Boxing News 100 best heavyweights

[dalcumly]

Some of you will know that the Boxing News annual this year (out Thursday) is a list of the 100 best heavyweights of all time.

I sat with a pen yesterday and I reached about 50 and started to really struggle. I included every world champion from Sullivan until it really began to split when Larry Holmes fought Ken Norton. The list being produced will cause some arguments that's for sure.
I mean how to you even begin to set a criteria for selection ? For example if you want to select who could beat who regardless of era then almost all the current top ten would have a shout, because they are so much bigger and more powerful. However, for example, in the 1880's John L Sullivan was 5'10" but he was about 5 inches taller than the average man in the street. I think the average height currently is about 5'9" or thereby , meaning that Sullivan today would be about 6'2". In the 1950's the average height was about 5'7" meaning Marciano was 3 inches taller than average bringing him up to around 6'1" today. Could a 1960's version of Ali ( probably his peak) beat Fury or Joshua ?
I'll be interested to see whose included.

[DrDuke]

The sport is progressing through time. Competitors are becoming bigger, faster, more athletic, more technically advanced. And those criterias are increasing with variable degrees on the differents sections of the timeline. For example, bigger growth of technical abilities occurred in Tunney-Louis eras, then it wasn't too impetuous until the 60s-70s. Eventually even among nowdays' boxers, you can't find too much, who would have been more technically advanced, than, for example, Ali or Holmes had been. The level of athletism increased significantly in the 80s. Those critereas seem to be at their limit now. The size was increasing gradually, the skill of using it became usual after the popularization of outfighting style. You can only imagine, what could have happened to boxers of the past, if they would have competed nowdays with their size adapted to the respective one from the modern perspective. You can only imagine, what could have happened to boxers of the past, if they would have had the nowdays' training and nutrition programs and conditions. Maybe they could have emerged only in their actual conditions, maybe in the adapted for the today's scene conditions all the magic would have been ruined for them.

[BoxBuzz]

I'm looking forward to this, It will settle many bets I'm sure.

Finally, We will find out just where Wilt Chamberlain actually ranks in the top 100.

[Ambling Alp II]

Some of you will know that the Boxing News annual this year (out Thursday) is a list of the 100 best heavyweights of all time.

I sat with a pen yesterday and I reached about 50 and started to really struggle. I included every world champion from Sullivan until it really began to split when Larry Holmes fought Ken Norton. The list being produced will cause some arguments that's for sure.
I mean how to you even begin to set a criteria for selection ? For example if you want to select who could beat who regardless of era then almost all the current top ten would have a shout, because they are so much bigger and more powerful. However, for example, in the 1880's John L Sullivan was 5'10" but he was about 5 inches taller than the average man in the street. I think the average height currently is about 5'9" or thereby , meaning that Sullivan today would be about 6'2". In the 1950's the average height was about 5'7" meaning Marciano was 3 inches taller than average bringing him up to around 6'1" today. Could a 1960's version of Ali ( probably his peak) beat Fury or Joshua ?
I'll be interested to see whose included.

It would obviously be hopeless for the 1960s Ali against Fury or Joshua. They are just so much faster and more athletic than he was in his prime. Just watch the tape. Fury and Joshua just glide around the ring with their dazzling footwork. Ali looks like he is slow motion in comparison. And hand speed? Wow. Fury and Joshua are just so fast. And combinations. They just throw one great combination after another. Ali just could not compete.

[BoxBuzz]

Some of you will know that the Boxing News annual this year (out Thursday) is a list of the 100 best heavyweights of all time.

I sat with a pen yesterday and I reached about 50 and started to really struggle. I included every world champion from Sullivan until it really began to split when Larry Holmes fought Ken Norton. The list being produced will cause some arguments that's for sure.
I mean how to you even begin to set a criteria for selection ? For example if you want to select who could beat who regardless of era then almost all the current top ten would have a shout, because they are so much bigger and more powerful. However, for example, in the 1880's John L Sullivan was 5'10" but he was about 5 inches taller than the average man in the street. I think the average height currently is about 5'9" or thereby , meaning that Sullivan today would be about 6'2". In the 1950's the average height was about 5'7" meaning Marciano was 3 inches taller than average bringing him up to around 6'1" today. Could a 1960's version of Ali ( probably his peak) beat Fury or Joshua ?
I'll be interested to see whose included.

