3rd best HW ever?

[Ezzard]

Your pick...

[yancey]

Holmes for me.

[RadioElRadar]

Another one for Holmes here

[NazNaci1]

Between Johnson and Holmes, for me. I went with Holmes.

[gilgamesh]

Another one for Holmes here

Add me to the Holmes list.

[BoxBuzz]

Not seein' Thad Spencer listed here.

[HomicideHenry]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I consider Holmes to be either the best heavyweight of all time or that he is tied with Ali for that distinction. In my view the top five are: Holmes, Ali, Louis, Dempsey, and Marciano. Jim Jeffries, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield and Vladimir Klitschko, probably round out the rest of the top ten.

[dr_devious]

Vlad top 10?

[tiny_acres]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I consider Holmes to be either the best heavyweight of all time or that he is tied with Ali for that distinction. In my view the top five are: Holmes, Ali, Louis, Dempsey, and Marciano. Jim Jeffries, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield and Vladimir Klitschko, probably round out the rest of the top ten.

I will agree with your top 3.Holmes,Ali Louis are all so close.I do not agree with the rest of your top 10.
Klitschko I will not rank.I do not rate current fighters until their careers are finished.

[HomicideHenry]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I consider Holmes to be either the best heavyweight of all time or that he is tied with Ali for that distinction. In my view the top five are: Holmes, Ali, Louis, Dempsey, and Marciano. Jim Jeffries, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield and Vladimir Klitschko, probably round out the rest of the top ten.

That is a 'Good List'.

I have it >
#1... Jack Dempsey
#2... Joe Louis
#3... Larry Holmes
#4... Rocky Marciano
#5... James J. Jeffries

Dempsey's reign as champion was too 'here and there' for me, but his rise to the top of the division was phenomenal. The version that destroyed Jess Willard was certainly an ATG. Jeffries, I am a huge fan of and have always believed that if all fights were 20+ rounds, with 3oz gloves, etc. that no heavyweight could of possibly beaten him. So I do like your list.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I consider Holmes to be either the best heavyweight of all time or that he is tied with Ali for that distinction. In my view the top five are: Holmes, Ali, Louis, Dempsey, and Marciano. Jim Jeffries, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield and Vladimir Klitschko, probably round out the rest of the top ten.

I will agree with your top 3.Holmes,Ali Louis are all so close.I do not agree with the rest of your top 10.
Klitschko I will not rank.I do not rate current fighters until their careers are finished.

I add Klitschko for a number of reasons:

#1- Second longest title reign in HW history

#2- Third in most title defenses in HW history

#3- It is hard for me to imagine most HW's in the past being able to deal with a man with that much size, power, skill set, and speed--- i.e., Ali fought men almost as tall, but not as heavy. Ali fought men just as heavy but nowhere near the shape and physique. Ali fought men just as skilled, but not with the size and power. Ali fought men just as powerful, but not as skilled or calm and collective. The same can be said of Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Rocky Marciano, etc.

#4- Among his victories are the following ex champions, present champions: Ray Mercer, Frans Botha, Alexander Povetkin, David Haye, Samuel Peter, Lamon Brewster, Jean Marc Mormeck, Sultan Ibragimov, Ruslan Chagaev Chris Byrd, which stacks against the amount of HOF'ers that Joe Louis fought and defeated (Carnera, Baer, Sharkey, Schmeling, Lewis, Conn, Walcott).

#5- Klitschko is one of a handful of heavyweight champions to of also been an Olympic gold medalist; his amateur credentials are just as impressive as are his professional credentials
#6- In his earlier career when he was inferior he was a WBO champion twice, and following, has become the dominate title holder erasing most (if not all) doubts to his dominance and increasing skill level as a fighter and one may argue he has not reached his apex

#7- While the division is weak, and the amount of 'worthy' challengers are scarce, one can easily imagine Klitschko reigning as champion for as long as he wants--- there is no one out there to compare with him in size, skill, power, overall ability and athleticism and it doesnt seem that anyone in the near future (give or take 4-5 years) is going to give him any problems in the ring

[tiny_acres]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I consider Holmes to be either the best heavyweight of all time or that he is tied with Ali for that distinction. In my view the top five are: Holmes, Ali, Louis, Dempsey, and Marciano. Jim Jeffries, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield and Vladimir Klitschko, probably round out the rest of the top ten.

That is a 'Good List'.

