BoxRec

Leonid wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

Crease wrote:I voted Rocky Marciano.

Excellent record.

He certainly has a strong case and #3 is exactly where I placed him. He is one of the few champions to have faced and beaten all of his #1 ranked contenders, has the highest KO percentage of any heavyweight champion and after more than half a century remains the only undefeated heavyweight champ. I can see arguments for others taking that #3 spot and don't have a problem with them, but his claim is as good as anybody's.

Well, let's see about Marciano. Best wins of this supposedly top 3 HW ATG are: clearly past-it ex-champ after retirement and 3 middleweights blown-up to light-heavy, 2 of which were 39 yr old at the time of the fight. Not bad))

HW champs with higher KO percentage are for example Haye 92.3%, Vitali 91.1, Foreman 90.8, Fitzsimmons 84,3%, Tyson 80%. Man, Mac Foster has a 100% KO ratio, I guess we've got our king. Or just imagine quite reallistic situation of Wilder grabbing WBC title, defending against several old blown-up light-heavies like Adamek by way of kayo and retiring undefeated and with 100% KO ratio. And he's already got an ex-champ on his resume. C'mon, you'd just have to admin he's the greatest of all time.
Nuff said.

deleted.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Statistics can be deceiving, and can really be so when people twist them. I have seen this before where people don't count the fights where a guy loses or has a draw. Makes no sense to do that. He failed to the other guy, so it should count; simple as that.

He is also acting like Walcott, Moore, and Charles were not real heavyweights. They had all had many heavyweight fights.

I agree that Marciano shouldn't be #3, but he was a great fighter.

And I take no issue with someone rating somebody else at #3. There are a few people who could take that spot. Marciano works for me though. He's the only undefeated heavyweight champion. Highest Knockout percentage. Wins over several hall of famers and one of the few men to actually fight AND beat all of his mandatory's. A fair argument can be made that his best wins were over aging foes or men who weren't indigenous to the heavyweight division. But they were the best available challengers at the time, and that's the only obligation that a champion has to fulfill during his reign, is to meet those challenges. Is it ok to rate say someone like Holmes, Johnson or Lewis in that spot? Sure. I have no quarrel with that.

I agree Marciano is a great fighter, possibly edging the top 10 in my book. But If we are being quite generous here, I expect u'd also be ok with a similar case for either of Klitschko bros for the #3 spot (who r usually outside of top 10 on this forum somehow): 1) high KO % (Vitali is probably #2 all time no matter how you count it - including losses or not, and Wlad is also up there with the best), 2) they dominated all the comers ruling the division for years, 3) they beat not only crafty ex-cruisers at their primes (Gomez, Adamek; Byrd, Haye), but also lots of large and strong decent contenders and champs, 4) Both bros have the size, athleticism and skills, being quite unique in their coordination and timing as for such giants. Oh, lets add some more bloody stats on top: Vitali has lost maximum of two rounds in a fight throughout his entire carrier, never been down and his only two losses were caused by injury. Wlad is the second longest reigning WH champ and has by now compiled quite a resume, underrated by most here. They are both somehow dismissed as there were 2 of them on top and not fighting each other. Imagine they have 3-4 fights among them. Whatever the results would be, at least one of them if not both would be appreciated here so much more by people who can't see a broader picture as it is.

Marciano only defended his title against 5 men I generally described in my previous post. La Starza who actually been fighting at HW his entire carrier never reached today's HW limit and old Walcott who was a size of modern light-heavy at fight night gave Rocky all he could handle. While today rare Adamek can make it from light-heavy to being a contender at HW, and he turned out totally helpless against super-heavy in Vitali. To sum it up: either of K2 seem to have somewhat better case than Marciano, so does Holms, Lewis, Foreman..

I'm quite ready to take all the shite in the world alone with few other mates who bring Klitschkos to the thread on top ATGs (probably more than for "underestimating" Marciano). Bring it on))

Athleticism and skills for Vitaly? No. He is extremely slow on his feet and has slow hand speed. He is very easy to hit. His stoppages are made up of fights against mediocre to weak opponents and takes him much longer than it should.

