BoxRec

Is the topic of this thread violation of forum rule #10?
Maybe Buzz can answer this.

This is sort of a perrenial topic that gets some lattitude.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:DempseyFire nice list...

Any reason why Jimmy Bivins is in your top 30 and Archie Moore is nowhere to be found? With both fighters weighing at least 180lb, Archie Moore is 4-0 against Jimmy Bivins(including a knockout win over a 27 year old bivins in 1947). Archie also defeated the 3 most dangerous young heavyweights in the division in early 1950s..Nino Valdes 2x, Clarence Henry, and Bob Baker. All 3 were rated in the top 5.

Archies record at heavyweight is 65-3-2 with all 3 losses coming to ATG fighters. Archie's record against men above 200lb is 22-1 with 19 knockouts.


Archie should be on the list

Well, you have exposed my inconsistent criteria! I agree if one will rank Charles at HW, Moore with his fine resume above 175 should be ranked too. I suppose since Moore was light heavy champ and is commonly thought of as a light HW, I rank him there while Charles managed to win the HW title and make several defenses and is thus remembered as a heavyweight champ.

31) Carnera

32) Johansson

33) Machen

34) Miske

35) Witherspoon

36) Nova

37) Pastor

38) Klitschko (Vitali)

39) Smith (Gunboat)

40) Young

41) Klitschko (Wladimir)

42) Machen

43) Martin (Ed)

44) Ray

45) Folley

46) Godfrey (II)

47) Farr

48) Lyle

49) Williams

50) Bonavena

dempseyfire wrote:31) Carnera

32) Johansson

33) Machen

34) Miske

35) Witherspoon

36) Nova

37) Pastor

38) Klitschko (Vitali)

39) Smith (Gunboat)

40) Young

41) Klitschko (Wladimir)

42) Machen

43) Martin (Ed)

44) Ray

45) Folley

46) Godfrey (II)

47) Farr

48) Lyle

49) Williams

50) Bonavena

Carnera????????????????
R U fkn serious??????

dempseyfire wrote:Walcott is usually in people's top 15 and Schmeling and Baer are (at the least) usually in people's top 20. Ali without a doubt has the best HW resume in history but Louis was the more consistent performer. I think putting either at #1 is perfectly acceptable.

My top 30:

1) Louis

2) Ali

3) Johnson

4) Dempsey

5) Foreman (I can see why Holmes fans would be upset but Larry's weak comp hurts him here . . Larry's best victory was his war with Norton while Foreman crushed a prime Norton, and he has the very big win over Frazier. Hell, after Norton I'm not sure I'd rate any of Larry's victories over the Lyle Foreman beat . . plus he gets an extra shove for winning the legitimate title at 45 years old)

6) Holmes

7) Frazier

8) Marciano

9) Liston

10) Jefferies

11) Holyfield (Lennox was slightly more consistent but Evander has the better top wins and their rematch convinces me a peak Holyfield clearly wins a head to head)

12) Lewis

13) Tyson

14) Walcott

15) Charles

16) Schmeling

17) Baer

18) Norton

19) Wills

20) Sharkey

21) Patterson

21) Jeannette

22) McVey

23) Quarry

24) Bivins

25) Fulton (highly under-rated fighter)

26) Terrell

27) Bowe

28) Ellis

29) Willard

30) Shavers

* I rate Tunney at 175 as he did the wide majority of his work there. Charles has enough of a HW resume for me to rank him there. Langford could be ranked a HW but since he has HOF wins all the way from junior welter to HW I rank him at 175 as well.

I think this is an excellent list. There is obviously a wide range of possibilities and I disagree with a few of your choices but IMO yours is a logically-consistent and logicially-defensible list.

My list:

1-Muhammad Ali
2-Jack Dempsey
3-Joe Louis
4-Larry Holmes
5-Jack Johnson
6-Gene Tunney
7-Jim Jeffries
8-George Foreman
9-Lennox Lewis
10-Rocky Marciano
11-Joe Frazier
12-Sonny Liston
13-Riddick Bowe
14-Evander Holyfield
15-Mike Tyson
16-Ezzard Charles
17-Jersey Joe Walcott
18-Jack Sharkey
19-Max Schmeling
20-Sam Langford

Carnera was a much better fighter than given credit for. Knocked out an ATG HOFer in Sharkey for the title, beat HOFer Loughran in defense as well as the respectable Uzucudun in defense. Also legit beat very good fighters in Maloney, Levinsky, Lasky, Gross and Schaeff. Also robbed vs Poreda. His early career was full of fixes but by the time he was regularly fighting ranked contenders his fights were on the level, the crap that all of his fights were fixed and he was a circus freak are old wives's tales.

In retrospect I might be putting him a little high based on the fact he won the linear title and made a couple of successful defense, but a clear top 40 HW.

Thank you E for the compliment!

dempseyfire wrote:Carnera was a much better fighter than given credit for. Knocked out an ATG HOFer in Sharkey for the title, beat HOFer Loughran in defense as well as the respectable Uzucudun in defense. Also legit beat very good fighters in Maloney, Levinsky, Lasky, Gross and Schaeff. Also robbed vs Poreda. His early career was full of fixes but by the time he was regularly fighting ranked contenders his fights were on the level, the crap that all of his fights were fixed and he was a circus freak are old wives's tales.

