BoxRec

Yes or no?

Yes and TBH his brother is the rank one of the past 60 years.

Boxrec has him No. 6 all time, but I think he is in the 11-15 range. I put Ali, Frazier, Norton, Foreman, Holmes, Louis, Lewis, Holyfield, Marciano, and his brother ahead of him.

1. Ali
2. Louis

3. Johnson
4. Holmes
5. Foreman
6. Lewis
7. Tyson
8. Marciano
9. Frazier
10. Holyfield

Notable exceptions

Dempsey, Langford

K2, particularly Wlad have longevity over a lot of these. But you should judge fighters time for time, and simply there better fighters from the past imo.

Note the top 2 are widely accepted as the best, 3-10 could be a number in a variety of order. No major concerns if people place different this was done fairly quick

Larry Holmes lost to a Light Heavyweight at the age of 35. Twice. And then got demolished by Tyson at the age of 38.

klitoris wrote:Larry Holmes lost to a Light Heavyweight at the age of 35. Twice. And then got demolished by Tyson at the age of 38.

And Ali lost to Leon Spinks and won the rematch. Holmes should have won the rematch against Michael Spinks.

RScarf1 wrote:

klitoris wrote:Larry Holmes lost to a Light Heavyweight at the age of 35. Twice. And then got demolished by Tyson at the age of 38.

And Ali lost to Leon Spinks and won the rematch. Holmes should have won the rematch against Michael Spinks.

Ali did lose to Spinks at 36, but at least he won the rematch.

klitoris wrote:

RScarf1 wrote:

klitoris wrote:Larry Holmes lost to a Light Heavyweight at the age of 35. Twice. And then got demolished by Tyson at the age of 38.

And Ali lost to Leon Spinks and won the rematch. Holmes should have won the rematch against Michael Spinks.

Ali did lose to Spinks at 36, but at least he won the rematch.

Yes, that's what I stated. I'm also stating that Holmes' second fight against Michael Spinks should have been a win for Holmes.

Ossyrules wrote:1. Ali
2. Louis

3. Johnson
4. Holmes
5. Foreman
6. Lewis
7. Tyson
8. Marciano
9. Frazier
10. Holyfield

Notable exceptions

Dempsey, Langford

K2, particularly Wlad have longevity over a lot of these. But you should judge fighters time for time, and simply there better fighters from the past imo.

Note the top 2 are widely accepted as the best, 3-10 could be a number in a variety of order. No major concerns if people place different this was done fairly quick

Out of curiosity, why do you rate Langford, Johnson and Marciano so highly? Is it because boxing historians "told" you they were great or do you claim to possess a deep knowledge of their background, their opponents, their fighting style, coupled with watching lots of their fights?

A lot of guys that use this forum mention the names of fighters from yesteryear like some sort of badge of honour, since it portrays them as possessing "expert" knowledge of the sport, but when they're scrutinised about the subject matter, they nearly always know very little.

Here's another example of someone using words that they don't really know very much about...

I could casually mention the terms "standard model", "general relativity" and "Euler's" when engaged in a casual discussion about science, to pretend that I'm a know-it-all, but the fact remains that I actually know very little about those mathematical equations.

Personally-speaking, I feel that people should refrain feom expressing an opinion about a subject matter that they know very little about.

Tunney
Ali
Marciano
Foreman
Louis
Lewis
Vitaly K.
Holmes
Wladimir K.
Bowe

These aren't really in order.

I'd probably have him just outside the top 10. Probably top 15 though. Saying that, when it comes to Heavyweights that I can honestly say that I've watched considerable amounts of footage of, he's definitely top 10.

Anyone want to guess as to what his rankings would be if he were to avenge his losses to both Fury and AJ?

Mexi-Box wrote:Anyone want to guess as to what his rankings would be if he were to avenge his losses to both Fury and AJ?

If he were to do both of those things, then I guess he would be deserving of the top 10, probably 9 or 10 all time.

No

Johnson was reported to have said, at some point, that Jeffries was the best ever in his prime. There's no record of it as far as I know, and history has Johnson on file as stating that he was always better, but he did have a lot of respect for Jeffries.

Some of those guys ran over ten miles every day and fought 25-rounders in mitts, so I think you'd have to make at least two different top-tens to get anywhere close.

