Who Are Your #1 and #2 Heavyweights Of All Time?

[keithmoonhangover]

I'd put our Muh at 3, after Lenny and Holy.

Holmes falls shorts for me here, although he surpasses Louis, I agree on Louis being overrated.

If you wanted to have Lennox Lewis at #2 behind Ali I could actually see that. Putting Lennox and Holyfield above Ali though is just...like I said you couldn't win a court case if you were trying to defend this opinion.

True, courts have often been corrupt and far from the reason, just like those stereotyped opinions.

Let's compare Ali and Lewis' best wins....

Ali. Liston: Reigning champion coming off back-to-back first round wins over a hall of famer.
Joe Frazier: Ali won two out of three.
George Foreman: Unbeaten, reigning heavyweight in his prime.

Who are Lewis' three best?

[Ezzard]

I'm not sure that Frazier, Foreman and Liston are top 10 HWS. I accept some might think so (I might have one of them or more in my to 10) but don't think it's nailed on for any of them.

[gilgamesh]

I'm not sure that Frazier, Foreman and Liston are top 10 HWS. I accept some might think so (I might have one of them or more in my to 10) but don't think it's nailed on for any of them.

For Foreman it's undeniable. For Frazier and Liston you can make a case for both being in the back half of the Top 10. They'd definitely be Top 15.

Foreman is Top 5.

[Ezzard]

I'm not sure that Frazier, Foreman and Liston are top 10 HWS. I accept some might think so (I might have one of them or more in my to 10) but don't think it's nailed on for any of them.

For Foreman it's undeniable. For Frazier and Liston you can make a case for both being in the back half of the Top 10. They'd definitely be Top 15.

Foreman is Top 5.

I don't think so. His first career certainly did not put him top 5. You can make a case for all of them being top 10, sure. Not arguing with that. Just it's also fair enough for them not to be.

[Ambling Alp II]

Lewis had #2 for competition? That is a bit of a stretch.

Obviously, he fought some good fighters. However, he never fought an opponent who was great at the time that he fought him.
Foreman for example fought Ali, Frazier and Norton.
Holyfield actually fought better competition as well. Fought a better version of Tyson than Lewis did, and Bowe.

Louis doesn't have that one gigantic win. However, beating so many very good to great fighters makes him the 2nd best. He had the loss to Schmeling but Lewis had Rahman and McCall (and should have lost to Mercer).

Beside Ali of course, no one matches up to Louis in weighing the quality wins vs the losses.

[gilgamesh]

I'm not sure that Frazier, Foreman and Liston are top 10 HWS. I accept some might think so (I might have one of them or more in my to 10) but don't think it's nailed on for any of them.

For Foreman it's undeniable. For Frazier and Liston you can make a case for both being in the back half of the Top 10. They'd definitely be Top 15.

Foreman is Top 5.

I don't think so. His first career certainly did not put him top 5. You can make a case for all of them being top 10, sure. Not arguing with that. Just it's also fair enough for them not to be.

If his First career is all there was. No he's not Top 5. Considering he's the only person in the history of the whole goddamn sport to have done what he did in the 90's. Yeah he's Top 5.

[DrDuke]

If you wanted to have Lennox Lewis at #2 behind Ali I could actually see that. Putting Lennox and Holyfield above Ali though is just...like I said you couldn't win a court case if you were trying to defend this opinion.

True, courts have often been corrupt and far from the reason, just like those stereotyped opinions.

Having Ali isn't a stereotype, you just can't find a Heavyweight with a better record. Nobody can. Like you and I'm sure a lot of Boxing fans I get annoyed with the way all the Classic Boxing programming revolves around Ali, and all that sh*t, but he's considered the #1 Heavyweight generally speaking for good reason, and deservedly so.

Lennox Lewis doesn't have any wins as big as Foreman, Liston or Frazier. He just doesn't.

I do consider Lennox to be #4 all time though, and his quality of opposition is 2nd only to Ali's as far as Heavyweight Champions go.

If to rank Ali's and Lewis' best wins together, it should be something like this:

1. Holyfield
2. Foreman
3. Frazier
4. Liston
5. Norton
6. Vitali
7. Tyson
8. Young (a controversial win)
9. Mercer
10. Patterson
11. Tua
12. Lyle
13. Bruno
14. Rahman
15. Morrison
16. Golota
17. Quarry
18. Ruddock
19. Shavers
20. McCall

So, you see, it's a very close mix, where you can argue a lot on positions, yet Lewis has the best win.