Wladimir has some athletic ability and decent skills. However he also has some major weaknesses. He has a glass jaw and limited stamina. Early in his career, he had no clue what to do; though he has improved in that area.

Their resumes? Not that impressive at all.
Vitaly's biggest win is probably over Corrie Sanders. Big deal. He lost his two biggest fights. He was stopped after 6 rounds against an obese Lennox Lewis. He quit against Chris Byrd. We can make all the excuse we want, but that is what happened.
Wladimir's best win? Chris Byrd; In recent times he is considered a great boxer, in most eras merely good. He had almost no power.
Wladimir had devastating losses against 3 different opponents; none were that good.

It's not their fault that the rest of the field has been so weak. However, if they really were great fighters, they would have dominated much more than they have. They didn't because it's painfully obvious they have severe limitations.

Leonid wrote:I agree Marciano is a great fighter, possibly edging the top 10 in my book.

There is no "possibly" when ascertaining if Marciano is a top 10 ATG heavyweight. He's easily top 10 and thought of as being such by most people.

I have him 9, anywhere from 7-13 is a reasonable spot.

That zero just blinds everyone. All pro fighters should be forced to lose, first time out....so there will never be the possibility of such "zero worshipping" at any time in the future.

Not that you can't own a zero and be in the top 3 or 5. But it just warps the assessment ability of so many otherwise competent evaluators.

Yup, that and the propensity for people to consider every loss a bad thing in evaluating a resume.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Athleticism and skills for Vitaly? No. He is extremely slow on his feet and has slow hand speed. He is very easy to hit. His stoppages are made up of fights against mediocre to weak opponents and takes him much longer than it should.

Wladimir has some athletic ability and decent skills. However he also has some major weaknesses. He has a glass jaw and limited stamina. Early in his career, he had no clue what to do; though he has improved in that area.

Their resumes? Not that impressive at all.
Vitaly's biggest win is probably over Corrie Sanders. Big deal. He lost his two biggest fights. He was stopped after 6 rounds against an obese Lennox Lewis. He quit against Chris Byrd. We can make all the excuse we want, but that is what happened.
Wladimir's best win? Chris Byrd; In recent times he is considered a great boxer, in most eras merely good. He had almost no power.
Wladimir had devastating losses against 3 different opponents; none were that good.

It's not their fault that the rest of the field has been so weak. However, if they really were great fighters, they would have dominated much more than they have. They didn't because it's painfully obvious they have severe limitations.

I ain't gonna talk resume right now, since it is quite a task to disprove common opinion here on modern era, which actually doesn't suck at all in terms of head-to-head ability. IMO overweight golfer like Sanders could've easily knocked out cold half of champions of previous eras.

But let’s get back to these "severe limitations" mentioned: “Athleticism and skills for Vitali?” I say yes. His skills are unorthodox, yet effective for a guy his size. He does not need to dance on his feet like Ali since he's got a great timing. “Slow hands, extremely easy to hit?” What a non-sense. How can a fighter with slow hands, who is also extremely easy to hit, win almost every round from every opponent he faced, even in losses to fast Byrd and great by all means Lewis? Vitali also managed to be in quite a good shape for all of his fights into his 40s, not overweight and really strong, able to beat the hell out of large heavies with only jabs and armpunches. Heavyweights does not have to be ripped, just ask Holmes.

Wlad's glass jaw is a myth not supported by deeper analysis: 1st TKO loss was clearly due to full exhaustion since ambitious 22 yr old guy took too much risk going all in on a wooden-headed 250-pound opponent, who’s never been down in his entire carrier. Same story with exhaustion happened against Brewster, only this time probably due to poisoning, since Wlad very suddenly could barely drag his feet to his corner right after looking very good and full of energy. And then there were no signs of stamina problems for a decade. Sanders was the only bad KO loss, but for what its worth that guy had really fast hands and very good punch, while Wlad made a mistake of underestimating him. It took 3 hard knockdowns for referee to stop the fight, while Wlad continued to stand up. He continued to stand up after 3 knockdowns from Sam Peter to win the fight. He was never actually KO’d unconscious in all instances mentioned. Even if you still say Wlad’s chin may be not the best, no way this may be called a severe limitation for a guy who hardly ever gets hit clean.

