top 10 best heavyweights

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 18 Oct 2007, 21:34

There's always someone else who tops the king, whatever the field, be it music, sports, or anything. Robinson will be topped one day, if he hasn't already. Ali is #2 on my all-time list so it's a point of conjecture but there's always someone else. It's just a strange fact of life.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 18 Oct 2007, 21:43

RE: Top 10 list, I can never compile one I'm satisfied with. I tend to place greater emphasis on who I think would beat who, & that makes a list tricky as opposed to accomplishment, i.e.

I favour Marciano to beat Frazier, & Holmes to beat Marciano, but I like Frazier to beat Holmes.

mattyp151 · Post by **mattyp151** » 18 Oct 2007, 22:12

TuffCustomer wrote:Well anything can happen when good fighters face off. But all in all the higher rated figher in my list would beat the next one down and so on.

Wow, that's some serious insight on what RATINGS are...

Mukel · Post by **Mukel** » 19 Oct 2007, 08:26

Ali
Louis
Holmes
Lewis
Foreman
Holyfield
Marciano
Dempsey
Tyson
Liston

JAHamilton77 · Post by **JAHamilton77** » 20 Oct 2007, 00:42

TuffCustomer wrote:
Decagon wrote:Max Baer?!?!?!?!
Yeah Max liked to beat up and big tough guys of his day and send them to the deck lots of times. You should read up on him. He's from the past.

I think Decagon is either ignoring your retort for its ignorance, or is just so stunned he cant speak.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 20 Oct 2007, 18:33

TuffCustomer wrote:This is basic stuff, not that hard. Just study the tapes. Ali was sort of freak of nature. There won't be another but here's the rest of the list.

Lewis
Liston
Foreman
Tyson
Dempsey
Louis
Johnson
Baer
Holmes

Decent list except for Max Baer, who has no business in the top 10.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 20 Oct 2007, 19:23

JAHamilton77 wrote:
TuffCustomer wrote:
Decagon wrote:Max Baer?!?!?!?!
Yeah Max liked to beat up and big tough guys of his day and send them to the deck lots of times. You should read up on him. He's from the past.
I think Decagon is either ignoring your retort for its ignorance, or is just so stunned he cant speak.

What's the problem? He's being very specific here. By telling us that it's the Max Baer from the past we won't likely be confused. I almost thought he was talking about the Max Baer from the future, and I know that guy don't belong in the top 10. Top 20 maybe but not top 10.

jezzamundo · Post by **jezzamundo** » 20 Oct 2007, 21:27

Mine:

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Foreman
5. Marciano
6. Frazier
7. Lewis
8. Johnson
9. Dempsey
10. Liston

A poll I did on this forum comprising 20 or so peoples lists combined:
1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Johnson
5. Foreman
6. Marciano
7. Dempsey
8. Frazier
9. Lewis
10. Liston

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 20 Oct 2007, 22:55

ffs, its always the Art Oliver fight to Decagon on his rating of Max Baer. It was never proven to be a professional bout or exhibition, its one of those great anomalies in sports history. In either case its a fluke, just because someone does bad in sparring or in an exhibition doesn't mean that the other man is out right better.

Tommy Harrison always claimed in sparring or in exhibitions that he made Marciano's nose bleed. But big deal, Marciano was known for cuts to begin with and big whoop anyone's nose can bleed in a fight. Tommy Harrison ended up a bum on the street and had a failed pro career, while it's Marciano whose a legend.

Max Baer beat a prime Max Schmeling, beat Primo Carnera, beat Ernie Schaaf, beat King Levinsky and many other highly regarded fighters of his time. He was the George Foreman of his day, and nobody was a harder puncher than Baer until Louis came about, but even then the Brown Bomber was once quoted as saying Baer could have been the greatest of them all if he was a little more serious.

I place him in the top 15-20 of all time, but not top 10.

theone · Post by **theone** » 20 Oct 2007, 23:29

He was the George Foreman of his day,

Overstatement of the year. Dec is right on about Baer. He was a highly entertaining fighter who punched extremely well, but he was never the dominating force Foreman was.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 21 Oct 2007, 15:40

Overstatement of the year. Dec is right on about Baer. He was a highly entertaining fighter who punched extremely well, but he was never the dominating force Foreman was.