In retrospect I might be putting him a little high based on the fact he won the linear title and made a couple of successful defense, but a clear top 40 HW.

:

well said!

Mr E wrote:My list:

1-Muhammad Ali
2-Jack Dempsey
3-Joe Louis
4-Larry Holmes
5-Jack Johnson
6-Gene Tunney
7-Jim Jeffries
8-George Foreman
9-Lennox Lewis
10-Rocky Marciano
11-Joe Frazier
12-Sonny Liston
13-Riddick Bowe
16-Ezzard Charles
17-Jersey Joe Walcott
18-Jack Sharkey
19-Max Schmeling
20-Sam Langford

nice list

but...

Jack Dempsey at number 2? Despite not fighting the two best heavyweights of his era Harry Wills and Harry Greb?

Also Gene Tunney above Rocky Marciano, Lennox Lewis, Joe Frazier, Sonny Liston? Why?

wsbuf wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Carnera was a much better fighter than given credit for. Knocked out an ATG HOFer in Sharkey for the title, beat HOFer Loughran in defense as well as the respectable Uzucudun in defense. Also legit beat very good fighters in Maloney, Levinsky, Lasky, Gross and Schaeff. Also robbed vs Poreda. His early career was full of fixes but by the time he was regularly fighting ranked contenders his fights were on the level, the crap that all of his fights were fixed and he was a circus freak are old wives's tales.

In retrospect I might be putting him a little high based on the fact he won the linear title and made a couple of successful defense, but a clear top 40 HW.

:

well said!

There is enough smoke around this topic to keep Los Angeles in a fog until 2015, and the facts forever an engima. To say that this guy was part of a corrupt past, and then "learned" how to effectively get the job done smacks of a bit of sentimental revisionist history. That he was better than our worst assumptions? Ok I can go along with that. But I would bet that Valuev would beat him. OK Valuev was a champion...so I guess that's not totally disgraceful.


Some of us will go to our grave believing that Sharkey "helped out" in that KO. I'm not saying Sharkey didn't get hit and have a real reaction, I am questioning if Sharkey didn't park his jaw and wait for Carnera to give him reason to go to what may have been a previously booked all expense paid vacation to dreamland.


I'm not sure that jab was all that effective because of what was actually on it, or because of who was sitting in the crowd as "insurance".

But there is zero proof of Sharkey taking a dive. The onus is on those claiming a conspiracy to produce even a shred of evidence other than Carnera had management with shady connections. Where were those connections in the first Sharkey bout? Or vs Gains? Or preventing Primo himself from getting jobbed vs Poreda? People love conspiracy theories but that one carries no legs.

Carnera's own manager MANY YEARS after the fact divulged which fights were fixed to an Italian newspaper, and it's clear as his profile became larger and he faced better opponents the fights became legit. If the Mob had so much power as to fix a world HW title fight, why stop at Carnera? Just go on and say every fight was fixed from the 20s through the 60s.

Carnera was a far better fighter than Valuev . . more athletic, harder puncher, more skilled.

I hear you, the empirical evidence is thin. But sometimes the smoke is too thick to actually SEE the fire.....however the fire is there with or without the empirical support to make the case.

Ali
Louis
Holmes
Johnson
Liston
Foreman
Lewis
Dempsey
Frazier
Holyfield

In random order -
Ali
Tyson
Louis
Lewis
Holyfield
Frazier
Marciano
Foreman
Bowe
Holmes

I think Tyson in his prime would beat all of them in their primes - but you can't compare era's

Difficult, and it would probably be different tomorrow:
1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Foreman
4. Holmes
5. Marciano
6. Frazier
7. Johnson
8. Liston
9. Dempsey
10. Lewis

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Mr E wrote:My list:

1-Muhammad Ali
2-Jack Dempsey
3-Joe Louis
4-Larry Holmes
5-Jack Johnson
6-Gene Tunney
7-Jim Jeffries
8-George Foreman
9-Lennox Lewis
10-Rocky Marciano
11-Joe Frazier
12-Sonny Liston
13-Riddick Bowe
16-Ezzard Charles
17-Jersey Joe Walcott
18-Jack Sharkey
19-Max Schmeling
20-Sam Langford

nice list

but...

Jack Dempsey at number 2? Despite not fighting the two best heavyweights of his era Harry Wills and Harry Greb?

Also Gene Tunney above Rocky Marciano, Lennox Lewis, Joe Frazier, Sonny Liston? Why?

