BoxRec

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:no there not. remember dempsey was far past it, gibbons was past it, risko was green.

dempseys wins over willard, fulton, Gunboat smith, carl morris, gibbons, jack sharkey, billy miske, bill brennan, carpentier, joe bonds, john lester johnson, meehan count for more than tunneys wins @ heavyweight.

I plainly disagree.

. Plus, Tunney's achievements at light-heavyweight matter for his HW ranking too, of course.

no they dont. what tunney did at lightheavyweight has nothing to do with his heavyweight career.

think about it, do sugar ray leonards achievements at welterweight matter for his middleweight ranking? hell no
It all depends on WHAT YOU DO IN THAT WEIGHT CLASS. what you do in that weight class matters IN THAT WEIGHT CLASS ONLY.

This is a rule I'm not willing to accept. Tunney had two half-careers, one at heavy and one at light-heavy. It's the combination of both that make the full Tunney, and you'll necessarily underappreciate him when you count or exclude wins on the basis of wehtehr he came in with a few pounds more or less.

As for Leonard, this is a crooked comparison. Leonard had ONE fight at middleweight, most of his career was at welter. In the standard ATG rankings he always shows up as a welter. Hence, I wouldn't rank Leonard as a middleweight at all. However, for Leonard's welterweight ranking it of course matters that he did not only dominate this weight class but also stepped up two classes and outscored the great Marvin Hagler.

As for Leonard, this is a crooked comparison. Leonard had ONE fight at middleweight, most of his career was at welter

EXACTLEY! tunney had only 8 fights @ heavyweight. most of tunneys career was at lightheavyweight.


you cant combine tunneys lightheavyweight career with his heavyweight career. thats ridiculous logic. thats like combining michael spinx's career at lightheavyweight with his heavyweight career.




tunneys heavyweight career is very similiar to michael spinx(excluding the tyson fights)



tunney had 8 fights at heavyweight, therefore you only count those fights only on his heavyweight career.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

As for Leonard, this is a crooked comparison. Leonard had ONE fight at middleweight, most of his career was at welter

EXACTLEY! tunney had only 8 fights @ heavyweight. most of tunneys career was at lightheavyweight.


you cant combine tunneys lightheavyweight career with his heavyweight career. thats ridiculous logic. thats like combining michael spinx's career at lightheavyweight with his heavyweight career.




tunneys heavyweight career is very similiar to michael spinx(excluding the tyson fights)



tunney had 8 fights at heavyweight, therefore you only count those fights only on his heavyweight career.

There is a difference between Leonard and Tunney. One fight at middleweight doesn't make a welter a middle. 8 fights at heavy, in contrast, three of them world-title fights, do make a fighter a legit heavyweight and he will show up in the ATG heavyweight rankings. But one will necessarily underappreciate this fighter if one mechanically counts only these 8 heavyweight bouts.

So a little bit of judgement is what's needed here.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:calling roland lastarza and rex layne mediocre shows ur true level of intelligence

So you've accepted now that Moore and Walcott were old and Charles over-the-hill?

pundit wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:calling roland lastarza and rex layne mediocre shows ur true level of intelligence

So you've accepted now that Moore and Maricnao were old and Charles over-the-hill?

ur right marciano was old




once again,


calling rex layne and roland lastarza mediocre shows ur true level of intelligence



* btw, rex layne beat far better opposition than ur boy quitschko

amazing how pundit loves to point out the fact charles was over the hill when he fought marciano, yet refuses to admit dempsey and gibbons were over the hill when they fought tunney.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
* btw, rex layne beat far better opposition than ur boy quitschko

But he was never the world's #1 heavyweight -- not even close.

pundit wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
* btw, rex layne beat far better opposition than ur boy quitschko

But he was never the world's #1 heavyweight -- not even close.

rex layne was the # 2 ranked contender in 1951 when he fought rocky marciano. there were some papers and contemporaries at the time before the rocky marciano-rex layne fight considered layne the best heavyweight in the world in 1951. after all, layne had desicevly beaten jersey joe walcott who was now heavyweight champion. layne was the strong 2 to 1 favorite over rocky marciano.