IS it? Or is it because people can't let go that the 1970's was arguably the greatest era of Heavyweights, so therefore in their minds anyone else from any other decade would lose to a 1970's guy?

I beg to differ. The guys of the late 1980's to 1990's (Holyfield, Tyson, Lewis, Mercer, McCall, etc) are still around and still a force, but because they aren't named Frazier or Ali or Foreman, the get pushed down to the bottom of the top 10.

Max Baer was frightening from the time he turned pro til the time he killed Frankie Cambell, and every once in a while after that he turned on the flash still against the likes of Carnera and Schmeling, whom he beaten and battered all around the ring...and still he asked te referee to stop the fight (Schmeling). He wasn't even going full blast on him.

Max Baer was exciting, had great charsima and looks, but when he wanted to 200+ pound men dropped from his over hand right. Dempsey, Louis and many others saw great potential in Baer and swore up and down that had he kept up his mean streak he would have been the greatest.

Now maybe that's hard for some to imagine, but it wasn't until Liston and Foreman showed up some 30 years later after Baer's career was over, that someone was able to match his kayo percentage and pick up win streaks with that many KO's in between.

No Baer was sloppy as hell, but he could take a punch, so really to him it didn't matter how many times he got caught with something back. Max Baer was his worst enemy, because had Max Baer not let himself be the emotional guy he was, who knows what could have ended up for other Heavyweights of his time.

Who knows, maybe a new statistic would have been made "most career kills".

But I do agree, he failed to do what he was capable of doing, and he falls under the same class as Buster Douglas in that regard. So much potential, talent, power...just pissed away.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 22 Oct 2007, 10:46

The guys from the 1990's (holyfield,Tyson,Lewis,Mercer & McCall) are still a force? Umm, what are you talking about?
Tyson and Lewis are retired, and Holyfield Mercer & McCall should be.

Yes it was a good era, but it wasn't as good as should have been because most the top heavyweights avoided each other.

As for Max Baer ko %, it was .634 (52 knockouts in 82 fights). That really isn't that impressive considering how many tomato cans he fought.

As you mentioned Baer did have a few noteworthy wins and you could argue that he was top 25. Top 10 is just silly.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 22 Oct 2007, 14:23

Ambling Alp wrote:The guys from the 1990's (holyfield,Tyson,Lewis,Mercer & McCall) are still a force? Umm, what are you talking about?
Tyson and Lewis are retired, and Holyfield Mercer & McCall should be.

Yes it was a good era, but it wasn't as good as should have been because most the top heavyweights avoided each other.

As for Max Baer ko %, it was .634 (52 knockouts in 82 fights). That really isn't that impressive considering how many tomato cans he fought.

Great number, wonder how you came up with it (:sarcasm:) -- except that most of his fights would have been stopped in later decades.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 22 Oct 2007, 16:15

I know, it's so silly to actually try to find out the truth.

I have looked at different sources, and some have slightly different stats for Baer, but they are all close to this KO %.

Actually by Baer's era, referees were stopping fights much more frequently than in previous decades. Baer himself won several fights by stoppage, rather than the referee counting his opponent out.

Fights generally were stopped sooner in later decades, but the majority of the time the fighter stopped wouldn't have gone the distance anyway.

Do you have specific examples of any of Baer's fights that you have seen that went the distance that defintely would have been stopped in later eras?

It's doubtful that Baer's KO % would have been that much higher even by more modern day standards of stopping fighters. Certainly not as high as Foreman's.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 22 Oct 2007, 16:40

Decagon wrote:Or, are there any George Foreman fights that you think should have gone the distance?

If the Frazier fights had not been stopped prematurely who knows what might have happened.

Crease · Post by **Crease** » 29 Oct 2007, 13:06

Heres mine: In no particualr order:

Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali,
Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Joe Frazier,
Mike Tyson, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Larry Holmes

Martin Sosa Cameron · Post by **Martin Sosa Cameron** » 30 Oct 2007, 12:18

Where is Gene Tunney?

Martin Sosa Cameron · Post by **Martin Sosa Cameron** » 31 Oct 2007, 13:51

Of course; he only win twice over Jack Dempsey

Martin Sosa Cameron · Post by **Martin Sosa Cameron** » 31 Oct 2007, 13:57

Nat Fleischer rated Gene Tunney as the #8 between the All Time Ranking, heavyweights (in a total of eight classic weights)

The Ring Magazine's All Time Greats (too in the classic divisions) rated Tunney #7

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 31 Oct 2007, 14:17

Decagon wrote:
Martin Sosa Cameron wrote:Where is Gene Tunney?

