my top 35 heavyweights of all time

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

here it is, feel free to disagree. its based on head to head, accomplishments, and some historical signifigance


1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad ali
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Larry Holmes
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Joe Frazier
9. Jack Johnson- sorry jack i had to take off points for you know wut
10. Mike Tyson
11. James Jeffries
12. Sam Langford
13. Ezzard Charles
14. Evander Holyfield
15. Lennox Lewis
16. Jersey Joe Walcott
17. Harry Wills
18. Floyd Patterson
19. Max Schmeling
20. Ken Norton
21. Peter Jackson
22. Gene Tunney
23. Riddick Bowe
24. Joe Jeanette
25. Jack Sharkey
26. James Corbett
27. Max Baer
28. Jerry Quarry
30. Elmer Ray
30. Sam Mcvey
31. George Godfrey
32. Jimmy Young
33. Archie Moore
34. Tim Witherspoon
35. Cleveland Williams

[generic screen name]

all this heavyweight ranking is hurting my head

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Jack Sharkey would destroy Joe Jeanette.

thats what i used to think but i was wrong


as far as accomplishments go, joe jeanette accomplished just as much if not more than jack sharkey. jeanette has a awesome win resume.


i think u sell joe jeanette short as a boxer. jeanette in his latest fights with jack johnson fought him to even fights. johnson ducked jeanette during his title reign partly because he wasnt so sure he could beat him.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

... and Jack Sharkey fought Jack Dempsey pretty much to an even fight. He was easily beating Dempsey before the Zab-Judah combo Dempsey threw.

yes but that was a far gone dempsey. dempsey was nowhere near his best when he fought sharkey and tunney. dempsey still had a punch, but not much else.

i think sharkey is better than a 1927 version of dempsey and should have got to fight tunney instead of dempsey.


but dempsey landed a legite KO punch, that was a killer left hook. and sharkey brought his A game with him that night

[jezzamundo]

Good list, but IMO:

- Dempsey is much too high
- Jeffries and Langford are too high
- Lewis is too low

Other than that I have few complaints!

[Crease]

Very astute list BB. You haven't left anyone out... Here's my opinion...


1. Rocky Marciano
2. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
4. George Foreman
5. Joe Frazier
6. Jack Dempsey
7. Jack Johnson
8. Mike Tyson
9. Sonny Liston
10. Larry Holmes
11. James J. Jeffries
12. Ezzard Charles
13. Jersey Joe Walcott
14. Sam Langford
15. Floyd Patterson
16. Lennox Lewis
17. Max Schmeling
18. Evander Holyfield
19. Ken Norton
20. Archie Moore
21. Gene Tunney
22. Harry Wills
23. James J. Corbett
24. Max Baer
25. Jack Sharkey
26. Elmer Ray
27. Jerry Quarry
28. Roland La Starza
29. Peter Jackson
30. Joe Jeanette
31. Sam Mc Vey
32. George Godfrey
33. Billy Conn
34. Jimmy Young
35. Tim Wihterspoon

(As you can probably see, I'm not kind to heavyweights from the 90s).

[silkov]

here it is, feel free to disagree. its based on head to head, accomplishments, and some historical signifigance


1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad ali
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Larry Holmes
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Joe Frazier
9. Jack Johnson- sorry jack i had to take off points for you know wut
10. Mike Tyson
11. James Jeffries
12. Sam Langford
13. Ezzard Charles
14. Evander Holyfield
15. Lennox Lewis
16. Jersey Joe Walcott
17. Harry Wills
18. Floyd Patterson
19. Max Schmeling
20. Ken Norton
21. Peter Jackson
22. Gene Tunney
23. Riddick Bowe
24. Joe Jeanette
25. Jack Sharkey
26. James Corbett
27. Max Baer
28. Jerry Quarry
30. Elmer Ray
30. Sam Mcvey
31. George Godfrey
32. Jimmy Young
33. Archie Moore
34. Tim Witherspoon
35. Cleveland Williams

Interesting list, I'm presuming that you've taken points off Jack Johnson for not fighting Langford etc during his reign?... this is very harsh I feel as I don't think you have taken points away from Dempsey for not fighting Wills or any other of the coloured fighters of his era!?.... Marcinao is too high, as is Tyson... Tyson didn't have the character to be a top 15 all timer... power will only get you so far...

