BoxRec

i've gone joe louis myself the longest reign most defences and so on

Kalan wrote:

BitPlayer wrote:

Kalan wrote:
They are for YOU... You see, Liston was NOT considered unbeatable--because he'd already been BEATEN... A light heavyweight beat Liston. Sonny had 24 pounds on Marty Marshall and LOST---a disgraceful performance... It was only Liston's 8th fight that's true -- but Leon Spinks beat Ali when he only had 7 fights. Leon Spinks was another very small Heavyweight. Spinks was a MASSIVE UNDERDOG who Ali cherry-picked to avoid fighting Larry Holmes.. Leon Spinks gave up 27 pounds to Ali, but still kicked his ass ... I can't imagine Anthony Joshua fighting "Heavyweights" who are that small and inept as Leon Spinks.. Spinks got knocked out 9 times when he fought harder punchers than Ali.

Joshua is yet to even fight anyone who's done anything major, Ali has beaten people considered great in their own right.

Joshua has beaten 4 undefeated Heavyweights in a row: 21-0.. 16-0.. 23-0-1.. and 17-0.. So they were undefeated in 78 fights before they were smashed out by AJ... Charles Martin won a Heavyweight Championship against an undefeated mandatory challenger -- so THAT IS fairly major..

Ali LOST FIGHTS to guys who NEVER DID ANYTHING major previously or since beating Ali ... such as Ken Norton and Leon Spinks -- Joshua would have destroyed those 2 super hittable Heavyweights inside of a round... Joshua obviously has a more balanced and solid stance than Ali had... slips and ducks punches better than Ali did... Joshua doesn't get plastered against the ropes like Ali did... AJ fights better inside and has a better body attack than Ali... and AJ counterpunches and throws more accurate combinations than Ali did... Ali isn't a sucker for left jabs and left hooks like Ali was.

And all of them were domestic level at best.

stevedoc wrote:i've gone joe louis myself the longest reign most defences and so on

The sheer number of title defenses don't mean anything at all. How much credit are you going to give someone for defeating Johnny Paycheck or Jack Roper?

No other heavyweight had as dominating title reign as Ali from 1964-1967. (Arguably nobody in any weight class)
He was 10-0, with 8 knockouts and two lopsided decision wins.

Louis of course had several great performances.
However, he had a lot of trouble winning decisions against Tommy Farr and Arturo Godoy.
He losing to light heavyweight Billy Conn before finally stopping him in 13 rounds.
He got knocked down when winning the title against Jimmy Braddock, also got knocked by Tony Galento, and Buddy Baer.
These are fights when Louis was in his prime, not way over the hill. So they should not be compared to Ali's fights against Spinks, Holmes, Berbick etc. which is what some Ali-haters like to do.

After Ali came back, he did have some losses. However, he also had some great wins. In the best era in heavyweight boxing, he was the best even though he was past his prime.

Ali is the clear #1. Louis is the clear #2. The real argument is who is #3?

Ambling Alp II wrote:

stevedoc wrote:i've gone joe louis myself the longest reign most defences and so on

The sheer number of title defenses don't mean anything at all. How much credit are you going to give someone for defeating Johnny Paycheck or Jack Roper?

No other heavyweight had as dominating title reign as Ali from 1964-1967. (Arguably nobody in any weight class)
He was 10-0, with 8 knockouts and two lopsided decision wins.

Louis of course had several great performances.
However, he had a lot of trouble winning decisions against Tommy Farr and Arturo Godoy.
He losing to light heavyweight Billy Conn before finally stopping him in 13 rounds.
He got knocked down when winning the title against Jimmy Braddock, also got knocked by Tony Galento, and Buddy Baer.
These are fights when Louis was in his prime, not way over the hill. So they should not be compared to Ali's fights against Spinks, Holmes, Berbick etc. which is what some Ali-haters like to do.

After Ali came back, he did have some losses. However, he also had some great wins. In the best era in heavyweight boxing, he was the best even though he was past his prime.

Ali is the clear #1. Louis is the clear #2. The real argument is who is #3?

ok i could of said that ali lost to norton at least twice he lost to frazier once and was seconds from throwing in the towel himself in there 3rd fight or that a 7 fight cruiser weight spinks beat..... you can have your opinion but so can i Ali is overated

stevedoc wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

stevedoc wrote:i've gone joe louis myself the longest reign most defences and so on

The sheer number of title defenses don't mean anything at all. How much credit are you going to give someone for defeating Johnny Paycheck or Jack Roper?

