmself a real champ) .

and style wise, norton matched up horribly against arciano. norton never did well against big punchers and marciano defintely would have got him considering he was a big puncher and a brawler.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 07 Sep 2005, 12:55

Seasoned Veteran wrote:1. Muhammad Ali

2. Jack Johnson

3. Jack Dempsey

4. Joe Louis

5. George Foreman

6. Joe Frazier

7. Larry Holmes

8. Evander Holyfield

9. Mike Tyson

10. Sonny Liston

11. Gene Tunney

12. Lennox Lewis

13. Ken Norton

14. Rocky Marciano

15. Jersey Joe Walcott

1- Joe Louis
2- Muhammad Ali
3- Jack Johnson
4- Larry Holmes
5- Sonny Liston
6- George Foreman
7- Gene Tunney
8- Joe Frazier
9- Rocky Marciano
10- Lennox Lewis
11- Jack Dempsey
12- Evander Holyfield
13- Ezzard Charles
14- Mike Tyson
15- Floyd Patterson

iceman21287 · Post by **iceman21287** » 07 Sep 2005, 13:22

Ezzard wrote:
iceman21287 wrote: Besides Babe Ruth, there wasn't an athlete in the world more famous than Dempsey while he was champ. He was more well known than Walter Hagen, Bobby Jones, Jim Barnes, Knute Rockne, Bill Tilden, and even "The Galloping Ghost" Red Grange.

I didn't rate Dempsey higher solely on his influence of american culture, but I believe that in any sport, including boxing, you have to take into account more than just raw numbers.
Iceman

Jack was famous all over the world and no disresepct to Ruth but nobody outside of North America knew who he was.

I understand your argument that greatness means transcending the sport in a way that Ali, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano and even Tyson did whereas Holmes, Lewis and Charles didn't... But you can't rate a champion because of his influence on American culture. For the most part the heavyweight championship has resided in USA but it encompasses the world and is more important than any national cultural identity.

Yeah you're right on about Dempsey being more well known than Ruth. Sometimes it's hard for us Americans to remember that baseball isn't exactly a popular sport in most countries. So, to correct myself, Dempsey was more famous all over the world, but Ruth was still definitely more famous here in the USA.

I also agree that you can't rate a heavyweight champion because of his influence on american culture, as long as you are trying to determine a champion's greatness in the ring alone. I do think that you have take into account a champion's influence on sporting culture when trying to determine overall greatness. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realize that I'm not really talking about culture. Culture plays a part in what I'm talking about, but in reality what I'm trying to say is what you say in your post: Transcending the sport. I believe what separates a fighter like Marciano from a fighter like Lewis or Norton in terms of overall greatness is that Marciano was able to become greater than his sport. Marciano is, 50 years after he retired, still almost a mythical fighter in the sense that stories are always told about him, books are always written about him, etc. As great a fighters as Lewis and Norton were, no one is going to be talking about them 50 years from now the way many talk about Ali, Marciano, Louis, and Dempsey. Just as in baseball, where players like Jimmie Foxx, Mel Ott, and Stan Musial will never be considered on the same level as Babe Ruth, Frank Robinson, and Willie Mays, despite the fact that their raw numbers merit them to be. Certain athletes, for one reason or another, transcend their sport, and no matter what one thinks about it, I believe you have to take that into account.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 07 Sep 2005, 13:30

iceman21287 wrote:Transcending the sport. I believe what separates a fighter like Marciano from a fighter like Lewis or Norton in terms of overall greatness is that Marciano was able to become greater than his sport...

This criteria puts John L. Sullivan right there near the top -- maybe at the top. Not many had a greater impact on boxing, sports and the world sporting community than the Great John L.

Thanks for the lead in.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 07 Sep 2005, 17:44

Top 15 (I've made a couple of minor changes since the last time we did this.)
1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Foreman
4. Johnson
5. Frazier (Joe, not Marvis)
6. Tunney
7. Holmes
8. Marciano
9. Dempsey
10. Holyfield
11. Liston
12. Lewis
13. Bowe
14. Tyson
15. Jeffries

Don't understand how people can have Tyson over Holyfield. What is that based on?
I do understand some people not considering Tunney a heavyweight, but I think he did enough. Besides Dempsey, he beat Carpentier and Gibbons who Dempsey made title defenses against.
Bowe is a hard guy to know where to rate. He should have gone down as one of the top 5, but didn't want to train. His opponents anything special except for Holyfield. Still those fights with Holyfield have to count for something.
I seriously considered putting Langford, McVey, and Jeanette in.
There seems to be a wide difference of opinion about Norton. He was a very good fighter. He was more than just the guy who gave Ali trouble. You could make a case for him being in the top 20, but I think it's pushing it to rate him in the top 15.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 07 Sep 2005, 18:06

Ambling Alp wrote:There seems to be a wide difference of opinion about Norton. He was a very good fighter. He was more than just the guy who gave Ali trouble. You could make a case for him being in the top 20, but I think it's pushing it to rate him in the top 15.

Norton's resume seems to make it a stretch for top 20, or even 30. Yes, he was a very good fighter, but his resume highlights consist of his 3 fights with Ali, a VERY close win(?) over Young, a close loss to Holmes and blowout loses to Shavers, Foreman and Cooney. So other than the Ali and Young wins (which were very close) his only other good win was against a faded and poorly trained Quarry who took the fight on about 10 days notice. Of course, you also have a draw with Scott LeDoux, and wins over a host of journeymen like Stephens, Cobb, Middleton, Stander, Lovell, etc. Just about the weakest resume of anyone mentioned in this thread, with the possible exception of Bowe.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 07 Sep 2005, 18:17

1)Muhammed Ali
2)Joe Louis
3)Rocky Marciano
4)Jack Johnson
5)Jack Dempsey
6)Larry Holmes
7)Joe Frazier
8)George Foreman
9)Genne Tunney
10)Sonny Liston
11) Evander Holyfield
12)Ezzard Charles
13) Mike Tyson
14)Max Baer
15)James Jeffries

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 11 Sep 2005, 20:36

gustum is that a joke or are u serious

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 11 Sep 2005, 21:29

gustom,Damn! my Bucket Drop was recorded! I'm going to have my home swept for cameras and microphones.

Rory? JJB does not make your top 15? I think I'm surprised. You rate Baer Higher than JJB? Your starting to worry me I need to see some better consisitency from you. Or you will be assigned additional homework.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 11 Sep 2005, 22:31

yeah chuvalo had the greatest chin ever, but thats not the topic. chuvalo wasnt a all time great heavyweight. he was a good heavyweight. he lost to much. and no offense but u need to read up on history more. ur heavyeight list is VERY VERY flawed. chuvalo was never even a world champion.

what about all the heavyeight champions?????

whats ur opnions on rocky marciano, joe louis, muhammad ali, and jack dempsey?

My Top 15 Heavyweights

Re: My Top 15 Heavyweights