top 30 heavyweight poll?

[Ezzard]

He beat Ali. Who I rate number 1. When he lost to Ali they were always very close fights.

He also beat better opposition.

[Ambling Alp II]

I was looking at people's lists and most seem reasonalbe. There is always going to be close calls that reasonalbe people can disagree on.

Just wanted to make a few points regarding some comments and rankings from various people:

-I don't think a guy should be disqaulified from being rated as a heavyweight just becasue he is also rated at another weight class. Nothing whcih he accomplished at the lower weight classes should count; however, if he did enough at heavyweight he should be included.

-Don't think Fitz should be excluded because he wass small. He proved he he compete with the heavyweights. He was winning the rematch against Jeffries, knocked out 260 pound fringe contender Ed Dunkhorst, and knocked out Gus Ruhlin.

-As for Tunney, I don't think he should be rated low because he was small either. He actually was about the same size as Dempsey and Charles, and not much smaller than Schmeling anyway.

-Don't think Lennox Lewis should be excluded because of the losses. Obvioulsy that has to count against him, but you have to weigh what he the losses with the good performances like you would anyone else. Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer, Charles, and Walcott all had mutiple losses to lesser opponents as well.

-No idea what people see in the Klitschkos.

-Don't see how Archie Moore makes the list at heavyweight. He beat no one at heavyweight to warrant this.

-Floyd Patterson has to be on the list. Where is hard to say since there were so many guys that were roughly even with him.

[pound per pound]

This is very subjective. It’s almost unfair to compare fighters pre 1960 to modern day athletes in any sport, let alone boxing. In almost all cases the boxer on black and white film would be giving up a lot of height, weight, and reach. So my list is a mix of who I think beats whom, and what each fighter did in their primes.

1. Ali
2. Holmes
3. Lewis
4. Louis
5. Foreman
6. Jeffries
7. Liston
8. Vlad Klitschko
9. Vitali Klitschko
10. Holyfield
11. Tyson
12. Dempsey
13. Frazier
14. Marciano
15. Tunney
16. Bowe
17. Johnson
18. Langford
19. Jackson
20. Norton
21. Schmeling
22. Charles
23. Corbett
24. Fitzsimmons
25. Witherspoon
26. Wills
27. Patterson
28. Jeanette
29. Ibeabuchi
30. M. Baer

[si7dog7]

ok the poll is closing

I will do this in the next few days

if you haven't - get your votes in by Saturday 6th April (my next shift off)

the numbers will be crunched and some surprises I hope to get the debate raging even further.

night all
Si

[MEISINGER]

ok the poll is closing

I will do this in the next few days

if you haven't - get your votes in by Saturday 6th April (my next shift off)

the numbers will be crunched and some surprises I hope to get the debate raging even further.

night all
Si

where are the results????

[Clint Magnum]

[quote="pound per pound"]This is very subjective. It’s almost unfair to compare fighters pre 1960 to modern day athletes in any sport, let alone boxing. In almost all cases the boxer on black and white film would be giving up a lot of height, weight, and reach. So my list is a mix of who I think beats whom, and what each fighter did in their primes.

Again this nonsense about weight keeps getting repeated. Boxing is simply not comparable to American football, etc. I weigh 290lbs and boxed at 224lbs. Anyone over 15 stone has enough power to knock a man out. Any more weight causes too many negatives. Yes you can step through shots and use your bodyweight but the knock on is that you are slower, your muscles fatigue quicker and your overall ring movement suffers. There were many, many 17 stone, 6"6 behemoths even in the 1930's they were just usually KO'd by the "smaller" 14 stone guys cause they were faster, fitter and harder to hit.

[MEISINGER]

come on lets compile the final top 30
why do this without compiling the results to a conclusion

[evrenb]

Surprised tyson rates so lowly here...