No other heavyweight had as dominating title reign as Ali from 1964-1967. (Arguably nobody in any weight class)
He was 10-0, with 8 knockouts and two lopsided decision wins.

Louis of course had several great performances.
However, he had a lot of trouble winning decisions against Tommy Farr and Arturo Godoy.
He losing to light heavyweight Billy Conn before finally stopping him in 13 rounds.
He got knocked down when winning the title against Jimmy Braddock, also got knocked by Tony Galento, and Buddy Baer.
These are fights when Louis was in his prime, not way over the hill. So they should not be compared to Ali's fights against Spinks, Holmes, Berbick etc. which is what some Ali-haters like to do.

After Ali came back, he did have some losses. However, he also had some great wins. In the best era in heavyweight boxing, he was the best even though he was past his prime.

Ali is the clear #1. Louis is the clear #2. The real argument is who is #3?

ok i could of said that ali lost to norton at least twice he lost to frazier once and was seconds from throwing in the towel himself in there 3rd fight or that a 7 fight cruiser weight spinks beat..... you can have your opinion but so can i Ali is overated

Louis is the no1 for me too. I do agree with Alp that no3 is a difficult choice.

Tomasino wrote:

stevedoc wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:
The sheer number of title defenses don't mean anything at all. How much credit are you going to give someone for defeating Johnny Paycheck or Jack Roper?

No other heavyweight had as dominating title reign as Ali from 1964-1967. (Arguably nobody in any weight class)
He was 10-0, with 8 knockouts and two lopsided decision wins.

Louis of course had several great performances.
However, he had a lot of trouble winning decisions against Tommy Farr and Arturo Godoy.
He losing to light heavyweight Billy Conn before finally stopping him in 13 rounds.
He got knocked down when winning the title against Jimmy Braddock, also got knocked by Tony Galento, and Buddy Baer.
These are fights when Louis was in his prime, not way over the hill. So they should not be compared to Ali's fights against Spinks, Holmes, Berbick etc. which is what some Ali-haters like to do.

After Ali came back, he did have some losses. However, he also had some great wins. In the best era in heavyweight boxing, he was the best even though he was past his prime.

Ali is the clear #1. Louis is the clear #2. The real argument is who is #3?

ok i could of said that ali lost to norton at least twice he lost to frazier once and was seconds from throwing in the towel himself in there 3rd fight or that a 7 fight cruiser weight spinks beat..... you can have your opinion but so can i Ali is overated

Louis is the no1 for me too. I do agree with Alp that no3 is a difficult choice.

x2

I have Holmes 3rd and Holyfield 4th.

Ali

Ambling Alp II wrote:Ali is the clear #1. Louis is the clear #2. The real argument is who is #3?

The #3 choice is a difficult one. I reckon George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Lennox Lewis and Jack Johnson should be in the mix.
If we are talking heavyweight champions, today I'll vote for Larry Holmes as #3 (I might change my mind tomorrow).
If we are just picking heavyweights I'd choose Sam Langford - shame he never got a genuine title shot.

Louis
Ali
Holmes
4th is tougher it could be Lewis,Marciano,Holyfield,wladimir

Kalan wrote:Yes, I forget about that and stand corrected... .

No problem, that's what the forum is here for, to help those who have difficulty standing, remain stable and receive good and sensible information.

Have you looked at Armstrong's fights yet???

stevedoc wrote:Louis
Ali
Holmes
4th is tougher it could be Lewis,Marciano,Holyfield,wladimir

Wlad? Really? How? I could see him in the top 25, I'd disagree, but it's subjective. You can really see a case where wlad could rate over Holyfield? He has 5 better losses than any Wlad win.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

stevedoc wrote:Louis
Ali
Holmes
4th is tougher it could be Lewis,Marciano,Holyfield,wladimir

Wlad? Really? How? I could see him in the top 25, I'd disagree, but it's subjective. You can really see a case where wlad could rate over Holyfield? He has 5 better losses than any Wlad win.

as much as i like holyfield he wasn't that great at heavyweight he lost 2 out of 3 to bowe while at his peak lost to moorer was rocked hard by cooper fought 2 OAP's in holmes and foreman and his best wins were against a faded Tyson i don't think Holyfield was ever the MAN at heavyweight where as Wlad was champ for 10 years he may not of fought great fighters but he was dominate for a long time .

