Top 100 heavyweights all time

[Marciano Frazier]

Marciano Frazier, you still fail to address the decisive point: Marciano never put a prime performance in like Louis or Ali or some of the other ATG heavyweights. Not once.

Why? Because he couldn't. He didn't have the means.

I think you're putting far too much emphasis on "looking impressive." Boxing is not a black-and-white sport. In the end, how you looked counts for absolutely nothing, and getting the job done counts for everything.
One fighter may look more spectacular and unbeatable than another, but the other man may still be the more effective fighter in the end. For example, let's compare Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield:
Tyson at his peak was as dominant and untouchable-looking as any champion has ever been in the history of the sport. His combination of intimidation, technique, speed, and raw power allowed him to completely overwhelm his opponents and make them look completely overmatched. He was far, far more dominant and impressive-looking than Holyfield ever was, and beat some of the same opponents in much more convincing fashion.
Holyfield had to scrap out a lot of his wins. Even as champion, he struggled and looked vulnerable against ex-champions in their 40s and a smallish journeyman in Bert Cooper. Using the criteria of "looking untouchable," Tyson would easily best Holyfield. But it was Holyfield dealing Tyson the defeats when they were in the ring together, and it is Holyfield who leaves a legacy with a better resume, more longevity and greater accomplishments.
You see, Tyson was great because of his athleticism, his offensive technique, his power and his intimidation. That was a combination of attributes which made him look unstoppable against most opponents. But when those abilities were tested, or when they failed, he didn't have the mental strength or physical endurance to fall back on and gut out the battle.
Holyfield, on the other hand, had only good speed, power, and boxing skill, but was made great because of mental attributes, durability, resilience, and sheer fortitude and determination. Now, you can't very well overwhelm opponents and make them look like little boys using mental fortitude or durability. You're not going to look untouchable and unstoppable taking people down through sheer grit, determination and an iron constitution. But those attributes are reliable and will win you fights in the long run, sometimes even against people with attributes which do make them look unstoppable and unbeatable, like Tyson.

Louis and Ali and Tyson had strengths which made them look unbeatable and unstoppable on their nights because they were the sort of strengths that were obvious and physical and geared towards immediately and directly dominating opponents. Marciano had strengths, like his freakish stamina and unbelieveable strength of will, which were geared towards outlasting opponents and outgutting opponents. They were great in different departments. Tyson was great in such a way that he could look invincible, but could scarcely win at all when he didn't, while Marciano was great in such a way that he seldom looked invincible, but was able to win in situations where Tyson would fold. Outside his power, Marciano's greatest strengths were not the flashy kind, not the aesthetically pleasing or immediately obvious kind, but they were reliable and in the longrun overwhelmingly effective. It's like a sprint runner against a distance runner- the sprinter can look far more spectacular at any given moment and make the distance runner look positively worthless, but in the long haul, the distance runner will always prevail.

It's not about being flahsy, it's about dominating your opponent. Marciano didn't dominate world-class opponents, not even in his best fights. He just scraped through.

Not so. Marciano had 10 fights against opponents ranked in the top five at the time(going 10-0 with 9 knockouts). In those 10 fights, he won seven(Layne, Louis, Matthews, Walcott II, LaStarza II, Cockell, Moore) by a wide margin, not "just scraping through" at all, and in the other three, he still won one of them comfortably(Charles I) and dominated one aside from a one-in-a-million fluke injury(Charles II). The first Walcott fight was the only one where he really "just scraped through" without being in danger solely due to extremely bad luck. I concede that he didn't completely dominate the way that Ali or Louis or Tyson or Foreman did at times, but, again, this is more of a stylistic thing and you are putting too much emphasis on it.

[Marciano Frazier]

Now, let me explain this "Marciano didn't look untouchable enough" thing one more time. It is true that some other champions have been more dominant than Marciano in their best performances(Marciano was dominant in plenty of big fights, but not in the "shut-out-where-the-other-guy-never-wins-a-minute" sense). However, as history has shown many times, the man who is more dominant in his wins is not always the better overall fighter- as I said before, Tyson was much more dominant at his peak than Holyfield was, but Holyfield was the better man in the end, Foreman was much more dominant against several of the same opponents than Ali was, but Ali was the better overall fighter, etc.
Why? Because of the way these fighters' strengths are distributed, because of their differing make-ups.