PS. Obvious valid reasons behind things are always called excuses when non-mainstreem-popular guys are discussed, but saying Ali had 5 losses and would’ve had 9 in a fair world would prompt thousands of reasons from angry fans. Someone calls Lewis obese looking for an excuse for him losing rounds to Vitali, and we’re talking here 5-10 pounds over optimal weight for a super heavy (average weight of 246 in last 8 years before the fight).

The excuses for the Vitali/Lewis fight are heavily weighed for Vitali. People have been acting like he won that fight forever. The excuse of a broken face is a beauty. That being said, it's the best result on his pathetic resume.

Leonid wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Athleticism and skills for Vitaly? No. He is extremely slow on his feet and has slow hand speed. He is very easy to hit. His stoppages are made up of fights against mediocre to weak opponents and takes him much longer than it should.

Wladimir has some athletic ability and decent skills. However he also has some major weaknesses. He has a glass jaw and limited stamina. Early in his career, he had no clue what to do; though he has improved in that area.

Their resumes? Not that impressive at all.
Vitaly's biggest win is probably over Corrie Sanders. Big deal. He lost his two biggest fights. He was stopped after 6 rounds against an obese Lennox Lewis. He quit against Chris Byrd. We can make all the excuse we want, but that is what happened.
Wladimir's best win? Chris Byrd; In recent times he is considered a great boxer, in most eras merely good. He had almost no power.
Wladimir had devastating losses against 3 different opponents; none were that good.

It's not their fault that the rest of the field has been so weak. However, if they really were great fighters, they would have dominated much more than they have. They didn't because it's painfully obvious they have severe limitations.

I ain't gonna talk resume right now, since it is quite a task to disprove common opinion here on modern era, which actually doesn't suck at all in terms of head-to-head ability. IMO overweight golfer like Sanders could've easily knocked out cold half of champions of previous eras.

But let’s get back to these "severe limitations" mentioned: “Athleticism and skills for Vitali?” I say yes. His skills are unorthodox, yet effective for a guy his size. He does not need to dance on his feet like Ali since he's got a great timing. “Slow hands, extremely easy to hit?” What a non-sense. How can a fighter with slow hands, who is also extremely easy to hit, win almost every round from every opponent he faced, even in losses to fast Byrd and great by all means Lewis? Vitali also managed to be in quite a good shape for all of his fights into his 40s, not overweight and really strong, able to beat the hell out of large heavies with only jabs and armpunches. Heavyweights does not have to be ripped, just ask Holmes.

Wlad's glass jaw is a myth not supported by deeper analysis: 1st TKO loss was clearly due to full exhaustion since ambitious 22 yr old guy took too much risk going all in on a wooden-headed 250-pound opponent, who’s never been down in his entire carrier. Same story with exhaustion happened against Brewster, only this time probably due to poisoning, since Wlad very suddenly could barely drag his feet to his corner right after looking very good and full of energy. And then there were no signs of stamina problems for a decade. Sanders was the only bad KO loss, but for what its worth that guy had really fast hands and very good punch, while Wlad made a mistake of underestimating him. It took 3 hard knockdowns for referee to stop the fight, while Wlad continued to stand up. He continued to stand up after 3 knockdowns from Sam Peter to win the fight. He was never actually KO’d unconscious in all instances mentioned. Even if you still say Wlad’s chin may be not the best, no way this may be called a severe limitation for a guy who hardly ever gets hit clean.

How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously after that? Corrie sanders worship, poisoning conspiracy theories and Wladimir has a good chin? The first Peter vs Wlad fight was hilarious. Not a triumph for Wlad at all. Have you watched many fights before 2000?

BoxBuzz wrote:That zero just blinds everyone. All pro fighters should be forced to lose, first time out....so there will never be the possibility of such "zero worshipping" at any time in the future.

Not that you can't own a zero and be in the top 3 or 5. But it just warps the assessment ability of so many otherwise competent evaluators.