Kalan wrote:Yes, I forget about that and stand corrected... Vitali Klitschko did win a Heavyweight Title from a very weak Title Holder, Herbie Hide who he destroyed in 2 rounds... Hide was a 2-time Heavyweight Champion, beating the weakest Heavyweight Title holder of all time in Michael Bentt, and I think he beat also beat Tony Tucker. Vitali was a 3-time Heavyweight Champion.

Herbie Hide was about 20 million per cent better than Charles Martin. Are you disputing this?

Kalan wrote:

BitPlayer wrote:

Kalan wrote:
They are for YOU... You see, Liston was NOT considered unbeatable--because he'd already been BEATEN... A light heavyweight beat Liston. Sonny had 24 pounds on Marty Marshall and LOST---a disgraceful performance... It was only Liston's 8th fight that's true -- but Leon Spinks beat Ali when he only had 7 fights. Leon Spinks was another very small Heavyweight. Spinks was a MASSIVE UNDERDOG who Ali cherry-picked to avoid fighting Larry Holmes.. Leon Spinks gave up 27 pounds to Ali, but still kicked his ass ... I can't imagine Anthony Joshua fighting "Heavyweights" who are that small and inept as Leon Spinks.. Spinks got knocked out 9 times when he fought harder punchers than Ali.

Joshua is yet to even fight anyone who's done anything major, Ali has beaten people considered great in their own right.

Joshua has beaten 4 undefeated Heavyweights in a row: 21-0.. 16-0.. 23-0-1.. and 17-0.. So they were undefeated in 78 fights before they were smashed out by AJ... Charles Martin won a Heavyweight Championship against an undefeated mandatory challenger -- so THAT IS fairly major..

Ali LOST FIGHTS to guys who NEVER DID ANYTHING major previously or since beating Ali ... such as Ken Norton and Leon Spinks -- Joshua would have destroyed those 2 super hittable Heavyweights inside of a round... Joshua obviously has a more balanced and solid stance than Ali had... slips and ducks punches better than Ali did... Joshua doesn't get plastered against the ropes like Ali did... AJ fights better inside and has a better body attack than Ali... and AJ counterpunches and throws more accurate combinations than Ali did... Ali isn't a sucker for left jabs and left hooks like Ali was.

No, it isn't "major" to win a Heavyweight Championship against an undefeated mandatory challenger when BOTH OF THEM AREN'T VERY GOOD.
You really have a problem with this "losing to a good guy can be more creditable than smashing your five year old sister over the head with a frying pan from behind, then sticking your arms up in the air and screaming "Yeah, I'm the Champion!"" business, don't you.
We won't even mention the fact that Martin only "beat" Glazkov because he sprained his ankle.

I'll go with Louis but I'd probably pick Ali in a fight.

SAADSack is a flat out full of trash... Wladimir Klitschko has a fabulous ring record... This lists some of his top opponents---and some facts.

David Haye was a very fast, strong, powerful, 25-1 skilled boxer-puncher who certainly would be competitive with Holyfield ... Sam Peter was a undefeated 24-0 top Heavyweight Contender, and favored to beat Klitschko ... Jameel McCline was a massive 6'6" X 260 top ranked Heavyweight Contender with wins over Shannon Briggs, Michael Grant, and Lance Whitaker in his previous 3 fights ... Sultan Ibragimov was an undefeated southpaw Heavyweight Champion who beat Shannon Briggs every round. His only career loss was a shutout to Klitschko ... Alexander Povetkin was an undefeated Heavyweight Champion and Olympic Gold Medal Winner ... Tony Thompson was a top-ranked Heavyweight Contender and 6'5" X 248lb Southpaw, 31-1... Chris Byrd was a 31-1 slick boxing Southpaw, only beaten by Ike Ibeabuchi. and with wins over Evander Holyfield, David Tua, and Vitali Klitschko. Bryd would then go undefeated for his next 9 fights until he lost to Klitschko again, this time by KO after losing every round... Ruslan Chagaev was another undefeated southpaw Heavyweight Champion with the 1st victory ever over 7' X 320 Nicolai Valuev... Calvin Brock was and undefeated, 29-0 top Heavyweight Contender... Mariusz Wach was a 6'7" X 251 and 27-0 top Heavyweight Contender who iced huge Kevin McBride with one shot. McBride stopped Mike Tyson ...