You see, some attributes(a fighter's speed, accuracy, technique, etc.) are obvious from the moment the opening bell rings. Other attributes(stamina, heart, resilience, durability) are not obvious at first and are only borne out over the course of multiple rounds. A fighter who is good enough in the first set of attributes(even though he may be lacking in the second set) and is facing an inferior opponent will look completely untouchable, because the second set of attributes will never come into play. On the other hand, a fighter who is weaker in the first set of attributes, but strong in the second set of attributes, will not appear as dominant against many opponents, because his weaker set of attributes are the ones which come out first, and it isn't until the focus shifts to the second set of attributes that he comes through and shows himself to be the better fighter. Thus, a fighter who relies on the second set of attributes will not be as dominant as one whose forte is in the first set can be, but he may still be the better fighter in the long run.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

and was winning the second fight until Marciano stopped boxing (which, as is well known, is about connecting one's fist with the opponent's upper body or head) and instead focussed on shredding LaStarza's arms to pieces.

dude ur an idiot, marciano was well ahead on the cards in lastarza II

[Ezzard]

Now, let me explain this "Marciano didn't look untouchable enough" thing one more time. It is true that some other champions have been more dominant than Marciano in their best performances(Marciano was dominant in plenty of big fights, but not in the "shut-out-where-the-other-guy-never-wins-a-minute" sense). However, as history has shown many times, the man who is more dominant in his wins is not always the better overall fighter- as I said before, Tyson was much more dominant at his peak than Holyfield was, but Holyfield was the better man in the end, Foreman was much more dominant against several of the same opponents than Ali was, but Ali was the better overall fighter, etc.
Why? Because of the way these fighters' strengths are distributed, because of their differing make-ups.

Yesd, I agree with this sentiment. Many people overrate fighters because they looked so dominant in a number of fights. When they then lose they scrape around looking for an excuse because they don't believe it possible.

[Ezzard]

nearly 200 posts on the top 100 heavyweights.

too bad 183 of them are debating the same stupid topic.

you either belong to scool a)wich suggestss that marciano was a good heavyweight(not great)that came along at a very weak era.and fought old and sub-par fighters his entire career

or

you belong to school b)who believe that marciano was one of the greatest if not the greatest heavyweight that ever lived.a man that took his small stature to unbelievable heights.a man who could hold his own with true top 10 all time greats.



no one is changing there minds.all of the supposed factss that are being presented are nothing more than oppinion.and very starry eyed oppinions at that.



and for the record i believe that marciano was a very good heavyweight who did come at a weak era.but i also believe that with his heart he would of stood a chance no matter how slim that chance may appear
to pull off an upset over several top 20 all time greats.

I sort of agree with this. Marciano has always been a guy that most people have extreme opinions of. I myself don't really belong to either "school". The "school" I belong to rates him between the two extremes.
I think his unbeaten record is a huge reason why there are the two extemes. Some of his fans act as if that automatically makes him the best heavyweight ever.
His criitcs seem to disregard his wins entirely.
It's not hard for an objective person to imagine another great fighter beating Marciano. He had his limitations.
He was easy to hit. His biggest fans often will say it's not the case but it's obvious that he was. He also wasn't a very accurrate puncher. He didn't connect on a high % of punches and often he missed by a mile. He was also small for a heavyweight.
However, he was a very hard puncher. He threw a lot of punches so even though he didn't connect a high % of the time, he connected often enough. He had a very good chin.
Yes he was small, but there simply haven't been many bigger fighters who were talented enough, smart enough, and tough enough that would have handled Marciano.
However what always impressed me the most about Marciano the most was his consistency. He had less "off nights" than any other heavyweight.
There are a handful of other heavyweights who probably would have beaten him in a head to head matchup. However, it's hard to imagine Marciano losing to just a good fighter like other greats did.

Think of it this way. Take the Top 100 list on this thread (or someone elses or your own). How many fights would Marciano have lost if he would have fought each of the other 99 guys once?
Ali,Louis,Foreman,Johnson,Holmes,Frazier,Holyfield,Lewis,Liston,Tyson,
Tunney,Dempsey would have good chances of beating him. After that maybe a few other guys would have a chance but Marciano would probably beat them.
Marciano would probably pull off a couple of wins against the true greats.
It's highly unlikely that Marcaino would lose to anyone outside of the top 20. He would wind up with a better record than guys that would probably beat him in a head to haed matchup.
Foreman lost to Young, Johnson lost to Hart. Lewis lost to McCall and Rahman, Tyson lost to Douglas etc. They would all lose a few fights to fighters outside of the top 20 if they fought everyone else in the top 100.
I would estimate that Marciano would only lose 10-12 fights against the rest of the top 100. His win/loss record would probably be among the 10 best if everyone fought the rest of the top 100.

The bottom line is that he certainly wasn't the greatest heavyweight of all time. However, he has to be in the top 10.

I agree with this assessment.

[pundit]

Now, let me explain this "Marciano didn't look untouchable enough" thing one more time. It is true that some other champions have been more dominant than Marciano in their best performances(Marciano was dominant in plenty of big fights, but not in the "shut-out-where-the-other-guy-never-wins-a-minute" sense). However, as history has shown many times, the man who is more dominant in his wins is not always the better overall fighter- as I said before, Tyson was much more dominant at his peak than Holyfield was, but Holyfield was the better man in the end, Foreman was much more dominant against several of the same opponents than Ali was, but Ali was the better overall fighter, etc.
Why? Because of the way these fighters' strengths are distributed, because of their differing make-ups.