* vitali quitschko was never the world # 1 heavyweight either, he never accomplished enough to be considered the # 1 heavyweight in the world.


i also might add, if layne was around in 2004, he would most likely have been the # 1 heavyweight in the world

silkov wrote:

Dentsun4228 wrote:I like how the ballot didn't include Tyson...only Holmes, Ali and Louis? Cracks me up!....Prime Tyson is the greatest HW ever. Here's my list.

1- Tyson (incredible KO machine in his prime)
2- Ali (My idol, but could he have beaten a prime Tyson?)
3- Holmes (Truly great champ, had all the tools)
4- Foreman (in his prime including KO's of Frazier and Norton, one of the most awesome fighters ever)
5- Louis ( far ahead of his time

How anyone can rate munchy Mike the best HW ever cracks me up to be honest!... says more about the media machine than it does about boxing!.... Tyson was an overhyped technically limited, mentally flawed bully!...

Sure...the media LOVES Tyson, right? When every fight magazine and pseudo-boxing expert takes pains to dis Tyson and all he accomplished. Well, let's do a quick analysis of Tyson's career, shall we?

Competition: Tyson faced and beat better comp than Johnson, Dempsey, Marciano and Louis. He faced the same level of comp as Holmes, but Tyson beat them more easily (we're talking prime Tyson here.) Tyson faced tougher and better fighters during his first reign than Ali did during his prime. Tyson's comp is therefore equal to or better than the others.

Number of defenses: Tyson had 11 defenses of the heavywt title. Only Louis, Ali and Holmes had more. However, Louis made a point of not defending against the best black fighters of his era and Holmes only held a portion of the heavywt title. Tyson UNIFIED the title and beat all-comers.

Dealing with adversity: Tyson came back from a 4 year stretch of inactivity to regain the title. He overcame shaky moments against Bonecrusher Smith, Frank Bruno, Razor Ruddock, and Franz botha. He came back from a shellacking on one of the worst nights of his boxing career to drop Buster Douglas (technically Douglas was KO'd since he was down for 12 seconds) and stood up to a brutal beating against Lewis and never stopped trying. His heart and ability to overcome major setbacks are unquestionable.

Style: All you have to do is look at Tyson fight on ESPN classic when he was in his prime and compare with an Ali fight on OLN or ESPN classic the next night...just watch them and compare. Tyson was like Joe Frazier on steroids...only much faster and more complete a fighter. Ali, Louis, Holmes etc, would have been no match for a prime Tyson.

Competition: Tyson beat better comp Louis

really how so???



joe louis beat

jersey joe walcott 2x
max baer
max schmeling
primo carnera
old jack sharkey
billy conn 2x
old jimmy bivins
john henry lewis
james braddock
buddy baer 2x
abe simon 2x
roscoe toles
tommy farr
arturo godoy 2x
bob pastor 2x
lou nova
paolino uzcuden
tony galento
al ettore
nathan mann
cesar brion 2x
omelio agramonte 2x
lee savold
tami mauriello
gus dorazio




mike tyson beat


old larry holmes
tony tucker
michael spinx
pinklon thomas
razor ruddock 2x
tony tubbs
trevor berbick
bonecrusher smith
quick tillis
mitch blood green
frank bruno 2x
carl williams
frans botha
andrew golota
tyrell biggs


i give the edge to joe louis

Just wanted to make a couple of comments regarding Tunney.
He shouldn't be rated as high aaheavyweight as Marciano.
however, he did have more than 8 fights against heavyweights. He had at least 14. (Dempsey twice, Heeney, Risko, Herman, Gibbons, Spalla, Martin burke, Hack Burke twice, Foley, Weinert twice, clifford, and Josephs.) He never lost at this weight.

His wins against lightheavyweights like Carpentier should considered when rating him at lightheavyweight or pound for pound, but not when rating him as a heavyweight.