I have it >
#1... Jack Dempsey
#2... Joe Louis
#3... Larry Holmes
#4... Rocky Marciano
#5... James J. Jeffries

Dempsey's reign as champion was too 'here and there' for me, but his rise to the top of the division was phenomenal. The version that destroyed Jess Willard was certainly an ATG. Jeffries, I am a huge fan of and have always believed that if all fights were 20+ rounds, with 3oz gloves, etc. that no heavyweight could of possibly beaten him. So I do like your list.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I consider Holmes to be either the best heavyweight of all time or that he is tied with Ali for that distinction. In my view the top five are: Holmes, Ali, Louis, Dempsey, and Marciano. Jim Jeffries, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield and Vladimir Klitschko, probably round out the rest of the top ten.

I will agree with your top 3.Holmes,Ali Louis are all so close.I do not agree with the rest of your top 10.
Klitschko I will not rank.I do not rate current fighters until their careers are finished.

I add Klitschko for a number of reasons:

#1- Second longest title reign in HW history

#2- Third in most title defenses in HW history

#3- It is hard for me to imagine most HW's in the past being able to deal with a man with that much size, power, skill set, and speed--- i.e., Ali fought men almost as tall, but not as heavy. Ali fought men just as heavy but nowhere near the shape and physique. Ali fought men just as skilled, but not with the size and power. Ali fought men just as powerful, but not as skilled or calm and collective. The same can be said of Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Rocky Marciano, etc.

#4- Among his victories are the following ex champions, present champions: Ray Mercer, Frans Botha, Alexander Povetkin, David Haye, Samuel Peter, Lamon Brewster, Jean Marc Mormeck, Sultan Ibragimov, Ruslan Chagaev Chris Byrd, which stacks against the amount of HOF'ers that Joe Louis fought and defeated (Carnera, Baer, Sharkey, Schmeling, Lewis, Conn, Walcott).

#5- Klitschko is one of a handful of heavyweight champions to of also been an Olympic gold medalist; his amateur credentials are just as impressive as are his professional credentials
#6- In his earlier career when he was inferior he was a WBO champion twice, and following, has become the dominate title holder erasing most (if not all) doubts to his dominance and increasing skill level as a fighter and one may argue he has not reached his apex

#7- While the division is weak, and the amount of 'worthy' challengers are scarce, one can easily imagine Klitschko reigning as champion for as long as he wants--- there is no one out there to compare with him in size, skill, power, overall ability and athleticism and it doesnt seem that anyone in the near future (give or take 4-5 years) is going to give him any problems in the ring

I would have Frazier above him for sure.With the rest of your names on your list that would push him to 11.
But I still refuse to rank him while still active.

[dempseyfire]

Number of "title defenses" and wins vs "ex champions" in this era of 4 belts (5 if you count worthless 'interim champs' like Povetkin) and shallow divisions mean diddly poo.

[Duch]

I see we assume that Ali and Louis are first and second?

[BoxBuzz]

I see we assume that Ali and Louis are first and second?

I don't assume that.....but those that voted for Larry surely don't see him as top two.

And I would think that 1&2 candidates are numerous including most of the names on that list.


And Like I said...Thad Spencer and even Leotis Martin's names are mysteriously missing.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Number of "title defenses" and wins vs "ex champions" in this era of 4 belts (5 if you count worthless 'interim champs' like Povetkin) and shallow divisions mean diddly poo.

I can't see Wlad in the top 20, probably wouldn't make my top 30.

[tiny_acres]

Number of "title defenses" and wins vs "ex champions" in this era of 4 belts (5 if you count worthless 'interim champs' like Povetkin) and shallow divisions mean diddly poo.

I can't see Wlad in the top 20, probably wouldn't make my top 30.

When his career is said and done,he may make my top 20.
I doubt it though.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I see we assume that Ali and Louis are first and second?

I think that's as close to an absolute as you have in all time rankings, though mine would be Louis #1.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Number of "title defenses" and wins vs "ex champions" in this era of 4 belts (5 if you count worthless 'interim champs' like Povetkin) and shallow divisions mean diddly poo.

I can't see Wlad in the top 20, probably wouldn't make my top 30.

When his career is said and done,he may make my top 20.
I doubt it though.

I wouldn't throw a fit if he was rated 17-20, I just can't do it off of essentially beating David Haye and Chris Byrd. He can't manufacture the opposition, but if this title reign was an up and comer in the 70's or 90's we'd be talking about a guy with a record inflated by inferior opponents that lost to three of them.

[tiny_acres]

]

Number of "title defenses" and wins vs "ex champions" in this era of 4 belts (5 if you count worthless 'interim champs' like Povetkin) and shallow divisions mean diddly poo.

I can't see Wlad in the top 20, probably wouldn't make my top 30.

When his career is said and done,he may make my top 20.
I doubt it though.