You see, some attributes(a fighter's speed, accuracy, technique, etc.) are obvious from the moment the opening bell rings. Other attributes(stamina, heart, resilience, durability) are not obvious at first and are only borne out over the course of multiple rounds. A fighter who is good enough in the first set of attributes(even though he may be lacking in the second set) and is facing an inferior opponent will look completely untouchable, because the second set of attributes will never come into play. On the other hand, a fighter who is weaker in the first set of attributes, but strong in the second set of attributes, will not appear as dominant against many opponents, because his weaker set of attributes are the ones which come out first, and it isn't until the focus shifts to the second set of attributes that he comes through and shows himself to be the better fighter. Thus, a fighter who relies on the second set of attributes will not be as dominant as one whose forte is in the first set can be, but he may still be the better fighter in the long run.

MarcianoFrazier, I guess we can leave it there. In the end it boils down to that we use slightly different criteria for assessing fighters. I do indeed put much emphasis on what fighters could they do at their best. And I tend to downgrade losses when there are plausible explanations for them. In fact, they way how a bout was fought counts at least as much in my book as the actual result. For you, it seems other attributes -- durability, consistency, etc. -- have a slightly higher weight.

To take a few specific examples, I absolutely can't see a focussed Ali, Louis, Johnson, Foreman, Liston, Holmes etc. be stretched by Roland LaStarza. While Marciano was stretched badly, even though ultimately he found a way of winning. Also, I do rank Tyson above Holyfield, as in the late 80s Tyson was a force at heavyweight that Holyfield never was (this view of mine got me into several heated exchanges with Ambling Alp, who agrees more with me on Marciano though than you do). And I do have George Foreman fairly high on my AT list (#5 or 6), exactly because he could shred world class heavyweights to pieces with incredible ease. I also find some "excuses" for Foreman's 1974 loss to Ali fairly valid -- bad preparation for an the unusual terrain, inexperience, being psyched out by a skilled manipulator. I doubt Foreman would have made these mistakes a second time, to the point where I might just pick the 1974 Foreman over the 1974 Ali in a refight -- although not above the 1967 Ali.

Cheers,
P

[Ezzard]

I totally agree with marcianofrasier, in fact he owned pundit in this debate. i dont post much here anymore because this forum has declined badly, as seen in this thread

BB, of course your contributions are missed but it's a bit rich to claim the forum has declined and use the term 'owned' in the same post. My 12 year old cousin and his friends are forever 'owning' one another when they're on their Playstations.

[Ambling Alp]

I for one am shocked that Brocktonblockbuster49 thinks that Marcianofraser owned Pundit in this debate about Marciano. Shocked I tell you! I personally scored it a draw on my scorecard.
I gave Marcianofraser a 10-8 round when he pointed out that Marciano won most of his fights against good opponents farily easily. (Though I think La Starza II was closer than he did.) I gave Pundit a 10-8 round when he pointed out that Marciano's oponents weren't that good.

Sorry that Brocktonblockbuster49 feels the forum has declined. Overall, I don't think it has. There are some good topics, some bad ones. Some good comments, some bad ones.
I do think we discuss heavyweights too much. Like most people I like the heavyweights more than the other weights more than other weights but it seems that we discuss the heavyweights too much. In particular, we talk about the 1940's and 1950's heavyweights an excessive amount of the time.

[silkov]

I for one am shocked that Brocktonblockbuster49 thinks that Marcianofraser owned Pundit in this debate about Marciano. Shocked I tell you! I personally scored it a draw on my scorecard.
I gave Marcianofraser a 10-8 round when he pointed out that Marciano won most of his fights against good opponents farily easily. (Though I think La Starza II was closer than he did.) I gave Pundit a 10-8 round when he pointed out that Marciano's oponents weren't that good.

Sorry that Brocktonblockbuster49 feels the forum has declined. Overall, I don't think it has. There are some good topics, some bad ones. Some good comments, some bad ones.
I do think we discuss heavyweights too much. Like most people I like the heavyweights more than the other weights more than other weights but it seems that we discuss the heavyweights too much. In particular, we talk about the 1940's and 1950's heavyweights an excessive amount of the time.

I agree, this is a good forum most of the time but we do tend to get far too many people crying in their beer about how great Rocky was etc etc etc... blah blah blah!... its getting to the point where I dread seeing the mans name come up on a thread because I just know that the topic is going to decend into the same old arguments, biased viewpoints and personal abuse... what gets me about the Marciano mob is that theyre not happy with just believing he walked on water themselves, theyre fixated upon making others agree to their viewpoint!... its the closest thing to a cult or religion that I can think of in boxing... and many of these guys have hardly seen Rocky fight!!... I half expect these guys to come knocking at my front door soon dressed in black suits, to tell me "We have reason to believe that you dont rate Rocky Marcinao in your all time heavyweight top ten!!... and furthermore theres been an allegation that you think he couldnt have beaten Larry Holmes amongst others!!!???.... is this true??" :x
Personally I dont mind what these guys think, ....Marcinao was unbeatable, Rex Lane one of the most talented fighters ever, Walcott, Charles, and Moore all hit their peaks in their late 30s and early 40s and the moon is made of peanut butter!!... they can believe all these things if they want but just dont try and tell me that I should believe the same thing!... amen!... 8)

[MEISINGER]

I for one am shocked that Brocktonblockbuster49 thinks that Marcianofraser owned Pundit in this debate about Marciano. Shocked I tell you! I personally scored it a draw on my scorecard.
I gave Marcianofraser a 10-8 round when he pointed out that Marciano won most of his fights against good opponents farily easily. (Though I think La Starza II was closer than he did.) I gave Pundit a 10-8 round when he pointed out that Marciano's oponents weren't that good.

