BoxRec

Decagon wrote:Uh, oh. You're holding a trilogy Ali fought when he was past his 1970s prime against him? I thought this was head-to-head based on peak performances of the decade. Ali was still close to his 1970s prime when he went 1-1 with Norton (don't give me any shit about Norton winning the second fight; he didn't), but he was shot for the third Norton fight. I mean, if you're going to take points off Ali for losing to Norton, why not take points off Frazier for losing to Ali? Or Foreman for losing to Jimmy Young?

i just think in a round robin tournament of there heavyweight peaks in the 1970s ali does the worst of the 4 .

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

14. Jess Willard 6'7 230lb 83" heavyweight peak 1915 ^^

jess willard was beaten by gunboat smith, and jess ducked fred fulton cause fulton was better and would beat the shit out of willardin exhibitions.

- willard was not the best of the white hopes


corbett was past his prime by 1900 and 34 years old, and i dont think a past his prime corbett was better than jeanette, mcvey langford.

If Willard Ko'd the #2 man of the decade, he should rate a bit higher.

Most people who lived in the time of Jeanette, McVey and Langford felt Corbett was better. The issue here is the dates. Corbett did not fight much past 1900.

my criteria is mainly head to head. that way fighters like sonny liston who didnt accomplish much in the 1950s will get rated fairly.


how much george godfrey and jack sharkey? they had very spotty records but we all know they were 2 of the best contenders of the 1920s

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Decagon wrote:Uh, oh. You're holding a trilogy Ali fought when he was past his 1970s prime against him? I thought this was head-to-head based on peak performances of the decade. Ali was still close to his 1970s prime when he went 1-1 with Norton (don't give me any shit about Norton winning the second fight; he didn't), but he was shot for the third Norton fight. I mean, if you're going to take points off Ali for losing to Norton, why not take points off Frazier for losing to Ali? Or Foreman for losing to Jimmy Young?

i just think in a round robin tournament of there heavyweight peaks in the 1970s ali does the worst of the 4 .

But Ali (past his prime) beat Foreman (near prime) in the 70's so this majorly contradicts your point.

lvlarc_uk wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Decagon wrote:Uh, oh. You're holding a trilogy Ali fought when he was past his 1970s prime against him? I thought this was head-to-head based on peak performances of the decade. Ali was still close to his 1970s prime when he went 1-1 with Norton (don't give me any shit about Norton winning the second fight; he didn't), but he was shot for the third Norton fight. I mean, if you're going to take points off Ali for losing to Norton, why not take points off Frazier for losing to Ali? Or Foreman for losing to Jimmy Young?

i just think in a round robin tournament of there heavyweight peaks in the 1970s ali does the worst of the 4 .

But Ali (past his prime) beat Foreman (near prime) in the 70's so this majorly contradicts your point.

ok well what if i say ali loses to frazier and holmes, but foreman beats frazier and holmes?


well then there even

Then I'd say so did Ali beat Frazier, lost to Holmes but that was in 80's which doesn't count right?

So if Frazier lost to Ali and Foreman, why is he 3'rd? and Ali 4th?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

lvlarc_uk wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
i just think in a round robin tournament of there heavyweight peaks in the 1970s ali does the worst of the 4 .

But Ali (past his prime) beat Foreman (near prime) in the 70's so this majorly contradicts your point.

ok well what if i say ali loses to frazier and holmes, but foreman beats frazier and holmes?


well then there even

I think Ali would have had too much for Holmes till about '77... don't forget that one of the reasons Holmes was so good was because of what he had learnt sparring with Ali... the fact that Ali was able to beat Foreman, Frazier etc when past his physical best proves that Ali was the best of that era...

silkov wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

lvlarc_uk wrote: But Ali (past his prime) beat Foreman (near prime) in the 70's so this majorly contradicts your point.

ok well what if i say ali loses to frazier and holmes, but foreman beats frazier and holmes?


well then there even

I think Ali would have had too much for Holmes till about '77... don't forget that one of the reasons Holmes was so good was because of what he had learnt sparring with Ali... the fact that Ali was able to beat Foreman, Frazier etc when past his physical best proves that Ali was the best of that era...

but ali never beat a prime frazier. a prime frazier beat ali

Nor did Frazier beat a Prime Ali. We'll agree to disagree.

But if you do a poll im sure you'll find people will pick Muhammad Ali as the top HW of the 70's.

lvlarc_uk wrote:Nor did Frazier beat a Prime Ali. We'll agree to disagree.