Wladimir Klitschko had 32 fights in the 20th Century. Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, and Lewis were all offered fights with Wladimir Klitschko. They all chose to fight much weaker opponents. WK never turned a former Heavyweight Champion or top ranked Heavyweight Contender and he's 40 years old.... Ali, Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield, Foreman, and Tyson ALL turned down top-ranked Heavyweight Contenders for weaker opponents... Lennonx Lewis was LOSING the fight on ALL SCORECARDS to Vitali Klitschko when he was awarded the fight on cuts. That was Lewis's only win on cuts and Vitali's only loss on cuts. Lewis chickened out on the rematch and retired when Vitali was named his mandatory challenger.

Many "Golden Era" hype artists and Klitschko haters simply hate historical facts.

KAlan. You say Larry was truly a great and Norton was a lackey. Why did Larry barely survive that fight with Norton? Or was that not a close fight?

By the way that last contribution had more holes than a pound of the finest Swiss cheese.

gp. wrote:We won't even mention the fact that Martin only "beat" Glazkov because he sprained his ankle.

Glazko didn't sprain an ankle... He blew his knee out... I take the knee into consideration, but Martin would have beaten Glazkov easily anyway... He was having no problems with Glazkov before his knee blew out. He hadn't been hit with a decent punch in 3 rounds. One just had Martin ahead 2-0 in rounds (I agree) and one judge had it even after 2. Martin was winning the 3rd so he was ahead.

The fact that Vitali Kltschko suffered a full thickness separation in every one of his connecting rotator cuff muscles in his Chris Byrd loss is never mentioned by Klitschko haters... The fact that Vitali Klitschko was winning the Lennox Lewis fight on ALL SCORECARDS when he lost on cuts is never mentioned by Klitschko haters. Little inconvenient facts.

BoxBuzz wrote:KAlan. You say Larry was truly a great and Norton was a lackey. Why did Larry barely survive that fight with Norton? Or was that not a close fight?

By the way that last contribution had more holes than a pound of the finest Swiss cheese.

Then point out the holes Hector... Be specific!!! ... I had Holmes beating Norton by a wider margin... And Larry had a badly torn left biceps coming into the fight. He suffered the injury a week before the fight and doctors told him to postpone the fight... Holmes refused to do that because he'd been waiting for a Title shot for years as all the top contenders and Ali avoided him.. Holmes rested the arm for a full week... That injury hampered Holmes from the 5th round on as his left biceps started to unravel.. It was similar to the injury Sonny Liston suffered in the 1st Ali fight that made Liston quit in his corner... Holmes had to brawl more because it was very painful to retract his jab... He could get it out there. Retracting it was a problem. That probably made the fight more "exciting" because Larry had to brawl to win it.

stevedoc wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

stevedoc wrote:i've gone joe louis myself the longest reign most defences and so on

The sheer number of title defenses don't mean anything at all. How much credit are you going to give someone for defeating Johnny Paycheck or Jack Roper?

No other heavyweight had as dominating title reign as Ali from 1964-1967. (Arguably nobody in any weight class)
He was 10-0, with 8 knockouts and two lopsided decision wins.

Louis of course had several great performances.
However, he had a lot of trouble winning decisions against Tommy Farr and Arturo Godoy.
He losing to light heavyweight Billy Conn before finally stopping him in 13 rounds.
He got knocked down when winning the title against Jimmy Braddock, also got knocked by Tony Galento, and Buddy Baer.
These are fights when Louis was in his prime, not way over the hill. So they should not be compared to Ali's fights against Spinks, Holmes, Berbick etc. which is what some Ali-haters like to do.

After Ali came back, he did have some losses. However, he also had some great wins. In the best era in heavyweight boxing, he was the best even though he was past his prime.