Sorry that Brocktonblockbuster49 feels the forum has declined. Overall, I don't think it has. There are some good topics, some bad ones. Some good comments, some bad ones.
I do think we discuss heavyweights too much. Like most people I like the heavyweights more than the other weights more than other weights but it seems that we discuss the heavyweights too much. In particular, we talk about the 1940's and 1950's heavyweights an excessive amount of the time.

I agree, this is a good forum most of the time but we do tend to get far too many people crying in their beer about how great Rocky was etc etc etc... blah blah blah!... its getting to the point where I dread seeing the mans name come up on a thread because I just know that the topic is going to decend into the same old arguments, biased viewpoints and personal abuse... what gets me about the Marciano mob is that theyre not happy with just believing he walked on water themselves, theyre fixated upon making others agree to their viewpoint!... its the closest thing to a cult or religion that I can think of in boxing... and many of these guys have hardly seen Rocky fight!!... I half expect these guys to come knocking at my front door soon dressed in black suits, to tell me "We have reason to believe that you dont rate Rocky Marcinao in your all time heavyweight top ten!!... and furthermore theres been an allegation that you think he couldnt have beaten Larry Holmes amongst others!!!???.... is this true??" :x
Personally I dont mind what these guys think, ....Marcinao was unbeatable, Rex Lane one of the most talented fighters ever, Walcott, Charles, and Moore all hit their peaks in their late 30s and early 40s and the moon is made of peanut butter!!... they can believe all these things if they want but just dont try and tell me that I should believe the same thing!... amen!... 8)

silkov.that is the funniest crap i have read on this forum in a long time.
funny but oh so true.

[silkov]

I for one am shocked that Brocktonblockbuster49 thinks that Marcianofraser owned Pundit in this debate about Marciano. Shocked I tell you! I personally scored it a draw on my scorecard.
I gave Marcianofraser a 10-8 round when he pointed out that Marciano won most of his fights against good opponents farily easily. (Though I think La Starza II was closer than he did.) I gave Pundit a 10-8 round when he pointed out that Marciano's oponents weren't that good.

Sorry that Brocktonblockbuster49 feels the forum has declined. Overall, I don't think it has. There are some good topics, some bad ones. Some good comments, some bad ones.
I do think we discuss heavyweights too much. Like most people I like the heavyweights more than the other weights more than other weights but it seems that we discuss the heavyweights too much. In particular, we talk about the 1940's and 1950's heavyweights an excessive amount of the time.

I agree, this is a good forum most of the time but we do tend to get far too many people crying in their beer about how great Rocky was etc etc etc... blah blah blah!... its getting to the point where I dread seeing the mans name come up on a thread because I just know that the topic is going to decend into the same old arguments, biased viewpoints and personal abuse... what gets me about the Marciano mob is that theyre not happy with just believing he walked on water themselves, theyre fixated upon making others agree to their viewpoint!... its the closest thing to a cult or religion that I can think of in boxing... and many of these guys have hardly seen Rocky fight!!... I half expect these guys to come knocking at my front door soon dressed in black suits, to tell me "We have reason to believe that you dont rate Rocky Marcinao in your all time heavyweight top ten!!... and furthermore theres been an allegation that you think he couldnt have beaten Larry Holmes amongst others!!!???.... is this true??" :x
Personally I dont mind what these guys think, ....Marcinao was unbeatable, Rex Lane one of the most talented fighters ever, Walcott, Charles, and Moore all hit their peaks in their late 30s and early 40s and the moon is made of peanut butter!!... they can believe all these things if they want but just dont try and tell me that I should believe the same thing!... amen!... 8)

silkov.that is the funniest crap i have read on this forum in a long time.
funny but oh so true.

Oh yes!... the men in black are coming for us!!... 8)

[Marciano Frazier]

Now, let me explain this "Marciano didn't look untouchable enough" thing one more time. It is true that some other champions have been more dominant than Marciano in their best performances(Marciano was dominant in plenty of big fights, but not in the "shut-out-where-the-other-guy-never-wins-a-minute" sense). However, as history has shown many times, the man who is more dominant in his wins is not always the better overall fighter- as I said before, Tyson was much more dominant at his peak than Holyfield was, but Holyfield was the better man in the end, Foreman was much more dominant against several of the same opponents than Ali was, but Ali was the better overall fighter, etc.
Why? Because of the way these fighters' strengths are distributed, because of their differing make-ups.

