If Ali and Louis are #1 and #2, who's #3?

[jwfg]

Probably been asked a million times, but hey.

[Ezzard]

Johnson

[jwfg]

Johnson

Me too.

[bwu]

Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Marciano, Liston, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis are all in the discussion. For me, it's Holmes, but Johnson is a very fair pick.

[Monzon83]

AJ.

[Teddy's Toupee]

Johnson

He isn't called "Kingpin" for nothing.

[tiny_acres]

Johnson

He isn't called "Kingpin" for nothing.

[tiny_acres]

Holmes or Lewis

[Sweet Dick Willie]

Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Marciano, Liston, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis are all in the discussion. For me, it's Holmes, but Johnson is a very fair pick.

Who, Mike Tyson?

[gilgamesh]

Holmes or Lewis

I was going to say exactly the same thing.

Personally, I'd give it to Lennox, but they're both very close in terms of accomplishment and ability.

[davie]

Holmes or Lewis

Those are my 3 and 4

Lennox sneaks into 3rd for me

[davie]

Holmes or Lewis

I was going to say exactly the same thing.

Personally, I'd give it to Lennox, but they're both very close in terms of accomplishment and ability.

fornicating copycat

[Ambling Alp II]

I ran a poll on this a few years ago. It was pretty close, but Holmes had the most votes. I think Holyfield was second. A few other guys like Johnson, Lewis and Foreman had some support.

It really is a tough call after Ali and Louis. Nobody is prefect and you can make a reasonable case for several guys.

[elmersalsa]

The great Jack Johnson. And deservedly so.

[elmersalsa]

Lennox Lewis does not convince me as a top 5 heavyweight.

[Teddy's Toupee]

It really is a tough call after Ali and Louis. Nobody is prefect and you can make a reasonable case for several guys.

You fancy yourself as the prefect of the the boxing history section. But like you say, there's a fair few who post on here who think they are too.

[bwu]

Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Marciano, Liston, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis are all in the discussion. For me, it's Holmes, but Johnson is a very fair pick.

Who, Mike Tyson?

Yeah, Mike Tyson. I didn't include anyone who is currently active. Too much can happen to affect their historical standing. In '87 or '88, I'd have been laughed out of the room for suggesting George Foreman be on such a list. How times change.

[Ambling Alp II]

Foreman was actually underrated before he made his big comeback. The losses to Ali and the bad performance against Young were in people's minds. He was still in the top 10 in most people's minds, but people weren't saying he was #3. In 1988, there were people who thought Tyson was top #3.

[jwfg]

Foreman was actually underrated before he made his big comeback. The losses to Ali and the bad performance against Young were in people's minds. He was still in the top 10 in most people's minds, but people weren't saying he was #3. In 1988, there were people who thought Tyson was top #3.

Who do you have at #3, Alp?

[Ambling Alp II]

I have Foreman, but don't feel strongly about it. If he would have beaten Young, I would have no doubt. Johnson, Frazier, Holmes, Holyfield, and Lewis are pretty close.

[gilgamesh]

Lennox Lewis does not convince me as a top 5 heavyweight.

I don't see why not. His resume is 2nd only to Ali's as far as big name wins on it. He avenged every loss he ever had, and he defeated a guy that would go on to be a dominant Heavyweight for several of the next 10 years in his final bout.

Outside of Lennox Lewis, I don't think there's any Heavyweight Champion in Boxing history that beat one of the guys that would go on to be a force in the next era.

Most lost to the guy in that position, and usually the guy they were facing was a lesser foe than Vitali Klitschko.

[Ambling Alp II]

The beating big names is very deceiving.
You have to look at the stages of a guys career. Beating Holyfield and Tyson when he did is not the same as beating them close to their primes. Plus he had two losses to less than great fighters. To lesser degree, he was also fortunate to get the decision against Mercer.
Obviously, there are other things that are a plus for Lewis, and things that are negatives for other fighters. But the beating big names argument is weak.

[elmersalsa]

The beating big names is very deceiving.
You have to look at the stages of a guys career. Beating Holyfield and Tyson when he did is not the same as beating them close to their primes. Plus he had two losses to less than great fighters. To lesser degree, he was also fortunate to get the decision against Mercer.
Obviously, there are other things that are a plus for Lewis, and things that are negatives for other fighters. But the beating big names argument is weak.

This is one of the FEW TIMES that I agree with Ambling Alp.

Lennox Lewis caught the great Evander Holyfield in decline, not in his prime. The great Mike Tyson when he came back from jail was a circus to begin with. And those are his two biggest names on his resume.

Tyson nor Holyfield would have never lost to guys like Oliver McCall or Hasim Rahman in their primes. Are you kidding me?

Can you imagine the great Jack Johnson or Muhammad Ali losing to McCall or Rahman in their primes?

Larry Holmes? George Foreman? It's hard to picture that. Very hard.

[davie]

The beating big names is very deceiving.
You have to look at the stages of a guys career. Beating Holyfield and Tyson when he did is not the same as beating them close to their primes. Plus he had two losses to less than great fighters. To lesser degree, he was also fortunate to get the decision against Mercer.
Obviously, there are other things that are a plus for Lewis, and things that are negatives for other fighters. But the beating big names argument is weak.

This is one of the FEW TIMES that I agree with Ambling Alp.

Lennox Lewis caught the great Evander Holyfield in decline, not in his prime. The great Mike Tyson when he came back from jail was a circus to begin with. And those are his two biggest names on his resume.

Tyson nor Holyfield would have never lost to guys like Oliver McCall or Hasim Rahman in their primes. Are you kidding me?

Can you imagine the great Jack Johnson or Muhammad Ali losing to McCall or Rahman in their primes?

Larry Holmes? George Foreman? It's hard to picture that. Very hard.

Tyson was 23 when he lost to Buster Douglas

[jwfg]

The beating big names is very deceiving.
You have to look at the stages of a guys career. Beating Holyfield and Tyson when he did is not the same as beating them close to their primes. Plus he had two losses to less than great fighters. To lesser degree, he was also fortunate to get the decision against Mercer.
Obviously, there are other things that are a plus for Lewis, and things that are negatives for other fighters. But the beating big names argument is weak.

This is one of the FEW TIMES that I agree with Ambling Alp.

Lennox Lewis caught the great Evander Holyfield in decline, not in his prime. The great Mike Tyson when he came back from jail was a circus to begin with. And those are his two biggest names on his resume.

Tyson nor Holyfield would have never lost to guys like Oliver McCall or Hasim Rahman in their primes. Are you kidding me?

Can you imagine the great Jack Johnson or Muhammad Ali losing to McCall or Rahman in their primes?

Larry Holmes? George Foreman? It's hard to picture that. Very hard.

Tyson was 23 when he lost to Buster Douglas

The Buster Douglas from the Tyson fight was better than any version of McCall and Rahman. Just my opinion.