I don't rate fighters based on how I think they MIGHT do in a head to head sense. Case in point, Let's say you presumed that fighter A from 2014 could beat fighter B from 40 years earlier. Then one day somebody figures out how to build a time machine and puts them in the ring together.. Contrary to your prediction, fighter B cleans fighter A's clock.. You're whole argument and rating system gets turned on its head. That's why I rate fighters based on resume and what they achieved in their time. Rocky Marciano is the only heavyweight champion to have left the game ( permanently ) never losing a fight. Furthermore he holds the highest KO percentage of any heavyweight champion. He is also the only champ to have consistently faced all of his #1 and#2 contenders. He also had a pretty rough rise to the title fighting guys like Kid Mathews, Ted Lawry, Roland Lastarza and an aged Louis. He has about 4 or 5 hall of famers on his record.. Sure we've all heard the same rhetoric about Walcott and Louis being washed up or Moore and Charles being light heavyweights. While I agree with these observations they're not terribly relevant as they were the best available opponents at the time.

Duch wrote:

Il Duce (25 march) wrote:Top 10

#1...... Jack Dempesy
#2...... Joe Louis
#3..... Larry Holmes
#4...... Rocky Marciano
#5...... James J. Jeffries
#6...... Jack Johnson
#7...... Lennox Lewis
#8...... George Foreman
#9...... Joe Frazier
#10.... Gene Tunney
#11.... Ezzard Charles

Il Duce (23 march) wrote:Frito-Lay

I have Muhammad Ali at #11.

He just wasn't good enough to make the Top 10.

He loses big points for 'not' taking out an injured back Floyd Patterson in November 1965.

That's all I need to know...........

What happened during these 2 days?

Il Duce amazingly had Ali as the 4th greatest heavyweight in 2013

Il Duce wrote: (posted January 29th 2013)

1........Joe Louis
2........Jack Dempsey
3........Larry Holmes
4........Muhammad Ali

Jack Dempsey at #2 because of historical importance.

No way was Larry "Thumb-in-yer-eye" Holmes the third or even tenth best heavyweight of all time. Most of the guys he beat up on were third-raters. He narrowly won the nod over Trevor Berbick. He almost lost to an old Earnie Shavers. Ali was almost handicapped when he fought Holmes. I still think he lost to Ken Norton. The rest were pathetic. Joe Frazier would have destroyed him. Foreman would have bulldozed him over in less than two rounds. Joe Louis might have taken a couple of rounds to get to him, but it would've been over quick. Geez. Even Wladimir Klitschko right now would whip him to a frazzle. I shudder to think what would be left of him after Lennox Lewis got through with him, or Evander Holyfield.

Holmes? Don't make me laff.

Cap wrote:No way was Larry "Thumb-in-yer-eye" Holmes the third or even tenth best heavyweight of all time. Most of the guys he beat up on were third-raters. He narrowly won the nod over Trevor Berbick. He almost lost to an old Earnie Shavers. Ali was almost handicapped when he fought Holmes. I still think he lost to Ken Norton. The rest were pathetic. Joe Frazier would have destroyed him. Foreman would have bulldozed him over in less than two rounds. Joe Louis might have taken a couple of rounds to get to him, but it would've been over quick. Geez. Even Wladimir Klitschko right now would whip him to a frazzle. I shudder to think what would be left of him after Lennox Lewis got through with him, or Evander Holyfield.

Holmes? Don't make me laff.

George Foreman is easier and has the bigger name and have you noticed that Foreman never calls me out or ever mentions my name? He is afraid of me like most fighters are and most people want to forget about Larry Holmes, like he never ever existed.
~Larry Holmes

That was one of the worst posts I've ever read. Almost lost to berbick? That Canada under his name might have something to do with that. As for the beating Holyfield would put on him, they fought when Holmes was in his 40's and he was quite competitive.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

Leonid wrote:I agree Marciano is a great fighter, possibly edging the top 10 in my book.

There is no "possibly" when ascertaining if Marciano is a top 10 ATG heavyweight. He's easily top 10 and thought of as being such by most people.

I wouldn't have him in the top ten. I'd have him somewhere around 15.

I'm aware many have him higher and that's fine of course, but I don't think he is one of those guys you can say is in a certain position with absolutely no possible doubt.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson

Tomasino wrote:

Leonid wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Athleticism and skills for Vitaly? No. He is extremely slow on his feet and has slow hand speed. He is very easy to hit. His stoppages are made up of fights against mediocre to weak opponents and takes him much longer than it should.