You see, some attributes(a fighter's speed, accuracy, technique, etc.) are obvious from the moment the opening bell rings. Other attributes(stamina, heart, resilience, durability) are not obvious at first and are only borne out over the course of multiple rounds. A fighter who is good enough in the first set of attributes(even though he may be lacking in the second set) and is facing an inferior opponent will look completely untouchable, because the second set of attributes will never come into play. On the other hand, a fighter who is weaker in the first set of attributes, but strong in the second set of attributes, will not appear as dominant against many opponents, because his weaker set of attributes are the ones which come out first, and it isn't until the focus shifts to the second set of attributes that he comes through and shows himself to be the better fighter. Thus, a fighter who relies on the second set of attributes will not be as dominant as one whose forte is in the first set can be, but he may still be the better fighter in the long run.

MarcianoFrazier, I guess we can leave it there. In the end it boils down to that we use slightly different criteria for assessing fighters. I do indeed put much emphasis on what fighters could they do at their best. And I tend to downgrade losses when there are plausible explanations for them. In fact, they way how a bout was fought counts at least as much in my book as the actual result. For you, it seems other attributes -- durability, consistency, etc. -- have a slightly higher weight.

To take a few specific examples, I absolutely can't see a focussed Ali, Louis, Johnson, Foreman, Liston, Holmes etc. be stretched by Roland LaStarza. While Marciano was stretched badly, even though ultimately he found a way of winning. Also, I do rank Tyson above Holyfield, as in the late 80s Tyson was a force at heavyweight that Holyfield never was (this view of mine got me into several heated exchanges with Ambling Alp, who agrees more with me on Marciano though than you do). And I do have George Foreman fairly high on my AT list (#5 or 6), exactly because he could shred world class heavyweights to pieces with incredible ease. I also find some "excuses" for Foreman's 1974 loss to Ali fairly valid -- bad preparation for an the unusual terrain, inexperience, being psyched out by a skilled manipulator. I doubt Foreman would have made these mistakes a second time, to the point where I might just pick the 1974 Foreman over the 1974 Ali in a refight -- although not above the 1967 Ali.

Cheers,
P

Sure, I suppose we can't say too much more now without going around in circles(which we've done a little anyway). I'll just give my closing notes on the points you mentioned above. On the "downgrading losses when you can see a plausible explanation for them":
I have no quarrel with forgiving defeats on a fighter's ledger, but only if he has a legitimate reason, like, say, being very green, not having the proper opportunities at a certain time in his career, being old and washed-up, etc. When you're in your prime, fighting high-stakes major fights and have every opportunity to be in shape, though, I give no leeway- a fighter in that position should be expected to bring his best, and if he doesn't, it should still affect his legacy just as much, and thus losses like Tyson to Douglas, Louis to Schmeling, etc. count with full weight on my scale.
On Holyfield and Tyson:
While it is true, as I say, that Tyson was much more dominant at his peak than Holyfield ever was, it's evident to me that Holyfield has the greater accomplishments, better resume, and won the two fights they had against each other in decisive fashion, and so Tyson's dominance is soundly overruled. This is another case, as I see it, where a particular fighter at his best had the right set of strengths to appear invincible against most opponents, but who had deep-set flaws lurking below the surface, in contrast to a fighter who had more obvious weaknesses and visibly struggled more often, but was exceptionally strong below the surface and still ultimately proved the better man.
On Ali and Foreman:
Actually, it may surprise you to know that I rank Foreman even higher than you do. He is my #3. Why? Well, A. he has exceptionally high-quality wins against the likes of Frazier and Norton, B. the way he was able to simply obliterate elite-level opponents is certainly a plus, and C. the comeback and regaining of the championship over 20 years after winning it the first time is an extraordinary and underrated accomplishment in my eyes. Without the comeback, Foreman would be basically another Tyson or Liston, probably a little higher because of the quality of his top wins, but not a candidate for the top five. But what he did in the '90s really separates him in my eyes and puts him into the elite echelon in history.
However, as I say, Ali is my #1 and decisively outranks Foreman in my eyes, even though Foreman could be much more dominant against many of the same opponents(and if you're going to point out that Ali was past his absolute peak in the early '70s, I will point out that Ali most certainly could never have dominated Frazier and Norton even close to the degree that Foreman did). This is another example, to me, of how a fighter who can be extremely impressive and look untouchable in the "upfront" sense, in this case Foreman, whose raw strength, incredible power and intimidation allowed him to absolutely destroy many top opponents, can have deepseated flaws which he is simply able to mask, and can lose to an opponent who generally doesn't seem nearly as dominant from the beginning of a fight as he does, but who has attributes which become effective in the long run of a fight.

[pundit]

Sure, I suppose we can't say too much more now without going around in circles(which we've done a little anyway). I'll just give my closing notes on the points you mentioned above. On the "downgrading losses when you can see a plausible explanation for them":
I have no quarrel with forgiving defeats on a fighter's ledger, but only if he has a legitimate reason, like, say, being very green, not having the proper opportunities at a certain time in his career, being old and washed-up, etc. When you're in your prime, fighting high-stakes major fights and have every opportunity to be in shape, though, I give no leeway- a fighter in that position should be expected to bring his best, and if he doesn't, it should still affect his legacy just as much, and thus losses like Tyson to Douglas, Louis to Schmeling, etc. count with full weight on my scale.