If to rate Holyfield's and Ali's wins, it should be about that:

1. Foreman of Ali
2. Frazier
3. Tyson
4. Bowe
5. Liston
6. Foreman of Holy
7. Holmes
8. Norton
9. Moorer
10. Young
11. Mercer
12. Patterson
13. Douglas
14. Lyle
15. Rahman
16. Dokes
17. Thomas
18. Quarry
19. Shavers
20. Bonavena

It's also close. Here I have Ali with the best wins, but I can't rate a guy, who lost the prime-vs-prime bout against Frazier, over the fighter with about the same style, only better.

[DrDuke]

If you wanted to have Lennox Lewis at #2 behind Ali I could actually see that. Putting Lennox and Holyfield above Ali though is just...like I said you couldn't win a court case if you were trying to defend this opinion.

True, courts have often been corrupt and far from the reason, just like those stereotyped opinions.

Let's compare Ali and Lewis' best wins....

Ali. Liston: Reigning champion coming off back-to-back first round wins over a hall of famer.
Joe Frazier: Ali won two out of three.
George Foreman: Unbeaten, reigning heavyweight in his prime.

Who are Lewis' three best?

I've made an expanded rating for that.

[gilgamesh]

Lewis' win over Holyfield isn't better than any of Ali's 3 biggest wins.

Holyfield wasn't in his prime.

Liston, and Foreman WERE.

If you wanna put Holyfield on par with Frazier in the 3rd Ali-Frazier fight in terms of past prime. I can see that, but even then I'd say Frazier wasn't as far gone.

[gilgamesh]

It's also close. Here I have Ali with the best wins, but I can't rate a guy, who lost the prime-vs-prime bout against Frazier, over the fighter with about the same style, only better.

If you're gonna go that route. I feel I must point out that Ali wouldn't have lost to McCall or Rahman if he'd fought them both 10 times.

[DrDuke]

It's also close. Here I have Ali with the best wins, but I can't rate a guy, who lost the prime-vs-prime bout against Frazier, over the fighter with about the same style, only better.

If you're gonna go that route. I feel I must point out that Ali wouldn't have lost to McCall or Rahman if he'd fought them both 10 times.

The rematches showed the true levels of Lewis, McCall and Rahman. If to go this way, you can find holes in anybody's career. I also doubt Lewis performing so sh1tty against Doug Jones.

[gilgamesh]

It's also close. Here I have Ali with the best wins, but I can't rate a guy, who lost the prime-vs-prime bout against Frazier, over the fighter with about the same style, only better.

If you're gonna go that route. I feel I must point out that Ali wouldn't have lost to McCall or Rahman if he'd fought them both 10 times.

The rematches showed the true levels of Lewis, McCall and Rahman. If to go this way, you can find holes in anybody's career. I also doubt Lewis performing so sh1tty against Doug Jones.

Ali beat Doug Jones.

Lewis had a similar performance to the Doug Jones one with Ray Mercer. A close, hard fought win. Happens to all of 'em.

I agree Lewis showed his superiority in the rematches with McCall and Rahman. That being said, Ali would've never needed a rematch. Rahman and McCall COULDN'T beat Ali. Even if it's 1976 Ali, post Thrilla.

[DrDuke]

If you're gonna go that route. I feel I must point out that Ali wouldn't have lost to McCall or Rahman if he'd fought them both 10 times.

The rematches showed the true levels of Lewis, McCall and Rahman. If to go this way, you can find holes in anybody's career. I also doubt Lewis performing so sh1tty against Doug Jones.

Ali beat Doug Jones.

Lewis had a similar performance to the Doug Jones one with Ray Mercer. A close, hard fought win. Happens to all of 'em.

I agree Lewis showed his superiority in the rematches with McCall and Rahman. That being said, Ali would've never needed a rematch. Rahman and McCall COULDN'T beat Ali. Even if it's 1976 Ali, post Thrilla.

Lewis' main problem turned to be in dedication. He looked through McCall and Rahman. You couldn't pick those two ever against that Lewis, who appeared in the rematches.

[gilgamesh]

I mean. It's tough to say in the case of McCall considering that the McCall who rematched Lewis was having a Mental Breakdown, and clearly wasn't the McCall of their 1st fight.

Maybe McCall still could catch Lewis even if he was focused. I doubt it, but it's hard to say.

Again. Ali woudn't have needed a rematch. He could've not taken 'em seriously, and he would've beat 'em easily.

[DrDuke]

I mean. It's tough to say in the case of McCall considering that the McCall who rematched Lewis was having a Mental Breakdown, and clearly wasn't the McCall of their 1st fight.

Maybe McCall still could catch Lewis even if he was focused. I doubt it, but it's hard to say.

Again. Ali woudn't have needed a rematch. He could've not taken 'em seriously, and he would've beat 'em easily.