I wouldn't throw a fit if he was rated 17-20, I just can't do it off of essentially beating David Haye and Chris Byrd. He can't manufacture the opposition, but if this title reign was an up and comer in the 70's or 90's we'd be talking about a guy with a record inflated by inferior opponents that lost to three of them.[/quote]

So true.

[yancey]

I see we assume that Ali and Louis are first and second?

I think that's as close to an absolute as you have in all time rankings, though mine would be Louis #1.

Same here.

[Ambling Alp II]

Ok whatever.

Close call, but I have Foreman as #3. Like everyone else, he has his negatives, but Foreman's devastating wins over Frazier and Norton is far more impressive than anything Holmes ever did. Also beat Lyle and Moorer.

With the exception of Langford, really anyone on this list has a decent case.

[BoxBuzz]

yancey.....why would YOU not have Joe in the top two? Or do you?

I don't think that's a crazy call ...even if I might have a different take.

Also Klitschko in the top seems a stretch. But maybe I'm being too dismissive of this era.

Larry in the top two also seems a reality based call. Same with Foreman and a few of the older names

mentioned.

I buy the Louis Ali top two....but I feel there is good reason to be open minded for many sensible fact based theories that minds can surmise. And no matter how any of us defend our lists, it's simply hypothetical.

For example....I listen to Il Duce run down a certain top rated fighter, and truly attempt to maintain my open mindedness. And he gets me to crack a book every now and again. However regardless of the meteor shower of fact and factoids, which he takes great pride in raining down on us, he simply hasn't made any real substantial case to counteract the real time facts of the case. All of the things he likes bring up as somehow "impactful" were all there to be considered in "real time". And most of his "revelations" are just old news, being stirred about again. Same goes for the Marciano and Louis advocates and detractors that have found themselves a soapbox in this forum over the years.

But the greatest argument in making a case for Klitschco seems to me, is his size. And I'm not sure that's enough to counteract my eyes when they tell me he is not facing a genuinely blessed "talent pool" these days.

But maybe I'm missing something. Does anyone think this big guy has been tested in any way other than the fact that he held the position for some time? Time does mean something, but not as much as real challenges from top competent opponents. Which I think is sadly lacking in his resume.

I have to say that if Foreman was operating in these waters, we'd see a unified champion.

[yancey]

yancey.....why would YOU not have Joe in the top two? Or do you?

I don't think that's a crazy call ...even if I might have a different take.

Also Klitschko in the top seems a stretch. But maybe I'm being too dismissive of this era.

Larry in the top two also seems a reality based call. Same with Foreman and a few of the older names

mentioned.

I buy the Louis Ali top two....but I feel there is good reason to be open minded for many sensible fact based theories that minds can surmise. And no matter how any of us defend our lists, it's simply hypothetical.

For example....I listen to Il Duce run down a certain top rated fighter, and truly attempt to maintain my open mindedness. And he gets me to crack a book every now and again. However regardless of the meteor shower of fact and factoids, which he takes great pride in raining down on us, he simply hasn't made any real substantial case to counteract the real time facts of the case. All of the things he likes bring up as somehow "impactful" were all there to be considered in "real time". And most of his "revelations" are just old news, being stirred about again. Same goes for the Marciano and Louis advocates and detractors that have found themselves a soapbox in this forum over the years.

But the greatest argument in making a case for Klitschco seems to me, is his size. And I'm not sure that's enough to counteract my eyes when they tell me he is not facing a genuinely blessed "talent pool" these days.

But maybe I'm missing something. Does anyone think this big guy has been tested in any way other than the fact that he held the position for some time? Time does mean something, but not as much as real challenges from top competent opponents. Which I think is sadly lacking in his resume.

I have to say that if Foreman was operating in these waters, we'd see a unified champion.

I am factoring in length of peak and number of title defenses into my equation for ATGH. (so much for being a complete Frazier homer, eh?)

Joe Frazier had a short peak. From June 1968 to the Ellis bout in February, 1970, imo. This is typical with many swarmers.

Head to head, at his prime, I put Joe Frazier up against nearly every heavyweight in history.

In that relatively brief period at his peak, I think he beats any version of Ali and I think he takes Joe Louis and Larry Holmes.

[BoxBuzz]

So he's up there with Riddick Bowe.

[yancey]

So he's up there with Riddick Bowe.

Well, I lost interest in boxing for a while during that time period, so I can't say I know much about Bowe.

I just have to give Louis, Ali, and Holmes credit for being at a high level for a longer period of time than Smokin' Joe.

I just don't think Frazier had the same physical gifts as some I place above him, such as Ali and Foreman.

OTOH, Frazier won arguably the most important fight of the 20th century and from the standpoint of getting the most out of one's ability, he ranks extremely high.