I've skimmed through a couple points made in this thread and just want to say the following:

-Tyson wasn't even close to being the best. In my opinion his 'peak' fight was against Trevor Berbick, the head movement, the bobbing and weaving, two fisted hand speed was still intact. But then again, take into consideration that Tyson went the distance with a deteriorating James Tillis, who wasn't so quick anymore---then how could you say Tyson could beat Ali who was 10x's faster than Tillis? [or maybe I am thinking Jesse Ferguson, but nonetheless, both were movers and on the downside and Tyson had trouble with them both].

-Yes my computer needs more testing, but so far it's proven to be 75% accurate in predicting fights. I think my tournament has proven to be much more accurate than what people thought it was---Ali, Marciano and Louis were the top 3 HW's and many a fighter from that era as well as some historians rate those same men in the top 3.

-You can't say that Rocky fought old guys, because you have to figure Rocky himself had a late start in boxing and was in his 30's when he fought Ezzard, Walcott and Moore as well, he was up their in age too.

-The bulk of Tunney's career came at LHW. He had only a handful of HW fights when he fought Dempsey and capped off his career with an all but meaningless win over Willie Meehan to retire as HW champion. His legacy at HW is nothing spectacular, though his LHW accomplishments were all but magnificent, though he never followed through at the weight and his greatness will never be known.

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:I've skimmed through a couple points made in this thread and just want to say the following:

-Tyson wasn't even close to being the best. In my opinion his 'peak' fight was against Trevor Berbick, the head movement, the bobbing and weaving, two fisted hand speed was still intact. But then again, take into consideration that Tyson went the distance with a deteriorating James Tillis, who wasn't so quick anymore---then how could you say Tyson could beat Ali who was 10x's faster than Tillis? [or maybe I am thinking Jesse Ferguson, but nonetheless, both were movers and on the downside and Tyson had trouble with them both].

-Yes my computer needs more testing, but so far it's proven to be 75% accurate in predicting fights. I think my tournament has proven to be much more accurate than what people thought it was---Ali, Marciano and Louis were the top 3 HW's and many a fighter from that era as well as some historians rate those same men in the top 3.

-You can't say that Rocky fought old guys, because you have to figure Rocky himself had a late start in boxing and was in his 30's when he fought Ezzard, Walcott and Moore as well, he was up their in age too.

-The bulk of Tunney's career came at LHW. He had only a handful of HW fights when he fought Dempsey and capped off his career with an all but meaningless win over Willie Meehan to retire as HW champion. His legacy at HW is nothing spectacular, though his LHW accomplishments were all but magnificent, though he never followed through at the weight and his greatness will never be known.

That's the 2nd time you have repeated this nonsense. Once could be a slip of the finger but twice? The name you are looking for is Tom Heeney.

dec,



marciano wasnt outboxed for 10 rounds by hasim rahman, oleg maskaev, fres oquendo, and david izon and had to pull a comeback victory out of his ass. i mean these guys were outboxing tua completley.


the only one to actually outbox marciano and be ahead on the scorecards after 10 rounds was jersey joe walcott.



i cant imagine maskaev, oquendo, izon, rahman all being ahead on the cards after 9 rounds vs marciano.




tua was easy to outbox by B level fighters

Byrd is one of the best defensive fighters that the heavyweight division's ever seen. Langford's and Wills's slow, unschooled punches out of the upright stance wouldn't fare well against a modern heavyweight.

what do you think of archie moore vs chris bryd? seeing the way wlad klitschko twice had his way with bryd.......how can u rank bryd that high and not rate wlad?


bryd lost to a old golota(but was called a draw), was given a gift decision over B level fres oquendo, and fought a dead even fight with big scrub jameeel mccline.


how could u rate bryd that high when hes struggling with these guys??

btw watch langford vs lang........langford was very skilled. he would have flattened byrd

Point taken. I think I'm ranking LaStarza more on style rather than substance.

dec,


what did you think of lastarzas style and fighting ability? marciano called roland the best defensive fighter in the heavyweight division of that era.

Marciano
Louis
Dempsey
Wallcot
Charles
Holyfield
Holmes
Tunney
Ali
Johnson
Liston
Frazier
Foreman
Patterson
Tyson

chance wrote:Marciano
Louis
Dempsey
Wallcot
Charles
Holyfield
Holmes
Tunney
Ali
Johnson
Liston
Frazier
Foreman
Patterson
Tyson

I hope that is not in any particular order.