Sorry, Wlad is 12th or 13th due to reigning in a lackluster era. His best wins fall far short of other HW greats and his losses to 2nd & 3rd tier fighters further muddy his credentials.

Ossyrules wrote:1. Ali
2. Louis

3. Johnson
4. Holmes
5. Foreman
6. Lewis
7. Tyson
8. Marciano
9. Frazier
10. Holyfield

Notable exceptions

Dempsey, Langford

I agree with your names but not your order. Holyfield beat prime Tyson twice plus Foreman & Holmes. The 12 you list leaves Wlad about 13th all time!!

Best Coast wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:1. Ali
2. Louis

3. Johnson
4. Holmes
5. Foreman
6. Lewis
7. Tyson
8. Marciano
9. Frazier
10. Holyfield

Notable exceptions

Dempsey, Langford

I agree with your names but not your order. Holyfield beat prime Tyson twice plus Foreman & Holmes. The 12 you list leaves Wlad about 13th all time!!

Tyson over Holyfield is beyond laughable. There is no guess work, Evander had much better wins and completely owned him h2h. There is no possible reason to rate mike higher.

I say yes. If you have some sort of measure for greatness in boxers it'd be based on a number of things, achievement, longevity, quality of opp, fighting everyone in an era etc. Based on this wk is defo top ten. He wouldn't be top 5 due to some poor losses early and the quality of opp but he's had more impressive a career than many top heavys who burned brightly but for a short time. The guys ahead of him - Ali, Louis, Holmes , Johnson, foreman and Lennox Lewis. Marciano, Dempsey and Tunney had such short title reigns in comparison. Ditto liston and Frazier. I'd put wlad in with these guys. He made like 25 odd defences and never ducked anyone. Still putting in a great performance at 41. Great ko %. He's a lock for the 8-10 position.

Oh and Evander ahead of him too.

i dont know about top 10. But top 15 sure

I'd put Tyson in and around wk too. So the list would be

Ali, Louis, Holmes, Johnson, foreman, holy, Lennox

Then any 3 from this group. I think I'd pick Frazier, Tyson and wk.

Rocky, Frazier, Liston, Tyson, Dempsey, Tunney and wlad.

Based on resume, no.
Based on who-beats-who against other great heavyweights, no.
Based on number of title defenses, yes.

Overall I say no, though his performance against Joshua improves his historical standing and he's almost certainly the best 41yo heavyweight ever.

verlichte wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:1. Ali
2. Louis

3. Johnson
4. Holmes
5. Foreman
6. Lewis
7. Tyson
8. Marciano
9. Frazier
10. Holyfield

Notable exceptions

Dempsey, Langford

K2, particularly Wlad have longevity over a lot of these. But you should judge fighters time for time, and simply there better fighters from the past imo.

Note the top 2 are widely accepted as the best, 3-10 could be a number in a variety of order. No major concerns if people place different this was done fairly quick

Out of curiosity, why do you rate Langford, Johnson and Marciano so highly? Is it because boxing historians "told" you they were great or do you claim to possess a deep knowledge of their background, their opponents, their fighting style, coupled with watching lots of their fights?

A lot of guys that use this forum mention the names of fighters from yesteryear like some sort of badge of honour, since it portrays them as possessing "expert" knowledge of the sport, but when they're scrutinised about the subject matter, they nearly always know very little.

Here's another example of someone using words that they don't really know very much about...

I could casually mention the terms "standard model", "general relativity" and "Euler's" when engaged in a casual discussion about science, to pretend that I'm a know-it-all, but the fact remains that I actually know very little about those mathematical equations.

Personally-speaking, I feel that people should refrain feom expressing an opinion about a subject matter that they know very little about.

I'm relying on what I have read, documentaries and other expert opinions. I don't normally like to talk on boxers pre my time, but if someone asks an all time question...

K2 are both too 10 of my time

Best Coast wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:1. Ali
2. Louis

3. Johnson
4. Holmes
5. Foreman
6. Lewis
7. Tyson
8. Marciano
9. Frazier
10. Holyfield

Notable exceptions

Dempsey, Langford

I agree with your names but not your order. Holyfield beat prime Tyson twice plus Foreman & Holmes. The 12 you list leaves Wlad about 13th all time!!

No issues for anyone scrambling the 3-10 order

But Holyfield didn't beat prime Tyson I disagree with that