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

here it is, feel free to disagree. its based on head to head, accomplishments, and some historical signifigance


1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad ali
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Larry Holmes
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Joe Frazier
9. Jack Johnson- sorry jack i had to take off points for you know wut
10. Mike Tyson
11. James Jeffries
12. Sam Langford
13. Ezzard Charles
14. Evander Holyfield
15. Lennox Lewis
16. Jersey Joe Walcott
17. Harry Wills
18. Floyd Patterson
19. Max Schmeling
20. Ken Norton
21. Peter Jackson
22. Gene Tunney
23. Riddick Bowe
24. Joe Jeanette
25. Jack Sharkey
26. James Corbett
27. Max Baer
28. Jerry Quarry
30. Elmer Ray
30. Sam Mcvey
31. George Godfrey
32. Jimmy Young
33. Archie Moore
34. Tim Witherspoon
35. Cleveland Williams

Interesting list, I'm presuming that you've taken points off Jack Johnson for not fighting Langford etc during his reign?... this is very harsh I feel as I don't think you have taken points away from Dempsey for not fighting Wills or any other of the coloured fighters of his era!?.... Marcinao is too high, as is Tyson... Tyson didn't have the character to be a top 15 all timer... power will only get you so far...

langford, jeanette, and mcvey all 3 were the clear 3 best challengers of his day. also he missed out on fighting the best white hopes of his era luther mccarthy, gunboat smith, etc.


i mean not fighting the at least 1 one of the 3 best challengers of ur era, u gotta take off points.


in fairness to jack, he did fight them at least and he did win even if they were green. i think johnson woulda beat them during his title reign was well, but you gotta take off points.

also with historical signifigane, u gotta wonder in some aspects johnson had a bad historical signifigance on the sport as his character and actions tarnished the reputation of black heavyweights for years to come and it denied them title shots.


i wanted to put jack higher, hes awesome.

[BoxBuzz]

Jack Sharkey would destroy Joe Jeanette.

Decagon...it's back to the books for you. I suspect Joe is the most under rated of all time.

[silkov]

here it is, feel free to disagree. its based on head to head, accomplishments, and some historical signifigance


1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad ali
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Larry Holmes
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Joe Frazier
9. Jack Johnson- sorry jack i had to take off points for you know wut
10. Mike Tyson
11. James Jeffries
12. Sam Langford
13. Ezzard Charles
14. Evander Holyfield
15. Lennox Lewis
16. Jersey Joe Walcott
17. Harry Wills
18. Floyd Patterson
19. Max Schmeling
20. Ken Norton
21. Peter Jackson
22. Gene Tunney
23. Riddick Bowe
24. Joe Jeanette
25. Jack Sharkey
26. James Corbett
27. Max Baer
28. Jerry Quarry
30. Elmer Ray
30. Sam Mcvey
31. George Godfrey
32. Jimmy Young
33. Archie Moore
34. Tim Witherspoon
35. Cleveland Williams

Interesting list, I'm presuming that you've taken points off Jack Johnson for not fighting Langford etc during his reign?... this is very harsh I feel as I don't think you have taken points away from Dempsey for not fighting Wills or any other of the coloured fighters of his era!?.... Marcinao is too high, as is Tyson... Tyson didn't have the character to be a top 15 all timer... power will only get you so far...

langford, jeanette, and mcvey all 3 were the clear 3 best challengers of his day. also he missed out on fighting the best white hopes of his era luther mccarthy, gunboat smith, etc.


i mean not fighting the at least 1 one of the 3 best challengers of ur era, u gotta take off points.


in fairness to jack, he did fight them at least and he did win even if they were green. i think johnson woulda beat them during his title reign was well, but you gotta take off points.

also with historical signifigane, u gotta wonder in some aspects johnson had a bad historical signifigance on the sport as his character and actions tarnished the reputation of black heavyweights for years to come and it denied them title shots.


i wanted to put jack higher, hes awesome.