Wladimir has some athletic ability and decent skills. However he also has some major weaknesses. He has a glass jaw and limited stamina. Early in his career, he had no clue what to do; though he has improved in that area.

Their resumes? Not that impressive at all.
Vitaly's biggest win is probably over Corrie Sanders. Big deal. He lost his two biggest fights. He was stopped after 6 rounds against an obese Lennox Lewis. He quit against Chris Byrd. We can make all the excuse we want, but that is what happened.
Wladimir's best win? Chris Byrd; In recent times he is considered a great boxer, in most eras merely good. He had almost no power.
Wladimir had devastating losses against 3 different opponents; none were that good.

It's not their fault that the rest of the field has been so weak. However, if they really were great fighters, they would have dominated much more than they have. They didn't because it's painfully obvious they have severe limitations.

I ain't gonna talk resume right now, since it is quite a task to disprove common opinion here on modern era, which actually doesn't suck at all in terms of head-to-head ability. IMO overweight golfer like Sanders could've easily knocked out cold half of champions of previous eras.

But let’s get back to these "severe limitations" mentioned: “Athleticism and skills for Vitali?” I say yes. His skills are unorthodox, yet effective for a guy his size. He does not need to dance on his feet like Ali since he's got a great timing. “Slow hands, extremely easy to hit?” What a non-sense. How can a fighter with slow hands, who is also extremely easy to hit, win almost every round from every opponent he faced, even in losses to fast Byrd and great by all means Lewis? Vitali also managed to be in quite a good shape for all of his fights into his 40s, not overweight and really strong, able to beat the hell out of large heavies with only jabs and armpunches. Heavyweights does not have to be ripped, just ask Holmes.

Wlad's glass jaw is a myth not supported by deeper analysis: 1st TKO loss was clearly due to full exhaustion since ambitious 22 yr old guy took too much risk going all in on a wooden-headed 250-pound opponent, who’s never been down in his entire carrier. Same story with exhaustion happened against Brewster, only this time probably due to poisoning, since Wlad very suddenly could barely drag his feet to his corner right after looking very good and full of energy. And then there were no signs of stamina problems for a decade. Sanders was the only bad KO loss, but for what its worth that guy had really fast hands and very good punch, while Wlad made a mistake of underestimating him. It took 3 hard knockdowns for referee to stop the fight, while Wlad continued to stand up. He continued to stand up after 3 knockdowns from Sam Peter to win the fight. He was never actually KO’d unconscious in all instances mentioned. Even if you still say Wlad’s chin may be not the best, no way this may be called a severe limitation for a guy who hardly ever gets hit clean.

How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously after that? Corrie sanders worship, poisoning conspiracy theories and Wladimir has a good chin? The first Peter vs Wlad fight was hilarious. Not a triumph for Wlad at all. Have you watched many fights before 2000?

I agree cospiracy theory may seem way out of line, but it was by no meens my main argument, which was in Wlad being stopped because he was exhaused and ready for the taking, not because of very poor chin. I pretty much expected to be laughed at by many because of my progressionist views. Its not Sander worship per say, just used him as example of modern heavy, that may look overweight in negative contrast to fighters from the past, yet have skills and advantage in size to batter them.
I probably haven't seen as many old footage as some experts here, yet it was enough for me to form my opinion.

"]

Tomasino wrote:

Leonid wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Athleticism and skills for Vitaly? No. He is extremely slow on his feet and has slow hand speed. He is very easy to hit. His stoppages are made up of fights against mediocre to weak opponents and takes him much longer than it should.

Wladimir has some athletic ability and decent skills. However he also has some major weaknesses. He has a glass jaw and limited stamina. Early in his career, he had no clue what to do; though he has improved in that area.

Their resumes? Not that impressive at all.
Vitaly's biggest win is probably over Corrie Sanders. Big deal. He lost his two biggest fights. He was stopped after 6 rounds against an obese Lennox Lewis. He quit against Chris Byrd. We can make all the excuse we want, but that is what happened.
Wladimir's best win? Chris Byrd; In recent times he is considered a great boxer, in most eras merely good. He had almost no power.
Wladimir had devastating losses against 3 different opponents; none were that good.