Based on a vote from BoxRec members over a month

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

My top 15
1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Foreman
5. Marciano
6. Frazier
7. Lewis
8. Johnson
9. Dempsey
10. Liston
11. Holyfield
12. Tyson
13. Tunney
14. Jeffries
15. Patterson

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:* vitali quitschko was never the world # 1 heavyweight either, he never accomplished enough to be considered the # 1 heavyweight in the world.

More than three-quarters of the posters here see that differently, as we established recenlty.

i also might add, if layne was around in 2004, he would most likely have been the # 1 heavyweight in the world

Woulda coulda shoulda.

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:I've skimmed through a couple points made in this thread and just want to say the following:

-Yes my computer needs more testing, but so far it's proven to be 75% accurate in predicting fights. I think my tournament has proven to be much more accurate than what people thought it was---Ali, Marciano and Louis were the top 3 HW's and many a fighter from that era as well as some historians rate those same men in the top 3.

I guess "Marciano wins over Louis" falls into this 25 percent error bracket....

Seriously: I believe well-informed judgement is superior to any computer program here. Too many hard-to-quantify factors affect the likley outcome of a fight. This is why the discussions here can be so insightful.

-You can't say that Rocky fought old guys, because you have to figure Rocky himself had a late start in boxing and was in his 30's when he fought Ezzard, Walcott and Moore as well, he was up their in age too.

???

Rocky was just 29 when he gained the title from Walcott, 32 when he defended it the last time against Moore; while Moore and Walcott were close to 40 (or over 40, if you believe Moore and not his mum).

-The bulk of Tunney's career came at LHW. He had only a handful of HW fights when he fought Dempsey and capped off his career with an all but meaningless win over Willie Meehan to retire as HW champion.

Tom Heeney, my friend. Meehand was long retired by that time. And Heeney was one of the top 3, 4 contenders, together with Sharkey, Risko, an - yes - your buddy Godfrey. In 1927 it was probably #1 Sharkey, #2 Heeney, #3 Risko, #4 Godfrey.

His legacy at HW is nothing spectacular, though his LHW accomplishments were all but magnificent, though he never followed through at the weight and his greatness will never be known.

As I argued with yor soulmate Brockton, Tunney's HW resumee is at least as good as Dempsey's, even though he fought at the weight for a much shorter period. Dempsey twice, Gibbons, Greb, Risko, Heeney. All top contenders. Risko had a second run at the title in 1929, and again he was stopped only by an ATG - Max Schmeling.

Cheers,
P

Decagon wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:good list until i read chris bryd at 24, thats ridiculous. no way he deserves to be that high. bryd over sam langford?? bryd over archie moore? bryd over harry wills??

Byrd is one of the best defensive fighters that the heavyweight division's ever seen. Langford's and Wills's slow, unschooled punches out of the upright stance wouldn't fare well against a modern heavyweight.

This is so unqualified it borders the absurd. Vlad made potato mash out of this "best defensive fighter" twice without even breaking a sweat (btw, where is Vlad on your list if Byrd is #24?). And a one-armed Vitali had no problem outscoring Byrd over 9 rounds.

In contrast, Wills's punches were NOT slow, and Langford had actually fairly outstanding hadn- and footspeed. This made him so devastating instead of his small size. And neither fought upright --with Langford, that statement is again palin absurd.

Byrd is a brave little man with some boxing ability who could be a very good cruiser.

But a great heavy? Hell, no.

Decagon wrote:You sound almost like a Klitschko fan, ignoring the outcomes of all of those fights.

You're also unfairly concentrating on Byrd's later career when attacking him. I thought he beat McCline by a fairly good magin, and while Oquendo did well in the early going, he threw away the last four or five rounds, falling to a draw on my card.

So you base you rating above Lanford on beating Oquendo and McCline?

Decagon wrote:85% of posters also said that if Bitschko had fought Rahman in 2005, he would've lost.

An injured Klitschko, to be precise. An injured Louis would probably have lost to two-ton Galento as well.