Why didn't you take points off Dempsey then?... at least Johnson fought those guys before he was champion, and proved himself the better fighter... Dempsey never fought Wills or Langford now any other top black fighter of his day, so he should lose far more points than Johnson.
People like to say Johnson acted badly and he liked the high life sure but why shouldn he have?... he didn't do anything that previous champs had done except that he was black and beating the best white fighters... that was the crime which he was really hounded for.... I think he showed a huge character to stand up for himself in such an era... he really was like an early Ali...

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

i dont hold it against dempsey for not fighting langford. dempsey was still very green in 1916. by late teens langford was far past it and jack would have starched him out. langford was destroyed by fred fulton in 1917, a man dempsey would knock out in 14 seconds!

the only man u can accuse dempsey of not fighting is harry wills, but then again jack did sign to fight wills. but imagine if there had been 3 harry wills out there, surely jack dempsey would have fought one of them. in jack johnsons case, he dodged the 3 best challengers of his era and he never even fought the best white hopes out there. besides wills, dempsey cleaned out the division.


i do praise jack johnson for somethings he did. he took a stand and didnt cow tow to the whites. he was a brave man and he deserves huge recognition, HOWEVER he did some other things that was just horrible stuff that would later tarnish the reupation of black heavyweights. because of johnsons bizzare behavior, some of the top heavyweights in the next 20 years would not get title shots. of course alot had to do with racism, but johnson could have dealt with the situation MUCH better than he did.

jack johnson made it clear he never wanted black fighters to fight for the heavyweigt title again.

[silkov]

i dont hold it against dempsey for not fighting langford. dempsey was still very green in 1916. by late teens langford was far past it and jack would have starched him out. langford was destroyed by fred fulton in 1917, a man dempsey would knock out in 14 seconds!

the only man u can accuse dempsey of not fighting is harry wills, but then again jack did sign to fight wills. but imagine if there had been 3 harry wills out there, surely jack dempsey would have fought one of them. in jack johnsons case, he dodged the 3 best challengers of his era and he never even fought the best white hopes out there. besides wills, dempsey cleaned out the division.


i do praise jack johnson for somethings he did. he took a stand and didnt cow tow to the whites. he was a brave man and he deserves huge recognition, HOWEVER he did some other things that was just horrible stuff that would later tarnish the reupation of black heavyweights. because of johnsons bizzare behavior, some of the top heavyweights in the next 20 years would not get title shots. of course alot had to do with racism, but johnson could have dealt with the situation MUCH better than he did.

jack johnson made it clear he never wanted black fighters to fight for the heavyweigt title again.

I think some of Johnsons behaviour came of not knowing how to deal with the situation he found himself in... imagine knowing that so many people hated you and wanted your downfall?... also imagine how he felt when one of his wives committed suicide because of the constant persecution... no way should Johnson be below Dempsey... he would have played with Dempsey I think...

[BoxBuzz]

Sharkey loses to Carnera whether by reality based punch or by "agreement" or by a subtle combination of both (which is my suspicion) and it takes him out of the "underated" running.

I know that's not totaly logical but Sharkey's fakery on perhaps more than one occasion casts such a cloud over his legacy that it can never be determined what his potential may or may not have been. I understand that this becomes my personal bias. But anyone who wants to rate him higher has to contend with the complexity of figuring out just what he "really" brought to the game.

I agree he was the "real deal" in terms of a good bordering on great fighter where Carnera never even approached this catagory. IMHO.

[surf-bat]

here it is, feel free to disagree. its based on head to head, accomplishments, and some historical signifigance


1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad ali
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Larry Holmes
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Joe Frazier
9. Jack Johnson- sorry jack i had to take off points for you know wut
10. Mike Tyson
11. James Jeffries
12. Sam Langford
13. Ezzard Charles
14. Evander Holyfield
15. Lennox Lewis
16. Jersey Joe Walcott
17. Harry Wills
18. Floyd Patterson
19. Max Schmeling
20. Ken Norton
21. Peter Jackson
22. Gene Tunney
23. Riddick Bowe
24. Joe Jeanette
25. Jack Sharkey
26. James Corbett
27. Max Baer
28. Jerry Quarry
30. Elmer Ray
30. Sam Mcvey
31. George Godfrey
32. Jimmy Young
33. Archie Moore
34. Tim Witherspoon
35. Cleveland Williams

Where's John L? Tom Sharkey(he beat Corbett handily)? Maybe even consider putting Lou Nova up there. He was an excellent heavyweight.