It would obviously be hopeless for the 1960s Ali against Fury or Joshua. They are just so much faster and more athletic than he was in his prime. Just watch the tape. Fury and Joshua just glide around the ring with their dazzling footwork. Ali looks like he is slow motion in comparison. And hand speed? Wow. Fury and Joshua are just so fast. And combinations. They just throw one great combination after another. Ali just could not compete.

Alp you may be laughing, but you know full well that BOTH Fury and Joshua have thrown a good combination. Why, there was one single shot that Fury threw that was so mightily powerful, he VERY nearly knocked himself out with it. You can't say that about Ali. So let's get serious here.

[Ambling Alp II]

[paddy chavez]

Some of you will know that the Boxing News annual this year (out Thursday) is a list of the 100 best heavyweights of all time.

I sat with a pen yesterday and I reached about 50 and started to really struggle. I included every world champion from Sullivan until it really began to split when Larry Holmes fought Ken Norton. The list being produced will cause some arguments that's for sure.
I mean how to you even begin to set a criteria for selection ? For example if you want to select who could beat who regardless of era then almost all the current top ten would have a shout, because they are so much bigger and more powerful. However, for example, in the 1880's John L Sullivan was 5'10" but he was about 5 inches taller than the average man in the street. I think the average height currently is about 5'9" or thereby , meaning that Sullivan today would be about 6'2". In the 1950's the average height was about 5'7" meaning Marciano was 3 inches taller than average bringing him up to around 6'1" today. Could a 1960's version of Ali ( probably his peak) beat Fury or Joshua ?
I'll be interested to see whose included.

It would obviously be hopeless for the 1960s Ali against Fury or Joshua. They are just so much faster and more athletic than he was in his prime. Just watch the tape. Fury and Joshua just glide around the ring with their dazzling footwork. Ali looks like he is slow motion in comparison. And hand speed? Wow. Fury and Joshua are just so fast. And combinations. They just throw one great combination after another. Ali just could not compete.

Young clay/ Ali would be modern cruiser weight 208 he could easily drop 8 pounds and crusier weights are normally faster than heavy weights.

[Ambling Alp II]

Yes, obviously he would have dropped 8 pounds and went after the prestigious cruiserweight title since he would have no chance against the athletic and fast heavyweights of recent times. Makes total sense.

[Onetimeonly]

Can't wait to see where Corrie Sanders and sosnowski land amongst the others on that amazing vitali ledger.

[Boxing Writer]

Can't wait to see where Corrie Sanders and sosnowski land amongst the others on that amazing vitali ledger.

Putting Corrie Sanders and Albert Sosnovski in the same sentece is a HUGE disrespect to Corrie. Sanders was actually very talented, big, very fast-handed and hard hitting fighter. Sosnovski was much smaller and wasn't gifted in ANY boxing area - not fast, not a big puncher, he wasn't particularly good in anything. Sanders was Vitali's best scalp, and he was older, less active and way more overweight than the version of Lennox Lewis that Vitali fought. And he still hurt Vitali more than anyone did in boxing and gave him hell for the first 3 rounds, until he got tired.

And yes, Vitali's resume is extremely poor. And the way his fanboys are trying to prove he was a huge puncher basing on his high KO% is very funny. As fanny as some of Lewis' fanboys trying to prove he had an iron chin.

[gp.]

And yes, Vitali's resume is extremely poor. And the way his fanboys are trying to prove he was a huge puncher basing on his high KO% is very funny. As fanny as some of Lewis' fanboys trying to prove he had an iron chin.

He did have an iron chin!

Or, if not iron, it was certainly made of something heavy, because every time someone wobbled it threw his balance out so much he couldn't stand up.

[Onetimeonly]

Can't wait to see where Corrie Sanders and sosnowski land amongst the others on that amazing vitali ledger.