Even one "unexcusable" loss doesn't do much damage to a fighter in my ratings. Tyson and Louis were arguably both a bit unfocussed in the fights you mention, underestimating their opposition. So what. This said, losing to Schmeling is no shame to anyone, not even Louis.

On Holyfield and Tyson:
While it is true, as I say, that Tyson was much more dominant at his peak than Holyfield ever was, it's evident to me that Holyfield has the greater accomplishments, better resume, and won the two fights they had against each other in decisive fashion, and so Tyson's dominance is soundly overruled. This is another case, as I see it, where a particular fighter at his best had the right set of strengths to appear invincible against most opponents, but who had deep-set flaws lurking below the surface, in contrast to a fighter who had more obvious weaknesses and visibly struggled more often, but was exceptionally strong below the surface and still ultimately proved the better man.

Tyson fought Holyfield six years and a prison spell after his absolute prime. The direct matchups therefore settle nothing in my eyes. And I'm not quite sure what deep-set flaws you're referring to with regards to the 1987-90 Tyson -- unless you consider deteriorating fast a flaw. But in this case Ezzard Charles, e.g., was an utterly flawed fighter too.

On Ali and Foreman:
(and if you're going to point out that Ali was past his absolute peak in the early '70s,

Actually, no. Ali's absolute prime was in the mid- to late 1960s. I agree, Ali is #1.

[HomicideHenry]

Maybe if Lennox would take Marciano seriously, he could win. I could just invision it now...Lennox would go on how short of reach, how short in height and how small in weight Rocky was and would totally disregard him as being some midget who got lucky a few too many times against men much older than himself....then come fight night Lewis weighs in at 260 pounds because he totally disregards Rocky, and then...

Marciano averages 80-85 punches (all power shots) a round, and Lewis is sucking wind after round three, while Rocky has yet to break a sweat and in round four...SUSIE Q plants right on Lewis' iffy chin...GAME OVER.

Positives for Lewis: Probably best big man since Larry Holmes, probably could have beaten Bowe and Tyson and been the overall best of his era, but Lewis was too egostistical and became all about money (refused to fight Ruiz stripped of WBA belt, sold his IBF belt for a couple cars and million dollars so that King could have winner of Ruiz-Jones take on winner of Holyfield-Byrd, which never materialised, and lets face it, if he thought someone was beneath him he wouldnt train for shit).

Hell I'll go as far as saying Jack "The Giant Killer" Dempsey would have iced Lewis. His style was all wrong for Lewis---and if Tyson could rock Lewis in the 1st round of their fight and he was nothing anymore (view the tape, Tyson at least won the first round), a prime Jack Dempsey would have destroyed Lewis [and Lewis was in proper shape to fight Tyson that night too].

[MEISINGER]

Maybe if Lennox would take Marciano seriously, he could win. I could just invision it now...Lennox would go on how short of reach, how short in height and how small in weight Rocky was and would totally disregard him as being some midget who got lucky a few too many times against men much older than himself....then come fight night Lewis weighs in at 260 pounds because he totally disregards Rocky, and then...

Marciano averages 80-85 punches (all power shots) a round, and Lewis is sucking wind after round three, while Rocky has yet to break a sweat and in round four...SUSIE Q plants right on Lewis' iffy chin...GAME OVER.

Positives for Lewis: Probably best big man since Larry Holmes, probably could have beaten Bowe and Tyson and been the overall best of his era, but Lewis was too egostistical and became all about money (refused to fight Ruiz stripped of WBA belt, sold his IBF belt for a couple cars and million dollars so that King could have winner of Ruiz-Jones take on winner of Holyfield-Byrd, which never materialised, and lets face it, if he thought someone was beneath him he wouldnt train for shit).

Hell I'll go as far as saying Jack "The Giant Killer" Dempsey would have iced Lewis. His style was all wrong for Lewis---and if Tyson could rock Lewis in the 1st round of their fight and he was nothing anymore (view the tape, Tyson at least won the first round), a prime Jack Dempsey would have destroyed Lewis [and Lewis was in proper shape to fight Tyson that night too].

you hate lennox don't you?

[Marciano Frazier]

Sure, I suppose we can't say too much more now without going around in circles(which we've done a little anyway). I'll just give my closing notes on the points you mentioned above. On the "downgrading losses when you can see a plausible explanation for them":
I have no quarrel with forgiving defeats on a fighter's ledger, but only if he has a legitimate reason, like, say, being very green, not having the proper opportunities at a certain time in his career, being old and washed-up, etc. When you're in your prime, fighting high-stakes major fights and have every opportunity to be in shape, though, I give no leeway- a fighter in that position should be expected to bring his best, and if he doesn't, it should still affect his legacy just as much, and thus losses like Tyson to Douglas, Louis to Schmeling, etc. count with full weight on my scale.

Even one "unexcusable" loss doesn't do much damage to a fighter in my ratings. Tyson and Louis were arguably both a bit unfocussed in the fights you mention, underestimating their opposition. So what. This said, losing to Schmeling is no shame to anyone, not even Louis.