[Ambling Alp]

These lists are fun, you won't ever find two people that have the same picks.
Well, I will just point out what I thought are the 3 biggest problems with the list.
Archie Moore, George Godfrey, and Cleveland Williams don't belong in the top 35. None of them beat anyone else in the top 35, nor did they beat anyone even remotely close to the top 35. They each have a few nice wins, but there are other more deserving guys who didn't make the top 35 who also have a few nice wins and who did beat fighters in the top 35.

What 3 should replace them?
Fitzsimmons would have to be there. Surprised especially since Corbett is in there. He can't be too far behind Corbett. (Some would argue he should be ahead of Corbett)
There are several other guys you could go with, I'm leaning toward Moorer and Ellis. Each got crushed a few times, but each had some big wins as well. Johansson would be another possiblity.

The list did show that there was some thinking outside of the box and not just putting in who the "experts" say to.

[Graham Brett]

These lists are fun, you won't ever find two people that have the same picks.
Well, I will just point out what I thought are the 3 biggest problems with the list.
Archie Moore, George Godfrey, and Cleveland Williams don't belong in the top 35. None of them beat anyone else in the top 35, nor did they beat anyone even remotely close to the top 35. They each have a few nice wins, but there are other more deserving guys who didn't make the top 35 who also have a few nice wins and who did beat fighters in the top 35.

What 3 should replace them?
Fitzsimmons would have to be there. Surprised especially since Corbett is in there. He can't be too far behind Corbett. (Some would argue he should be ahead of Corbett)
There are several other guys you could go with, I'm leaning toward Moorer and Ellis. Each got crushed a few times, but each had some big wins as well. Johansson would be another possiblity.

The list did show that there was some thinking outside of the box and not just putting in who the "experts" say to.

Ellis was a tremendous fighter. So sharp, had a good left hook too.

He would be a great cruiser today. I'd put Ellis in my top 20-25 at HW

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Well, I will just point out what I thought are the 3 biggest problems with the list.
Archie Moore, George Godfrey, and Cleveland Williams don't belong in the top 35.

please explain more clearly. godfrey beat larry gains, who is just as good as any of the alpha champs of the 80s if not better. in fact i would say hes better.

cleveland williams beat ernie terrell, whos a top 50 heavyweight of all time and a alpha champ


archie moore beat argueably top 50 heavyweight of all time jimmy bivins, and also beat outstanding heavyweight contenders clarence henry, bob baker, nino valdes.



on film, all 3 look great

[pundit]

Here's mine. I find all-time lists difficult to compile though - I just don't know how to compare Corbett and Lewis. Top 25 only. Sadly, I didn't find a space for Ken Norton. He'd be #26.

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Larry Holmes
4. George Foreman
5. Lennox Lewis
6. Sam Langford
7. Gene Tunney
8. Jack Johnson
9. Joe Frazier
10. Sonny Liston
11. Mike Tyson
12. Harry Wills
13. Jack Dempsey
14. Rocky Marciano
15. Floyd Patterson
16. Evander Holyfield
17. Max Schmeling
18. Jersey Joe Walcott
19. Ezzard Charles
20. James Jeffries
21. Peter Jackson
22. Joe Jeanette
23. Jack Sharkey
24. James Corbett
25. Max Baer

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Here's mine. I find all-time lists difficult to compile though - I just don't know how to compare Corbett and Lewis. Top 25 only. Sadly, I didn't find a space for Ken Norton. He'd be #26.