Putting Corrie Sanders and Albert Sosnovski in the same sentece is a HUGE disrespect to Corrie. Sanders was actually very talented, big, very fast-handed and hard hitting fighter. Sosnovski was much smaller and wasn't gifted in ANY boxing area - not fast, not a big puncher, he wasn't particularly good in anything. Sanders was Vitali's best scalp, and he was older, less active and way more overweight than the version of Lennox Lewis that Vitali fought. And he still hurt Vitali more than anyone did in boxing and gave him hell for the first 3 rounds, until he got tired.

And yes, Vitali's resume is extremely poor. And the way his fanboys are trying to prove he was a huge puncher basing on his high KO% is very funny. As fanny as some of Lewis' fanboys trying to prove he had an iron chin.

Yes, Sanders was better than Albert. He's just massively overrated. Obviously neither belongs on this list. Vitality is probably 60ish

[Ambling Alp II]

Well I guess we have had our fun. But seriously how should we rate them?

How good they were, Throw out the heights, weights and reaches,
This is a sport where fighters choose their opponents. Win/loss records, Ko%s etc. WBS title defenses can be very deceiving.

We should weigh a fighter's big wins against his losses/bad performances. A single bad loss hurts a great fighter's standing, but it by itself doesn't automatically mean the guy was not great.

You have take into consideration factors such as how close to fighter's prime he was in a specific fight, as well as his opponent.
To some extent how competitive the fight was. ie a close loss to a prime Evander Holyfield is not the same thing as a loss to a journeyman or fringe contender.

To some degree we have to look at film. The more better. One really cool knockout is the not the whole story. There are rare exceptions where a guy somehow is better than he looks on film.
We also have to use common sense. Ie. We think Fighter A is great because of we saw on film and his resume. We have not seen much of Fighter B. However fighter B beat Fighter when they fought. We should be able to give Fighter B a lot of credit for that fight even if we didn't see the fight.

Some thing else we should all remember: The sport didn't get magically get a lot better the day that you became interested in it. There were guys way before our time who would have been great in any era.

[Controversial]

If you rate fighters you need to do it on their success in the era they were in, not how they would compare to a fighter from another era. It shouldn't be about Fighter A from the 1990s could beat fighter B from the 1950s. So why it's fun to discuss fantasy fights they are really irrelevant.

[paddy chavez]

Yes, obviously he would have dropped 8 pounds and went after the prestigious cruiserweight title since he would have no chance against the athletic and fast heavyweights of recent times. Makes total sense.

Why you being a dick? Of course he would of been a cruiser when young and moved up as he grew . just as usyk will most likely do

[Onetimeonly]

Some of you will know that the Boxing News annual this year (out Thursday) is a list of the 100 best heavyweights of all time.

I sat with a pen yesterday and I reached about 50 and started to really struggle. I included every world champion from Sullivan until it really began to split when Larry Holmes fought Ken Norton. The list being produced will cause some arguments that's for sure.
I mean how to you even begin to set a criteria for selection ? For example if you want to select who could beat who regardless of era then almost all the current top ten would have a shout, because they are so much bigger and more powerful. However, for example, in the 1880's John L Sullivan was 5'10" but he was about 5 inches taller than the average man in the street. I think the average height currently is about 5'9" or thereby , meaning that Sullivan today would be about 6'2". In the 1950's the average height was about 5'7" meaning Marciano was 3 inches taller than average bringing him up to around 6'1" today. Could a 1960's version of Ali ( probably his peak) beat Fury or Joshua ?
I'll be interested to see whose included.

It would obviously be hopeless for the 1960s Ali against Fury or Joshua. They are just so much faster and more athletic than he was in his prime. Just watch the tape. Fury and Joshua just glide around the ring with their dazzling footwork. Ali looks like he is slow motion in comparison. And hand speed? Wow. Fury and Joshua are just so fast. And combinations. They just throw one great combination after another. Ali just could not compete.

Young clay/ Ali would be modern cruiser weight 208 he could easily drop 8 pounds and crusier weights are normally faster than heavy weights.

Why would he want more difficult fights for much less money? People actually think fury is elusive with great footwork. Think about that, he's slow as fornicate and wide open. Ernie shavers would ko him in a minute or so, he couldn't land a significant shot against prime Ali in 100 rounds.