I wouldn't call losing to Schmeling a "shame," but I think someone being considered for the top five of all time who is in his prime and has every opportunity to come in at his best should be expected to beat Schmeling. Thus, Louis losing to Schmeling is a pretty bad mark in my view(although the sheer enormity of his accomplishments and the spectacular way he avenged this loss more than make up for it).

On Holyfield and Tyson:
While it is true, as I say, that Tyson was much more dominant at his peak than Holyfield ever was, it's evident to me that Holyfield has the greater accomplishments, better resume, and won the two fights they had against each other in decisive fashion, and so Tyson's dominance is soundly overruled. This is another case, as I see it, where a particular fighter at his best had the right set of strengths to appear invincible against most opponents, but who had deep-set flaws lurking below the surface, in contrast to a fighter who had more obvious weaknesses and visibly struggled more often, but was exceptionally strong below the surface and still ultimately proved the better man.

Tyson fought Holyfield six years and a prison spell after his absolute prime. The direct matchups therefore settle nothing in my eyes.

Holyfield was past his absolute best as well, and the way he beat Tyson was extremely thorough and decisive. I personally think this should have a considerable bearing on these guys' standings relative to each other.

And I'm not quite sure what deep-set flaws you're referring to with regards to the 1987-90 Tyson -- unless you consider deteriorating fast a flaw.

I was referring to his mental flaws. Tyson didn't have the resilience, determination, and tenacity of most of the other great heavyweights. He also never had long-term stamina on par with most of them. The fact that he was so dominant in terms of power, speed and technique allowed him to mask those flaws, because they allowed him to win without being pushed to the point where he would need to rely on his mental strength, resilience/recuperation, or long-term endurance.

On Ali and Foreman:
(and if you're going to point out that Ali was past his absolute peak in the early '70s,

Actually, no. Ali's absolute prime was in the mid- to late 1960s. I agree, Ali is #1.

[/quote]
I think you misunderstood me here- what I meant was that, in the early '70s, Ali was past his peak, eg. his peak was in the '60s.

[HomicideHenry]

Nah I don't hate Lennox Lewis, I do think he was the best big man since Larry Holmes and outside of fighting Tyson earlier and Bowe at all you can really make the argument that he was the best of the mid-late 1990's in a class that had: Tyson, Holyfield, Mercer, Morrison, Golota, Bowe, Ruddock, and other exceptionally skilled and solid boxers. Not too damn bad. But Lennox had his flaws and myself I can't really imagine Lewis beating a prime Marciano---only because Lewis couldn't take it really good from one of the ATG hitters (he did survive against Mercer, but Mercer was one of those guys who never quite got over the next hump to become a true champion) and he was wishy-washy in a mental sense, showing up in better shape for some men and others not, while Rocky was always in shape. Height and weight difference aside (reach as well) Lewis never did quite impress me, all he really had was that long left jab and the cannon of a right.

I guess a Marciano-Lewis fight would really come down to who could get off first and more often---Marciano always fought men taller than himself and heavier in weight, so its not like it would be something he wasn't used to; while Lennox has pretty much always been the taller man and too used to fighting in that way---rarely being pressed, with exception of Mercer, Holyfield and Tyson (in round one at least).

I guess the best argument for Marciano being able to go the limit with Lewis is that Holyfield went the distance twice with Lewis, and since Holyfield started off essentially as a Cruiserweight, I don't see why Marciano couldn't either. He was just as tough (if not more) as Holyfield, and hit much harder than Evander and in terms of stamina, work rate and conditioning, let's face it, Marciano is a hard one to compete with.

But those things aside, no I don't hate Lennox Lewis. I rate him easily into the top 12 HW's of all time---but as far as liking him as a person, not really, as he always came off as a self righteous prick who believed everybody was beneath him, and while that is/was true to an extent, it was that belief that cost him against Rahman, McCall and almost against Klitschko.

[tiny_acres]

Good topic.A fun read.

[Jpreisser]

This won't be easy, but since I'm critiquing I might as well present my own for critique as well. For an all time ranking I'm trying to include a mixture of head to head, accomplshments, and how good they were at their best.

I exclude fighters pre-Burns due to lack of film and tangible resources that are available to the study of fighters in the 19teens and beyond.