He accomplished very little at heavyweight.

I don't agree. While he probably accomplished less at HW than many of the other ATG HWs, but he did beat a number of world class HWs including a post prime Dempsey who he pretty much shut out twice. Tunneys skills are quite evident in the films of his fights, and his speed and reflexes would have made for a very difficult fight for just about any HW in history.

I have Tunney 10th, but could see him being anywhere from 7 – 15.

fourreal · Post by **fourreal** » 31 Oct 2007, 17:52

To debate the question of fighter X being number 8 as opposed to number 6..(example)..is stupid

So anyone who tries to rank boxers across eras by number without criteria and the definition of "best" is, is not qualified to have a discussion about boxing, so all of you who have tried to do so, please log off and go immediately to disneychannel.com

Those of you who have argued that certain fighters don’t belong on someone else’s list, please cancel you ISP and never log on to any sports sight again, because you are stupid to try to make such an idiotic argument. Without the definition of "best", your arguement is stupid, and so are you

Any sight moderators who have participated in the idiotic pursuit of attempting to determine “who was greater’ between fighters who span 60 years, please immediately resign your positions.

Those of you who created a list with no order assigned, good job, you are the only ones qualified to be discussing the sport.

Hey Buzz , is this that "higher standard" you claim exists in "boxers of the past ?"
What a joke

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 31 Oct 2007, 22:08

fourreal wrote:To debate the question of fighter X being number 8 as opposed to number 6..(example)..is stupid

So anyone who tries to rank boxers across eras by number without criteria and the definition of "best" is, is not qualified to have a discussion about boxing, so all of you who have tried to do so, please log off and go immediately to disneychannel.com

Those of you who have argued that certain fighters don’t belong on someone else’s list, please cancel you ISP and never log on to any sports sight again, because you are stupid to try to make such an idiotic argument. Without the definition of "best", your arguement is stupid, and so are you

Any sight moderators who have participated in the idiotic pursuit of attempting to determine “who was greater’ between fighters who span 60 years, please immediately resign your positions.

Those of you who created a list with no order assigned, good job, you are the only ones qualified to be discussing the sport.

Hey Buzz , is this that "higher standard" you claim exists in "boxers of the past ?"
What a joke

Along with the Lewis-Dempsey thread, this is the second time you have posted something that amounts to nothing. You have some strong opinions. You wouldn't be the first. "Everyone is stupid" makes me think I'm reading the postings of a 10-year-old. Incorrectly spelling, "argument" & failing to distinguish between, "sight" &, "site" don't help when you're trying to establish how above the rest of us you are.

Has it occurred to you how obnoxious your posts are already coming off? Not only are you insulting posters, but you're not even explaining why you know so much better. If you disagree, then let's hear why. Or not. But save the flaming for some place else.

I'm sure I'll be shot down in a blaze of, "whatever's" &, "You're an idiot" in yet another classy display.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 01 Nov 2007, 00:08

Do I think Tunney is a top 10 candidate at Heavyweight? I'm not so sure I do. He's a top 5 Light-Heavy, but that's another story.

On accomplishment, it's very hard for me to see Tunney in the top 10. Three fights only. However, I think he would give some better-known Heavyweights a serious challenge (Rocky Marciano, Sonny Liston, etc.)

I'll have to be honest & say Tunney doesn't make my top 10. Excellent fighter nonetheless, & probably doesn't get the credit he is entitled to.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 01 Nov 2007, 07:33

Goodnight, Irene wrote:On accomplishment, it's very hard for me to see Tunney in the top 10. Three fights only...

Tunney fought more than 3 fights at HW, so I'm not sure what your comment means. Please explain.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 01 Nov 2007, 08:02

In the 1980s The Ring rated all HW champs in 10 categories. each category was out of 10 and the scores were added up and the list compiled.

Tunney came 4th.

The measure was more of skills and abilities and only 1 category was on level of opponents so this does skew the ratings in gene's favour. Still 4th shows that he is/was highly respected.

top 10 best heavyweights

Re: top 10 best heavyweights