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Larry Holmes
4. George Foreman
5. Lennox Lewis
6. Sam Langford
7. Gene Tunney
8. Jack Johnson
9. Joe Frazier
10. Sonny Liston
11. Mike Tyson
12. Harry Wills
13. Jack Dempsey
14. Rocky Marciano
15. Floyd Patterson
16. Evander Holyfield
17. Max Schmeling
18. Jersey Joe Walcott
19. Ezzard Charles
20. James Jeffries
21. Peter Jackson
22. Joe Jeanette
23. Jack Sharkey
24. James Corbett
25. Max Baer

- gene tunneys WAY WAY WAY TOO HIGH


- rocky marciano is FAR FAR too low


- jack dempsey is FAR FAR TOO LOW


- james jeffries is FAR too low


- ezzard charles it too low


- sam langford is too high

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

I'm agreeing with nearly everything BrocktonBlockbuster is saying. Doesn't that tell you something?

great minds think alike :P

[pundit]

I'm agreeing with nearly everything BrocktonBlockbuster is saying. Doesn't that tell you something?

great minds think alike :P

Tells me that the two of you agreeing on nearly everything...

Folks, we're here to disagree and discuss disagreements.

[pundit]

- gene tunneys WAY WAY WAY TOO HIGH
- jack dempsey is FAR FAR TOO LOW
- sam langford is too high

These rankings are related to one another, so let me explain. I've Langford at 6, Tunney at 7, Dempsey at 13.

Tunney owned Dempsey in the two fights they had. You'll say Dempsey was over the hill by then, perhaps, albeit there are also doubts about how good Dempsey was at his peak as well (see below). But Tunney's dominance was of a kind that cannot only be explained by detrioration. He outboxed Dempsey, exploited his defensive mistakes, and by moving right all the time didn't give Dempsey a chance to employ his main waepon. This is how you had to fight Demspey to beat him - at any time in his career. But Dempsey never fought a fighter who could fight like this prior to Tunney.

Or maybe he did - Harry Greb in sparring. The middlweight Greb owned Dempsey - in 1920, right when Dempsey supposedly peaked! - he was all over him and cut him in various places, and Dempsey's coach plaeded with Greb to let off because Dempsey had a title fight with Mikse a few days later.

Demspey - or his mangement - never gave Greb a shot at the heavyweight title. He also did not give the dominant genuine heavyweight challenger of his time - Harry Wills - a shot. Now, who of the two was better, Dempsey, or Wills? We can't know with certainty, but there are indications, and the point Wills' way. Dempsey struggled with Willy Meehan as late as 1918, a fighter Wills handled with ease. In 1916 Dempsey struggled badly with light-heavyweight John Lester Johnson, getting a gift draw for a fight he clearly lost (after that the stayed away from black fighters). Wills had no problem at all defeating Johnson in their two fights.

The fact of the matter is: Dempsey's reputation is largely based on two fights only - the slugouts with Willard and Firpo. But both opponents where at best third-rate - albeit Firpo had Dempsey down in round 1 and Demspey only survived because his corner pushed him back into the ring - while a very old Wills was never in the slightest trouble when he fought Firpo a year later. Yes, Dempsey was exicting, but he did not fight a single first-rate opponent until 1926; and when he did so he was outclassed badly. If anything I believe the #13 is ranking is on the high side - I am unconvinced that Dempsey would have beaten a fighter as complete and calculating as Max Schmeling, had they met at their respective peaks.

A couple of words on Tunney. Sure, he also shunned black fighters. But at least he did not shun the best white fighters that were around. Among other things he fought Harry Greb so often until he had Greb's number; after their last bout in 1925 Greb said that Tunney had become a hell of a fighter and would knock him out for sure if they fought again. And while Tunney was critcized for defending his heavyweight title "only" against Heeney in his ultimate fight, Heeney was arguably stronger than any opponent Demspey had defended his title agasint prior to Tunney.

Thus, I feel compelled to put Tunney several positions above Dempsey. I also feel compelled to rank Harry Wills above Dempsey. And this is where Langford comes in.

Langford was the best heavyweight between about 1912 (when Johnson started deterirating) and 1916 (when Wills took over as the best black heavyweight). In terms of achievements he is probably on par with Wills. However, he faced stronger competitions during his reging - Jeanette and Mc Vea where at their peaks - and he was the first "modern", fast, combination throwing fighter - Langford, not Dempsey (Dempsey was not even the first white fighter doing this - this was Harry Greb). Dempsey himself (!) claimed that "Langford was the best we ever had" and that he "did not feel in a position to challenge such a man" (admittedly, this was in 1916 when Dempsey was green and Langford peaked). In 1922 a half-blind Langford was still good enough to knock out Tiger Flowers - the man who ended Harry Greb's career.