1) Joe Louis

2) Cassius Clay/Ali

3) Jack Johnson

4) Rocky Marciano

5) Larry Holmes

6) Jack Dempsey

7) George Foreman

8) Sonny Liston

9) Joe Frazier

10) Sam Langford

11) Gene Tunney

12) Lennox Lewis

13) Evander Holyfield

14) Mike Tyson

15) Max Schmeling

16) Ezzard Charles

17) Jersey Joe Walcott

18) Joe Jeannette

19) Harry Willis

20) Max Baer

21) Floyd Patterson

22) Sam Mcvey

23) Riddick Bowe

24) Ken Norton

25) Jerry Quarry

26) Eddie Machen

27) Archie Moore

28) Jack Sharkey

29) Billy Miske

30) Jess Williard

31) Elmer Ray

32) Cleveland Williams

33) Jimmy Young

34) Ernie Terrell

35) George Godfrey

36) Tiger Jack Fox

37) Ed Gunboat Smith

38) Primo Carnera

39) Tommy Loughran

40) Larry Gaines

41)Ingo Johannson

42) Tommy Burns

43) Zora Folley

44) Jimmy Braddock

45) Tommy Farr

46) Young Stribling

47) Jimmy Ellis

48) Fred Fulton

49) Lou Nova

50) Earnie Shavers

51) Tim Witherspoon

52) George Chuvalo

53) James Douglas

54) Jimmy Bivins

55) Kid Norfolk

56) Buddy Baer

57) Oscar Bonavena

58) Roland LaStarza

59) Bill Brennan

60) Michael Spinks

61) Joe Bugner

62) Mike Weaver

63) Trevor Berbick

64) Lee Q. Murray

65) Pinklon Thomas

66) Michael Dokes

67) Tony Tucker

68) Michael Moorer

69) Gerry Cooney

70) Leotis Martin

71) Bob Cleroux

72) Doug Jones

73) Chris Byrd

74) Vitali Klitschko

75) Curtis Sheppard

76) Bob Pastor

77) Tony Galento

78) James Bonecrusher Smith

79) Abe Simon

80) Luther Mccarty

81) Ray Mercer

82) Henry Cooper

83) Lee Savold

84) Tami Mauriello

85) Frank Moran

86) Jim Coffey

87) Turkey Thompson

88) Arturo Godoy

89) Paulino Uzucudun

90) Rex Laybe

91) Leon Spinks

92) Frank Bruno

93) Karl Mildenburger

94) Clarence Henry

95) Bob Baker

96) David Tua

97) Wladimir Klitschko

98) Charley Weinert

99) Nathan Mann

100) Jeff Clarke

Maybe I am missing something, but where the hell is Jeffries? Klitschko at 97 has to be based on some sort of bias.

[tiny_acres]

This won't be easy, but since I'm critiquing I might as well present my own for critique as well. For an all time ranking I'm trying to include a mixture of head to head, accomplshments, and how good they were at their best.

I exclude fighters pre-Burns due to lack of film and tangible resources that are available to the study of fighters in the 19teens and beyond.

1) Joe Louis

2) Cassius Clay/Ali

3) Jack Johnson

4) Rocky Marciano

5) Larry Holmes

6) Jack Dempsey

7) George Foreman

8) Sonny Liston

9) Joe Frazier

10) Sam Langford

11) Gene Tunney

12) Lennox Lewis

13) Evander Holyfield

14) Mike Tyson

15) Max Schmeling

16) Ezzard Charles

17) Jersey Joe Walcott

18) Joe Jeannette

19) Harry Willis

20) Max Baer

21) Floyd Patterson

22) Sam Mcvey

23) Riddick Bowe

24) Ken Norton

25) Jerry Quarry

26) Eddie Machen

27) Archie Moore

28) Jack Sharkey

29) Billy Miske

30) Jess Williard

31) Elmer Ray

32) Cleveland Williams

33) Jimmy Young

34) Ernie Terrell

35) George Godfrey

36) Tiger Jack Fox

37) Ed Gunboat Smith

38) Primo Carnera

39) Tommy Loughran

40) Larry Gaines

41)Ingo Johannson

42) Tommy Burns

43) Zora Folley

44) Jimmy Braddock

45) Tommy Farr

46) Young Stribling

47) Jimmy Ellis

48) Fred Fulton

49) Lou Nova

50) Earnie Shavers

51) Tim Witherspoon

52) George Chuvalo

53) James Douglas

54) Jimmy Bivins

55) Kid Norfolk

56) Buddy Baer

57) Oscar Bonavena

58) Roland LaStarza

59) Bill Brennan

60) Michael Spinks

61) Joe Bugner

62) Mike Weaver

63) Trevor Berbick

64) Lee Q. Murray

65) Pinklon Thomas

66) Michael Dokes

67) Tony Tucker

68) Michael Moorer

69) Gerry Cooney

70) Leotis Martin

71) Bob Cleroux

72) Doug Jones

73) Chris Byrd

74) Vitali Klitschko

75) Curtis Sheppard

76) Bob Pastor

77) Tony Galento

78) James Bonecrusher Smith

79) Abe Simon

80) Luther Mccarty

81) Ray Mercer

82) Henry Cooper

83) Lee Savold

84) Tami Mauriello

85) Frank Moran

86) Jim Coffey

87) Turkey Thompson

88) Arturo Godoy

89) Paulino Uzucudun

90) Rex Laybe

91) Leon Spinks

92) Frank Bruno

93) Karl Mildenburger

94) Clarence Henry

95) Bob Baker

96) David Tua

97) Wladimir Klitschko

98) Charley Weinert

99) Nathan Mann

100) Jeff Clarke

Maybe I am missing something, but where the hell is Jeffries? Klitschko at 97 has to be based on some sort of bias.

In 2007 when that was written it was probably the consensus as Wlad had been manhandled recently before.