[Onetimeonly]

If you rate fighters you need to do it on their success in the era they were in, not how they would compare to a fighter from another era. It shouldn't be about Fighter A from the 1990s could beat fighter B from the 1950s. So why it's fun to discuss fantasy fights they are really irrelevant.

[Ambling Alp II]

Yes, obviously he would have dropped 8 pounds and went after the prestigious cruiserweight title since he would have no chance against the athletic and fast heavyweights of recent times. Makes total sense.

Why you being a dick? Of course he would of been a cruiser when young and moved up as he grew . just as usyk will most likely do

Really? you said: "Young clay/ Ali would be modern cruiser weight 208 he could easily drop 8 pounds and crusier weights are normally faster than heavy weights."

He's not going to lose 8 pounds just to be a cruiser. That's ridiculous.

[paddy chavez]

Yes, obviously he would have dropped 8 pounds and went after the prestigious cruiserweight title since he would have no chance against the athletic and fast heavyweights of recent times. Makes total sense.

Why you being a dick? Of course he would of been a cruiser when young and moved up as he grew . just as usyk will most likely do

Really? you said: "Young clay/ Ali would be modern cruiser weight 208 he could easily drop 8 pounds and crusier weights are normally faster than heavy weights."

He's not going to lose 8 pounds just to be a cruiser. That's ridiculous.

All non heavyweights dehydrated to make weight 8 pounds is nothing at all most feather weights do that ,u guess you just have no clue about making weight with your ridiculous clueless comments

[Ambling Alp II]

Of course, he could lose 8 pounds. What would be the point? Sure he could take time to stop off an win a cruiserweight trinket, but why bother? He certainly would not have stayed a cruiserweight for any real length of time. He would have wanted to win the heavyweight title. And he would have.

Maybe you didn't word what you were trying to say very well. Maybe when he first started and was weighing in the 190s, he would have fought some cruiserweights. OK. By the time he weighed 208, he had been fighting as a pro for a while. At that point, he was not sweat if off just to be a cruiserweight.
Regardless, chill out.

[evrenb]

I think rating fighters on their achievements goes the furthest in historical ranking. Hypothetical matchmaking is absurd...different rules, different gloves, different footwear, different industry. For example we probably never saw the best of JJ.Walcott cos in his prime he wasn't given the luxury of notice, diet and training that the modern championship level contender has.
And Dr Duke were you serious when you said athleticism improved in the 1980s? Was that sarcasm?

[Controversial]

I think rating fighters on their achievements goes the furthest in historical ranking. Hypothetical matchmaking is absurd...different rules, different gloves, different footwear, different industry. For example we probably never saw the best of JJ.Walcott cos in his prime he wasn't given the luxury of notice, diet and training that the modern championship level contender has.
And Dr Duke were you serious when you said athleticism improved in the 1980s? Was that sarcasm?

That’s what I said a few posts ago. It should be about a fighters achievements not a hyperthetical result in a fantasy fight that more often than not no one can agree on anyway.

[DrDuke]

And Dr Duke were you serious when you said athleticism improved in the 1980s? Was that sarcasm?

And what's wrong with this? It was about those times, what is even logical acknowledging the fact, that PEDs became more spread then in the sports.

[dalcumly]

Of course this opens up a whole new debate.
Do modern traing techniques and nutritional knowledge make modern day fighters better?
Personally, and I'm old fashioned, I believe that hard physical exercise ( running, skipping, floor exercises, shadow boxing, speedball, floor to ceiling ball and plenty sparring) plus normal regular meals, can be as effective as modern training programmes.
I would add that the lifestyle enjoyed by fighters , like Dempsey for instance, creates a 'toughness' which cannot be learned.
And we shouldn't forget the modern well padded, and thumbs attached gloves, versus the horsehair variety which when wet and well used could expose the knuckles.

[Onetimeonly]

No, they train less and fight less. The biggest problem is the majority of them come up soft because their '0' is so sacred. You're spot on about every generation lacking the previous ones toughness in general. Bullying is on the internet now. Lol