One can argue whether Langford needs to be #6, but top 10 he is for sure.

- james jeffries is FAR too low

Jeffries is a pre-modern-era fighter, it's hard to rank these. Between his reign and the late 1920s boxing changed - and improved - more than between between the late 1920s and today; thanks to fighters like Langford, Greb, Dempsey, Tunney.

- rocky marciano is FAR FAR too low
- ezzard charles it too low

Two points. First, the early 1950s were a sup-par period for heavyweight boxing in my book. Never before and never after did light-heavyweights find it so easy to move up and create havoc in the heavyweight division. Charles was essentially a light-heavyweight (and as such one fo the greatest of all time), and so were Moore and - at least in the beginning - Patterson. As a consequence, Marciano's best opponents were small or old or - most of the time - both. Bottom line: dominanting heayvweight boxing in the early 1950s means less than dominating it in the, say, 1930s, or in the 1960s or 1970s.

Second, there are too many doubts about Marciano himself. Like it or not, Walcott and Charles were beyond their peaks when he fought them. Walcott was simply old; Charles was a fighter who deteriorated rapidly from the age of 30. When he met Marciano in 1954 he was 2, 3 years beyond his peak. And yet both these have-beens outboxed Marciano soundly before they ran out of gas. I have in fact been toying with the idea of ranking Walcott and Charles ABOVE Marciano, but then I dismissed as it would look too weird - at least in the book Marciano is 2-0 against both.

Moreover, Marciano was on the verge of a knockout against light-heavyweight and 38-year old Archie Moore, was only saved by the ref. Moore was dominated in his next title fight by Floyd Patterson. And then, why exactly did Marciano never face hard-hitting erratic 6'3 Nino Valdes? Valdes was even robbed against Archie Moore to prevent this fight from happening. People denigrate Carnera for the links of his managers with organized crime and the corresponding suspicions about manipulations, but Marciano's links were not less obvious.

Thus, I feel #14 for Marciano is quite appropriate; it's certainly not too low. There simply are no equally serious doubts about the fighters in the top 10. #19 for Charles may be a bit harsh, but given that I rank him below Marciano (see above) I cannot put him much higher. But then, Charles would be top 5 in my all-time light-heavyweight ranking.

P

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Never before and never after did light-heavyweights find it so easy to move up and create havoc in the heavyweight division.

wut about jack johnsons era?? he had middleweights beating heavyweights. can u imagine jake la motta beating walcott or marciano?



what light-H?


moore weighed 185-190lb

charles weighed 180-190lb

walcott weighed 195lb

marciano weighed 185lb


lets check out some of the other top contenders


6'3 210lb nino valdes

6'2 215lb Joe Louis

215lb Heinz Neuhas

6'2 220lb bob baker

6'3 200lb earl walls

6'1 185lb clarence henry

6'0 190lb roland lastarza

6'1 200lb rex layne

6'4 195lb hurricane jackson

5'10 175lb harold johnson

once again, what light-H? the only one is 175lb harold johnson and even a far past his prime johnson beat eddie machen in 1961.

it seems to me u are forgetting most of these guys weighed well over the 175lb when they fought at heavyweight


bottom line: never before and never after were there light-H like charles and moore


if u take the average size of the early top 1950s heavyweight contenders, they are just as big as some of the other eras

Marciano's best opponents were small or old or - most of the time - both.

old? jersey joe walcott and archie moore may have been old, but they were late bloomers who got better with age, and they were kicking the shit out of the young guys in the division.

- walcott was 6'0 195lb, thats bigger than gene tunney

- archie moore was 189lb, he weighed in MORE THAN MARCIANO. also marciano was 32 when he fought moore making moore only 6 years old than marciano when they fought. in comparison, liston was 10 years older than muhammad ali when they fought.