Well, those are fair comments and this is surely a subject with respect to which reasonable minds can differ. I look at things on more a who-would-have-beaten-whom-on-his-best-night basis and I think that Dempsey (1) would have murdered Wills and (2) WOULD in fact have fought him but for the complicated confluence of events that surrounded that match-up. The Greb issue has, I think, largely been created after the fact but put it this way: I severely disagree that Greb was a better heavyweight than Morris, Fulton, Willard, Gibbons, Firpo, or Sharkey. Some folks will disagree but I venture that if you took a poll, circa 1930 of all the folks who saw Dempsey, Wills, and Greb fight in person, and asked who was the best of the trio, Dempsey would win overwhelmingly. The fact that the Mauler beat Joe Louis 2:1, with Jack Johnson, Jim Jeffries, and Gene Tunney finishing virtually nowhere in the 1950 AP Poll is signficant to me. The guys who saw Dempsey fight thought he was a MONSTER.

Regarding Tunney, unlike many, I think he hit his pound-for-pound peak as a 190 pound cruiserweight. I like his chances against Marciano, Frazier, and Liston. I see him as a stronger, more durable version of Charles and Charles was past his best when he gave the Rock all he wanted. If Tunney were training in Lewis's era, given his personal work-ethic and intellectual approach to training, you have to believe he would have hit the gym in a big way-- bet he enters the ring circa 2000 @ about 220, which I think is enough weight for him to beat today's heavyweights. But no, I don't think Tunney @ 190 could beat Lewis @ 240, if that's the question you're asking.

I should also add that I rate my top 12 in a pretty close bunch. If you think think Frazier should be rated over Tunney, or Louis over Ali, or Foreman over Holmes, etc., what the hell? You may be right. This is all speculation. My best guess, for what it's worth.

BoxBuzz wrote:

wsbuf wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Carnera was a much better fighter than given credit for. Knocked out an ATG HOFer in Sharkey for the title, beat HOFer Loughran in defense as well as the respectable Uzucudun in defense. Also legit beat very good fighters in Maloney, Levinsky, Lasky, Gross and Schaeff. Also robbed vs Poreda. His early career was full of fixes but by the time he was regularly fighting ranked contenders his fights were on the level, the crap that all of his fights were fixed and he was a circus freak are old wives's tales.

In retrospect I might be putting him a little high based on the fact he won the linear title and made a couple of successful defense, but a clear top 40 HW.

:

well said!

There is enough smoke around this topic to keep Los Angeles in a fog until 2015, and the facts forever an engima. To say that this guy was part of a corrupt past, and then "learned" how to effectively get the job done smacks of a bit of sentimental revisionist history. That he was better than our worst assumptions? Ok I can go along with that. But I would bet that Valuev would beat him. OK Valuev was a champion...so I guess that's not totally disgraceful.


Some of us will go to our grave believing that Sharkey "helped out" in that KO. I'm not saying Sharkey didn't get hit and have a real reaction, I am questioning if Sharkey didn't park his jaw and wait for Carnera to give him reason to go to what may have been a previously booked all expense paid vacation to dreamland.


I'm not sure that jab was all that effective because of what was actually on it, or because of who was sitting in the crowd as "insurance".

I guess I half agree with both of you. I think dempseyfire is right that Carnera is severely under-rated but I also think boxbuzz is right that Sharkey was the better fighter and that he took a dive that night in 1933.

I concur Sharkey was the superior fighter but that doesn't mean a massive 265 lb man can't land a perfect shot on the jaw and win the fight. Sharkey by the second Carnera fight was already declining as a fighter. Just compare his rather ordinary physique vs Carnera and in his subsequent fights to his mid-late 20s prime when he was completly ripped. I don't see it out of the realm of possibility of Carnera winning that fight legit. And I'm a BIG Jack Sharkey fan, but it's not like he was the most consistent performer out there.

BarryWashington wrote:1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. George Foreman
4. Joe Frazier
5. Evander Holyfield
6. Larry Holmes
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Jack Johnson
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Jack Dempsey

HONORABLE MENTION(S):
Sonny Liston, James Jeffries

That is as close to how I see it as anyone else. I do have Johnson a bit higher.

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

Liston and Jeffries would also be my Honorable Mention along with Tunney,Tyson, and Bowe.
After 1-2, there are so many guys that are fairly close. Most of us have most of the usual suspects for #3-10 though in varying orders.

gambler49 wrote:Clay
Louis
Holmes
Marciano
Johnson
Foreman
Frazier
Tyson
Dempsey
Jeffries

1) Ali
2) Tyson
3) Foreman
4) Louis
5) Frazier
6) Holmes
7) Lewis
8) Holyfield
9) Marciono
10) Bowe

To me the battle of Ali vs Louis is a matter of reign vs opposition. It really depends on what you value more.

Grimm wrote:To me the battle of Ali vs Louis is a matter of reign vs opposition. It really depends on what you value more.

Indeed.

I would say anyone who has Tyson top 10 needs their head examined...

To be honest, it's not something I've given a lot of thought to lately. This always used to be my top 10:

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

And when I made a topic and compiled about 20 people's top lists, it came out like this:

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Johnson
5. Foreman
6. Marciano
7. Dempsey
8. Frazier
9. Lewis
10. Liston
11. Holyfield
12. Tyson
13. Jeffries
I think Tunney and Charles were 14 and 15 but I can't remember the order.

One thing that bugs me is the #3 spot - whoever I give it to, it always seems a bit generous to them. I think this just highlights how very clearly that Louis and Ali are the top 2.