That's a misleading conclusion. Those two f8ckers won Lenny, cause that were lucky to have him unmotivated, and landed the kayo punches. Of course, they wouldn't be able to kayo Ali, whose chin was much better. Ali has taken tons of punishment through his career. If he had a worse chin, he wouldn't be that great. But it's not a compliment.

[gilgamesh]

I mean. It's tough to say in the case of McCall considering that the McCall who rematched Lewis was having a Mental Breakdown, and clearly wasn't the McCall of their 1st fight.

Maybe McCall still could catch Lewis even if he was focused. I doubt it, but it's hard to say.

Again. Ali woudn't have needed a rematch. He could've not taken 'em seriously, and he would've beat 'em easily.

That's a misleading conclusion. Those two f8ckers won Lenny, cause that were lucky to have him unmotivated, and landed the kayo punches. Of course, they wouldn't be able to kayo Ali, whose chin was much better. Ali has taken tons of punishment through his career. If he had a worse chin, he wouldn't be that great. But it's not a compliment.

How is it not? Having a great chin in Boxing is one of the best attributes a Boxer can have.

A big punch is one of the big ones too. A great engine (stamina). Lightning hand or foot speed. These are all some of the most highly coveted skills a Boxer can have, and usually a guy can go far with any 1 of them. If he has more than 1, he can go really far.

Ali had 3 of 4. He didn't have a monstrous punch, but he had everything else.

Lennox had a huge punch, and a great strategic mind. He had the stamina he needed to do the job so there was no issue there. He certainly wasn't lightning fast (though he wasn't slow for a man his size either), and obviously his chin was his biggest flaw.

That being said. I still don't think Lewis had a "weak chin" exactly. He just didn't have an iron one, and at Heavyweight. You need a pretty damn rock hard chin.

I have all the respect in the world for Lennox Lewis, and I'm not trying to cut him down. I want to be clear on that. I just don't see any argument for putting him over Ali.

Putting Holyfield over Ali is just flat out ridiculous. Even though both at their best Holyfield is a guy who's style I can see being a hard, hard night for Ali every time.

[DrDuke]

I mean. It's tough to say in the case of McCall considering that the McCall who rematched Lewis was having a Mental Breakdown, and clearly wasn't the McCall of their 1st fight.

Maybe McCall still could catch Lewis even if he was focused. I doubt it, but it's hard to say.

Again. Ali woudn't have needed a rematch. He could've not taken 'em seriously, and he would've beat 'em easily.

That's a misleading conclusion. Those two f8ckers won Lenny, cause that were lucky to have him unmotivated, and landed the kayo punches. Of course, they wouldn't be able to kayo Ali, whose chin was much better. Ali has taken tons of punishment through his career. If he had a worse chin, he wouldn't be that great. But it's not a compliment.

How is it not? Having a great chin in Boxing is one of the best attributes a Boxer can have.

A big punch is one of the big ones too. A great engine (stamina). Lightning hand or foot speed. These are all some of the most highly coveted skills a Boxer can have, and usually a guy can go far with any 1 of them. If he has more than 1, he can go really far.

Ali had 3 of 4. He didn't have a monstrous punch, but he had everything else.

Lennox had a huge punch, and a great strategic mind. He had the stamina he needed to do the job so there was no issue there. He certainly wasn't lightning fast (though he wasn't slow for a man his size either), and obviously his chin was his biggest flaw.

That being said. I still don't think Lewis had a "weak chin" exactly. He just didn't have an iron one, and at Heavyweight. You need a pretty damn rock hard chin.

I have all the respect in the world for Lennox Lewis, and I'm not trying to cut him down. I want to be clear on that. I just don't see any argument for putting him over Ali.

Putting Holyfield over Ali is just flat out ridiculous. Even though both at their best Holyfield is a guy who's style I can see being a hard, hard night for Ali every time.

Among of the mentioned qualities, each can be developed, except chin. You either have it or don't. If you take a lot of hard shots, you're a good fella because you stand your ground, but you were better not to allow them land.

Holyfield indeed has too much of head-to-head factor in my view on this situation, which may be wrong, yet still he was greater than Frazier and Foreman, so Lewis surpasses Ali in my ranking.

[gilgamesh]

Alright dude.

I'll just leave it with. I couldn't disagree more.

[Ezzard]

For Foreman it's undeniable. For Frazier and Liston you can make a case for both being in the back half of the Top 10. They'd definitely be Top 15.

Foreman is Top 5.

I don't think so. His first career certainly did not put him top 5. You can make a case for all of them being top 10, sure. Not arguing with that. Just it's also fair enough for them not to be.

If his First career is all there was. No he's not Top 5. Considering he's the only person in the history of the whole goddamn sport to have done what he did in the 90's. Yeah he's Top 5.