Ali is the clear #1. Louis is the clear #2. The real argument is who is #3?

ok i could of said that ali lost to norton at least twice he lost to frazier once and was seconds from throwing in the towel himself in there 3rd fight or that a 7 fight cruiser weight spinks beat..... you can have your opinion but so can i Ali is overated

He only lost to Norton once. Even if you think Norton should have got the decision against Ali in their 3rd fight, that was well past Ali's prime. He was way past it against Spinks. I was not doing that with Louis. Louis got a dubious decision over Walcott, lost to Marciano and had other subpar performances way his best. Those fights should not be major factors in rating either of them.

That Ali was seconds away from quitting against Frazier simply is not true.
You aren't comparing apples to apples.

stevedoc wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

stevedoc wrote:Louis
Ali
Holmes
4th is tougher it could be Lewis,Marciano,Holyfield,wladimir

Wlad? Really? How? I could see him in the top 25, I'd disagree, but it's subjective. You can really see a case where wlad could rate over Holyfield? He has 5 better losses than any Wlad win.

as much as i like holyfield he wasn't that great at heavyweight he lost 2 out of 3 to bowe while at his peak lost to moorer was rocked hard by cooper fought 2 OAP's in holmes and foreman and his best wins were against a faded Tyson i don't think Holyfield was ever the MAN at heavyweight where as Wlad was champ for 10 years he may not of fought great fighters but he was dominate for a long time .

Being a champ for a long time doesn't mean much if the competition sucks. Holyfield best wins were much, much better. Klitschko had three embarrassing losses that were much worse than losing to Moorer. Klitischko is nowhere near Holyfield's league.

Kalan wrote: He suffered the injury a week before the fight and doctors told him to postpone the fight... Holmes refused to do that because he'd been waiting for a Title shot for years as all the top contenders and Ali avoided him.. Holmes rested the arm for a full week... That injury hampered Holmes from the 5th round on as his left biceps started to unravel.. It was similar to the injury Sonny Liston suffered in the 1st Ali fight that made Liston quit in his corner... Holmes had to brawl more because it was very painful to retract his jab... He could get it out there. Retracting it was a problem. That probably made the fight more "exciting" because Larry had to brawl to win it.

He loved an excuse didn't he. Diarrhoea against Witherspoon. Only 3 weeks notice against Williams. Only a few weeks notice for Tyson. Slipped disc against Spinks. Coincidently all fights he either lost or many thought he lost. I almost forgot, also a perforated eardrum against Weaver.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: You can really see a case where wlad could rate over Holyfield? He has 5 better losses than any Wlad win.

- You've always been a lump of laughable, probably due a diminishing IQ ratio as measured by the ratio of your cranium to your ever expanding rump.

Mr. Field turned pro at age 22 against a weak field of newly formed cruisers, going 18-0, 15 KO for a 83% KO%. He won six straight heavy bouts by KO, 100% KO% as he fought his way into those rankings, impressive so far. Starting with his first title fight against Douglas, in his career as fully formed 28 yr old heavy champ, he finishes 20-10-2, 7 KOs, a 22% KO%, barely a 0.500 record. Why the sudden decline the less studied might inquire? Easy, BigGeorge steamrolled him to ruin his mental and vitamin invincibility, only 6 puny KOs after George looking ore like a punch drunk club fighter than champ.

My top 6 are:
Louis
Wlad
Dempsey
George
Vitali
Ali

Holmes 0-5 against standing champs who actually won a title bout, 1-5 if we include his sparest victory over Norton with no rematch. Never held more than one title in a title rich era. He, Field, and Johnson might rank 21st, 22nd, and 23rd on my expanded list, but I'd have to think about it...thats all folks

Ambling Alp II wrote:

stevedoc wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Wlad? Really? How? I could see him in the top 25, I'd disagree, but it's subjective. You can really see a case where wlad could rate over Holyfield? He has 5 better losses than any Wlad win.

as much as i like holyfield he wasn't that great at heavyweight he lost 2 out of 3 to bowe while at his peak lost to moorer was rocked hard by cooper fought 2 OAP's in holmes and foreman and his best wins were against a faded Tyson i don't think Holyfield was ever the MAN at heavyweight where as Wlad was champ for 10 years he may not of fought great fighters but he was dominate for a long time .

Being a champ for a long time doesn't mean much if the competition sucks. Holyfield best wins were much, much better. Klitschko had three embarrassing losses that were much worse than losing to Moorer. Klitischko is nowhere near Holyfield's league.

so i presume you don't rate louis that high then as main claim is a long reign or are you using double standards !