It's not their fault that the rest of the field has been so weak. However, if they really were great fighters, they would have dominated much more than they have. They didn't because it's painfully obvious they have severe limitations.

I ain't gonna talk resume right now, since it is quite a task to disprove common opinion here on modern era, which actually doesn't suck at all in terms of head-to-head ability. IMO overweight golfer like Sanders could've easily knocked out cold half of champions of previous eras.

But let’s get back to these "severe limitations" mentioned: “Athleticism and skills for Vitali?” I say yes. His skills are unorthodox, yet effective for a guy his size. He does not need to dance on his feet like Ali since he's got a great timing. “Slow hands, extremely easy to hit?” What a non-sense. How can a fighter with slow hands, who is also extremely easy to hit, win almost every round from every opponent he faced, even in losses to fast Byrd and great by all means Lewis? Vitali also managed to be in quite a good shape for all of his fights into his 40s, not overweight and really strong, able to beat the hell out of large heavies with only jabs and armpunches. Heavyweights does not have to be ripped, just ask Holmes.

Wlad's glass jaw is a myth not supported by deeper analysis: 1st TKO loss was clearly due to full exhaustion since ambitious 22 yr old guy took too much risk going all in on a wooden-headed 250-pound opponent, who’s never been down in his entire carrier. Same story with exhaustion happened against Brewster, only this time probably due to poisoning, since Wlad very suddenly could barely drag his feet to his corner right after looking very good and full of energy. And then there were no signs of stamina problems for a decade. Sanders was the only bad KO loss, but for what its worth that guy had really fast hands and very good punch, while Wlad made a mistake of underestimating him. It took 3 hard knockdowns for referee to stop the fight, while Wlad continued to stand up. He continued to stand up after 3 knockdowns from Sam Peter to win the fight. He was never actually KO’d unconscious in all instances mentioned. Even if you still say Wlad’s chin may be not the best, no way this may be called a severe limitation for a guy who hardly ever gets hit clean.

How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously after that? Corrie sanders worship, poisoning conspiracy theories and Wladimir has a good chin? The first Peter vs Wlad fight was hilarious. Not a triumph for Wlad at all. Have you watched many fights before 2000?

I agree cospiracy theory may seem way out of line, but it was by no meens my main argument, which was in Wlad being stopped because he was exhaused and ready for the taking, not because of very poor chin. I pretty much expected to be laughed at by many because of my progressionist views. Its not Sander worship per say, just used him as example of modern heavy, that may look overweight in negative contrast to fighters from the past, yet have skills and advantage in size to batter them.
I probably haven't seen as many old footage as some experts here, yet it was enough for me to form my opinion.[/quote]


It was enough to form a false opinion. Sanders had quick hands and a hard punch but skills? I see very little evidence. Joe Louis, now there is a heavyweight with skills. Jersey Joe Walcott, Gene Tunney, Larry Holmes all have skills. I think you used sanders because he KOd your boy, Wlad.

The funny thing is Sanders is not even that big. He's tall at 6'4 but if you watch his early in his mid 20s before he got fat he was weighing in the 208-212 range, and STILL wasn't actually svelte in the physique department. In terms of body mass/frame he's not any bigger than Joe Louis.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:That was one of the worst posts I've ever read. Almost lost to berbick? That Canada under his name might have something to do with that. As for the beating Holyfield would put on him, they fought when Holmes was in his 40's and he was quite competitive.

That was one of the worst replies to a post I've ever read.

By the way, I said,"...He narrowly won the nod over Trevor Berbick. He almost lost to an old Earnie Shavers..."

Cap wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:That was one of the worst posts I've ever read. Almost lost to berbick? That Canada under his name might have something to do with that. As for the beating Holyfield would put on him, they fought when Holmes was in his 40's and he was quite competitive.

That was one of the worst replies to a post I've ever read.

By the way, I said,"...He narrowly won the nod over Trevor Berbick. He almost lost to an old Earnie Shavers..."

He decisively beat berbick and lost 1 round out of 23 against Shavers. Awful, awful, post.