His only win of note was Moorer. A fine win but that doesn't make him a lock for top 5 if he's not already a lock.

[keithmoonhangover]

The rematches showed the true levels of Lewis, McCall and Rahman. If to go this way, you can find holes in anybody's career. I also doubt Lewis performing so sh1tty against Doug Jones.

Ali beat Doug Jones.

Lewis had a similar performance to the Doug Jones one with Ray Mercer. A close, hard fought win. Happens to all of 'em.

I agree Lewis showed his superiority in the rematches with McCall and Rahman. That being said, Ali would've never needed a rematch. Rahman and McCall COULDN'T beat Ali. Even if it's 1976 Ali, post Thrilla.

Lewis' main problem turned to be in dedication. He looked through McCall and Rahman. You couldn't pick those two ever against that Lewis, who appeared in the rematches.

You have to lose to someone in the first place to win the rematch. Ali didn't lose to anyone of McCall and Rahman's level when he was even close to his prime. If you think the rematches put Humpty Dumpty back together again, then you're wrong.

[DrDuke]

Ali beat Doug Jones.

Lewis had a similar performance to the Doug Jones one with Ray Mercer. A close, hard fought win. Happens to all of 'em.

I agree Lewis showed his superiority in the rematches with McCall and Rahman. That being said, Ali would've never needed a rematch. Rahman and McCall COULDN'T beat Ali. Even if it's 1976 Ali, post Thrilla.

Lewis' main problem turned to be in dedication. He looked through McCall and Rahman. You couldn't pick those two ever against that Lewis, who appeared in the rematches.

You have to lose to someone in the first place to win the rematch. Ali didn't lose to anyone of McCall and Rahman's level when he was even close to his prime. If you think the rematches put Humpty Dumpty back together again, then you're wrong.

Greatness isn't defined only by the factual wins-loses.

[keithmoonhangover]

Lewis' main problem turned to be in dedication. He looked through McCall and Rahman. You couldn't pick those two ever against that Lewis, who appeared in the rematches.

You have to lose to someone in the first place to win the rematch. Ali didn't lose to anyone of McCall and Rahman's level when he was even close to his prime. If you think the rematches put Humpty Dumpty back together again, then you're wrong.

Greatness isn't defined only by the factual wins-loses.

[DrDuke]

You have to lose to someone in the first place to win the rematch. Ali didn't lose to anyone of McCall and Rahman's level when he was even close to his prime. If you think the rematches put Humpty Dumpty back together again, then you're wrong.

Greatness isn't defined only by the factual wins-loses.

It's not surprising, that the narrow mind wasn't able to produce anything more than a couple of emojis.

[keithmoonhangover]

Greatness isn't defined only by the factual wins-loses.

It's not surprising, that the narrow mind wasn't able to produce anything more than a couple of emojis.

[HomicideHenry]

1. Larry Holmes
2. Muhammad Ali

In my opinion everything that Muhammad Ali could do Larry Holmes did it better. He had a far better jab than Muhammad Ali did. He actually could box and punch. Larry also didn't do a lot of unnecessary movements like Muhammad Ali did, bouncing around the ring he could stand in the middle of the ring like Jack Johnson and control the action. Larry Holmes couldn't be psyched out, so I know none of Muhammad Ali's mind games wouldn't have worked against Larry. Larry Holmes was in my mind more dedicated than Muhammad Ali because his work schedule was greater than Muhammad Ali's.

The only knock against Larry Holmes was that there was not that many good or great challengers in his time, but he beat Earnie Shavers twice as well as Ken Norton and he defeated future champions Mike Weaver and Bonecrusher Smith and Trevor Berbick. I have little doubt in my mind he could have fought and defeated the same men that Muhammad Ali did like Frazier and Foreman.

Larry Holmes didn't beat Frazier, Liston or Foreman though did he? That's 3 guys who are Top 10 Heavyweights right there Ali beat them.

Nothing Holmes ever did can eclipse that.

I do personally have Holmes at #3, and I do think he had the ability to be as accomplished as Ali. He just didn't have the opposition.

No but on the basis of everything that he did and there are many examples of his prime on film in which I think he did everything better than Muhammad Ali did and considering the man learned everything basically from Muhammad Ali he took what he learned and tweaked it and made it better. So from my personal opinion he could have beaten Joe Frazier or George Foreman or anyone else that Muhammad Ali ever fought.

If we are going strictly on the basis of who has the best record against the best opposition then you would have Muhammad Ali at number one but that wasn't the question... the question was who do you rate as number one and I rate Larry Holmes as number one because I believe Larry Holmes could have beaten Muhammad Ali and defeated everyone else that Muhammad Ali ever fought.