Following SteveO's votes, Jim Jeffries moves up to tied 15th alongside John L. Sullivan & Sam Langford.SteveO wrote:10 votes
And Wladimir Klitschsko moves ahead in to 13th ahead of Gene Tunney.
Following SteveO's votes, Jim Jeffries moves up to tied 15th alongside John L. Sullivan & Sam Langford.SteveO wrote:10 votes
That gives us a new leader. Muhammad Ali has taken the lead for the 1st time.Ambling Alp II wrote:1. Ali
2. Louis
It's still much, much too early to have a detailed analysis of how things will eventually pan out. But I'd like to make a few comments on our findings thus far.Crease wrote:Current Scoreboard: (counted after 21 members voted)
1st - 204 pts Muhammad Ali
2nd - 203 pts Joe Louis
3rd - 136 pts Larry Holmes
4th - 127 pts George Foreman
5th - 103 pts Jack Johnson
6th - 81 pts Lennox Lewis
7th - 74 pts Rocky Marciano
8th - 68 pts Joe Frazier
9th - 62 pts Evander Holyfield
10th - 56 pts Jack Dempsey
11th - 29 pts Sonny Liston
12th - 15 pts Mike Tyson
13th - 13 pts Wladimir Klitchsko
14th - 10 pts Gene Tunney
Tied 15th - 06 pts Sam Langford
Tied 15th - 06 pts John L Sullivan
Tied 15th - 06 pts James J Jeffries
17th - 04 pts Vitali Klitchsko
19th - 03 pts Riddick Bowe
Tied 20th - 01 pt Ezzard Charles
Tied 20th - 01 pt Peter Jackson
Agree 100% sir.Ambling Alp II wrote:We should way the pluses against the minuses. Foreman lost to Ali and Young. However, how much can losing to hurt him? Certainly not as much as to Rahman and McCall as Jaywheel alluded to.
Foreman beat Joe Frazier. How many other guys have a win that compares to that? He also beat Norton and Lyle. He has to be pretty high up there.
No I didn't mean Schmeling, I did mean Ezzard Charles.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Prime Joe Louis? Stopped? You mean scheming?
Schmeling wasn't, no. But Walcott and Charles fought each other four times for the World title, so undoubtedly they are old rivals.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Though he wasn't a Walcott rival. Odd synopsis.
OK that explains the "stopped" part. However, Crease you also said that Charles stopped a prime Joe Louis. Joe Louis was way past his prime when Charles beat him.Crease wrote:No I didn't mean Schmeling, I did mean Ezzard Charles.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Prime Joe Louis? Stopped? You mean scheming?
You've misunderstood my meaning of "stopped". By that I did not mean his type of victory over Louis (a KO/TKO) - I meant that he stopped Joe's win streak. What was it? Something like 30+ odd victories in a row?
Schmeling wasn't, no. But Walcott and Charles fought each other four times for the World title, so undoubtedly they are old rivals.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Though he wasn't a Walcott rival. Odd synopsis.
Ok, yet you consider that to be a prime Louis? He was about as prime as Ali was against Spinks.Crease wrote:No I didn't mean Schmeling, I did mean Ezzard Charles.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Prime Joe Louis? Stopped? You mean scheming?
You've misunderstood my meaning of "stopped". By that I did not mean his type of victory over Louis (a KO/TKO) - I meant that he stopped Joe's win streak. What was it? Something like 30+ odd victories in a row?
Schmeling wasn't, no. But Walcott and Charles fought each other four times for the World title, so undoubtedly they are old rivals.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Though he wasn't a Walcott rival. Odd synopsis.
In my estimation he was nearer his prime then, compared to how young he was in his Schmeling loss.Ambling Alp II wrote:OK that explains the "stopped" part. However, Crease you also said that Charles stopped a prime Joe Louis. Joe Louis was way past his prime when Charles beat him.
Obviously he needed the money with the tax breathing down his neck, but even a quick glance at Joe's record suggests that he was still at top fighter (8 wins in a row) by the time he fought Marciano.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He had already retired because he knew he was past his prime. Needed the money, sorry man, that isn't remotely debatable.
Tyson was not in his prime when he fought Holyfeld. And never once said that, I'm confused as to why you brought that up?SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Even more off than Holyfield being prime for Tyson.
Crease wrote:Current Scoreboard: (counted after 23 members voted)
1st - 223 pts Muhammad Ali
2nd - 220 pts Joe Louis
3rd - 145 pts Larry Holmes
4th - 133 pts George Foreman
5th - 114 pts Jack Johnson
6th - 88 pts Rocky Marciano
7th - 83 pts Lennox Lewis
8th - 75 pts Joe Frazier
9th - 69 pts Evander Holyfield
10th - 66 pts Jack Dempsey
Yes, but he avenged both defeats.Jaywheel wrote:Well, Lewis is currently ranked 6 and he doesn't seem too affected in his ranking by the 2 losses in his prime to 2 far less formidable conquerors than Foreman's.
You said Holyfield was in his prime, he wasn't. Of course he was still a top Heavyweight. He was Joe Louis, doesn't make him prime.Crease wrote:Obviously he needed the money with the tax breathing down his neck, but even a quick glance at Joe's record suggests that he was still at top fighter (8 wins in a row) by the time he fought Marciano.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He had already retired because he knew he was past his prime. Needed the money, sorry man, that isn't remotely debatable.
Tyson was not in his prime when he fought Holyfeld. And never once said that, I'm confused as to why you brought that up?SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Even more off than Holyfield being prime for Tyson.
Louis was way past his prime when he fought charles - the fact that he carried on, beat a few contenders and showed well against rocky is just testament to his greatness. Charles is a greater fighter than louis pound for pound - just - but a prime louis would have koed charles - he was way off his peak when he fought him.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He had already retired because he knew he was past his prime. Needed the money, sorry man, that isn't remotely debatable. Even more off than Holyfield being prime for Tyson.
He did, as Wlad did avenge his Brewtser loss. The thing is he should have never lost to them in the first place. Foreman lost to arguably the number 1 or 2 HW in history and to Young who also gave fits to Ali in the same time frame. McCall and Rahman are lucky if they rank in the top 200.SteveO wrote:Yes, but he avenged both defeats.Jaywheel wrote:Well, Lewis is currently ranked 6 and he doesn't seem too affected in his ranking by the 2 losses in his prime to 2 far less formidable conquerors than Foreman's.
Louis may have been still a top fighter, but he clearly was nowhere near as good as once was. He was much slower, and his reflexes were almost shot. Fighters that he would have knocked out easily were now going the distance. Cesar Brion gave him a lot of trouble.Crease wrote:Obviously he needed the money with the tax breathing down his neck, but even a quick glance at Joe's record suggests that he was still at top fighter (8 wins in a row) by the time he fought Marciano.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He had already retired because he knew he was past his prime. Needed the money, sorry man, that isn't remotely debatable.
Tyson was not in his prime when he fought Holyfeld. And never once said that, I'm confused as to why you brought that up?SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Even more off than Holyfield being prime for Tyson.