But if you do a poll im sure you'll find people will pick Muhammad Ali as the top HW of the 70's.

ali wasnt in his prime in the 1970s therefore frazier gets the better of the 70s ali.


were talking a 70s ali. a 1970s ali would not beat a peak joe frazier, as u saw.

Decagon wrote:Are you kidding? He almost did. If that great left hook in the 15th had been off by a centimeter and Ali had won the round, he would have won the fight.

i had it a clear 9 rounds to 6 win for frazier

Ok thats your opinion, but if we goto the facts.

70's Ali beat Frazier twice, and beat Foreman when Foreman was in his prime!

my rankings are mainly head to head

So having Foreman ahead of Ali makes no sense at all.


It's a shame too as it's a great list, worth a sticky

does anyone have any comments on my 1940s or 1950s heavyweight rankings?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
but ali never beat a prime frazier. a prime frazier beat ali

the same can be said for frazier, he never beat a prime ali, ali was still recovering from the layoff, the ali that fought from 1972-75 was the one at his best in the 70s, so if alis wins over frazier don't count as good wins because frazier had seen better days, then surely fraziers win over ali don't count either because ali was still recovering from the layoff
and if you are going to put foremans loss to ali down to styles and rank him up because of wins wins over frazier, then that could surely be put down to styles as well?

I have a HUGE problem with you ranking Walcott over Moore and Patterson. In the 1950s, Walcott got ONE conclusive victory, in his third bout with Ezzard Charles. Again, I hate the way you’re ranking fighters based on good performances in fights they clearly lost. I really wish you’d do a long-winded post on why that’s a good way to assess the worth of fighters.

walcott was HEAVYWEIGHT champion. he beat ezzard charles 2X in the 1950s. walcotts record against ezzard in the 1950s is 2-1. also jersey joe walcott nearly beat ATG rocky marciano leading the cards after 13 rounds. in comparsion moore got demolished by marciano in a mostly one sided fight. beating ezzard charles twice and nearly beating rocky marciano are huge accomplishments. walcott was heavyweight champion, moore wasnt. linear heavyweight champion is a big accomplishment, so walcott ranks over moore in accomplishments. then we take a look at head to head, and walcott would beat moore so in reality, walcott should defintley rank over moore. patterson's title reign in the 50s was a huge dissapointment ending with a KO loss to ingo johannsen. walcott was a KO artist in the 50s, almost every fight he won, he won by KO. besides charles, he also knocked out hall of famer harold johnson, one of the best heavyweight contenders of the 1950s


i also think 1950s walcott would beat both moore and patterson





- but like i said, i rank by rankings mostly head to head, and walcott rates high in that department

harold johnsons heavyweight peak was 1962 because he was 23 years old(at his (physical peak) and scored a shutout victory over nino valdes, clarence henry, and knockout victory over bob satterfield. satterfield, valdes and henry were two top heavyweight contenders of the 1950s.

clarence henry was the # 3 ranked heavyweight in the world and coming off some huge victories when johnson beat him. henry was at his peak, and johnson won a close decision in a marvelous battle. henry at his peak was one of the best contenders of that era.


why should i put johnsons peak as late 1950s when hes older and on the downcline?


johnson beat the best contenders of the early-mid 1950s around that time. in the late 1950s johnson did not take on the best contenders.

like i said i mainly rate head ot head. in conns case he dominated 4 top 10 ranked heavyweight contenders including knocking out bob pastor, a man who shutout turkey thompson twice. conn's dramatic preformance against the greatest heavyweight of all time is something that HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO NOTICE. we cant penalize conn for not accomplishing more at heavy since he went to war. godoy looks very good on film, and he nearly beat joe louis in that first fight.

its not like they quit on the stool after leading on the cards(like a pussy), or lost due to cuts when they were ahead, these losses were were close fights to the finish with the greatest heavyweight of all time.


i think conn and godoy rate very high head to head

im in a rush but ill respond later to ur roscoe toles question

I would agree that actual results are most important in ranking head to head rather than how someone looks on film.

:P

Brock, I was wondering whether you could do an 1890s ranking. Withmthis the history of modern heavyweight boxing would be complete. Mine would read:

1 Jim Corbett
2 Peter Jackson
3 Bob Fitzsimmons
4 Jim Jeffries
5 John L Sullivan
6 Tom Sharkey
7 Joe Choynski
8 Peter Maher
9 Joe Goddard
10 Denver Ed Smith

....

but I'd like to see yours.

Cheers,
P