- ezzard charles was only 32 years old

- joe louis was 6'2 215lb. thats big. louis may have been old and far past his prime, but louis was still a very formidable fighter when he fought rocky and he was the # 1 contender who had racked up 8 victories in a row.

- rex layne was 6'1 195lb and was 22 years old

- roland lastrarza 6'0 190lb master boxer and was 23 years old



why do u critisize size when u have langford and tunney in ur top 10 even though both were small?

weren't 44-47 year old larry holmes and 45 year old foreman top contenders in a supposedly "tough" 1990s heavyweight era?




didnt 5'6 175lb sam langford dominate jack johnson era??

wut about gene tunney? tunney was 6'1 190lb.

yet u rate them both in ur top 10?? ur being hypocritical here belitting charles because of his size but not langford and tunney

Bottom line: dominanting heayvweight boxing in the early 1950s means less than dominating it in the, say, 1930s, or in the 1960s or 1970s.

1930s? so ur saying sharkey, schmeling, baer were better than patterson, charles, and walcott?

Like it or not, Walcott and Charles were beyond their peaks when he fought them. Walcott was simply old;

thats a very ignorant statement. nat fleischer said walcott was a better fighter in his mid-late 30s and so did joe louis. now shouldnt we take joe louis word since he sparred with walcott all the way back to when walcott was in his 20s?

late bloomer walcott was coming off 2 victories over ezzard charles entering the marciano fight? how in gods name was walcott over the hill if he could beat ezzard charles?


are u implying walcott fought like a old man in the first marciano fight?

please tell me the difference between a 28 year old walcott and a 38 year old walcott?

ill give u the answer: the 28 year old walcott was a part time retired journeyman who was nowhere near contender status, while the 38 year old walcott was heavyweight champion and beating the likes of ezzard charles



walcott was old? well so was lennox lewis when he knocked out hasim rahman and decisioned david tua but many people say this was lennox lewis prime

And yet both these have-beens outboxed Marciano soundly before they ran out of gas

charles did not run out of gas. once again i question if u seen the fight? marciano simply wore charles down. marciano won the fight clearly on points.


in the rematch charles DID NOT WIN ONE ROUND



walcott ran out of gas? HAHHAHAHA u havnt seen the fight. walcotts best work was the 11 and 12 rounds, and it was walcott who looked the stronger of the two. most ringsiders couldnt believe how a 38 year old man was actually GETTING STRONGER in the late rounds.marciano simply caught walcott with the perfect punch. if u think walcott got hit with that punch due to being tired, then u havnt seen the fight



walcott a has been? then tell me why walcott was coming off two wins over ezzard charles?

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Moreover, Marciano was on the verge of a knockout against light-heavyweight and 38-year old Archie Moore, was only saved by the ref.

BY PUNDIT SAYING THIS COMMENT, THIS MEANS HE HAS NOT SEEN MARCIANO-MOORE



FILM REVEALS ARCHIE MOORE LIED ABOUT THE WHOLE REF SAVING MARCIANO THING. YET PUNDIT ACTUALLY BELIEVES ARCHIES BULLSHIT!


if u think the ref saved marciano, then u have not seen the fight. THIS IS A FACT, NOT AN OPINION

- and marciano was nowhere near gettting knocked out. he was fine it was a FLASH KNOCKDOWN, up at 2.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

And then, why exactly did Marciano never face hard-hitting erratic 6'3 Nino Valdes? Valdes was even robbed against Archie Moore to prevent this fight from happening.

because valdes lost too much. and when he had his chance for a shot at rocky marciano, archie moore beat him in an eliminator.

valdes lost to archie moore 2x, marciano destroyed archie in 9 rounds


IT WAS NOT A ROBBERY, it was a clear decision for archie moore. most ringsiders and newspapers scored the fight for archie moore.

pundit please stop making up bullshit when almost every non bias person who saw the moore-valdes fight thought moore won clearly.


valdes compltley got outworked in the late rounds allowing moore to win. it was a close but clear win for moore.



i have seen valdes on film, marciano would have killed him. valdes had no idea how to deal with 185lb bob satterfield in his crouch and valdes was a sucker for overhand rights, marcianos specialty.