On a scale from 0 to 10 the worth of the defenses; let's say 5 amounts to average overall worth. Anything below is subpar, anything above is good.
Sonny Liston (Rematch)
Henry Cooper
Brian London
Floyd Patterson
Zora Folley
Cleveland Williams
Karl Mildenberger
George Chuvalo
Ernie Terrell
Muhammad Ali 1974-1978
Chuck Wepner
Ron Lyle
Jimmy Young
Ken Norton
Joe Frazier
Joe Bugner
Earnie Shavers
Jean Pierre Coopman
Richard Dunne
Alfredo Evangelista
Note: Doing all of these from memory, I'm sure I'm missing a title defense or two in here so don't blast me too much but you guys just copy and paste and put whatever number you feel is necessary next to the names in terms of worth.
Sonny Liston (Rematch) - Now this one is interesting. In terms of name value, and the result on paper it should be a 10. But because of the suspect nature of the bout I can only make it a 6. Ali would've won anyway, but Liston taking a dive sullies this fight.
Henry Cooper - 5 (European Champion, decent opponent)
Brian London - 4
Floyd Patterson - 8
Zora Folley - 3
Cleveland Williams - 4 (This would've been better if not for the fact that Williams was well past it)
Karl Mildenberger - 4
George Chuvalo - 6
Ernie Terrell - 6
Chuck Wepner - 5
Ron Lyle - 6
Jimmy Young - 6
Ken Norton - (This would be an 8 if it were a legitimate win. Since Norton was robbed in a fight he won clear as f*ck it's a 2)
Joe Frazier - 10
Joe Bugner - 5
Earnie Shavers - 6
Jean Pierre Coopman - 3
Richard Dunne - 3
Alfredo Evangelista - 3
It should also be noted that Ali's title wins in the 1st fight with Liston and Foreman respectively are 10's.
Ok, I'll sort it out in a chronologically correct order and with marks.
Muhammad Ali 1964-1967
Sonny Liston II - 0 - it was a foocken dive clearly Floyd Patterson I - 9 - it was easily the best defence of the first Ali reign, could have been 10, if Patterson wasn't beaten and declined to some extent George Chuvalo - 7 - was made because of the circumstances, an undeserving shot for Chuvalo, since he lost to the best available contender Terrell and even Eduardo Corletti, thus he came off a loss Henry Cooper II - 5 - an unnecessary rematch, another undeserving challenger Brian London - 3 - a total mismatch, since London didn't win anyone of note, instead he lost to Cooper and Thad Spencer Karl Mildenberger - 6 - a stiff Euro level challenger, who got this shot because of being in the relatively weak era and a win over the declining Eddie Machen, who was on a loss streak Cleveland Williams - 7 - not the most deserving challenger because of a draw with Machen and a loss to Terrell and an existence of Zora Folley, but still more or less decent Ernie Terrell - 8 - the best available challenger at that point, a good fighter with a decent resume Zora Folley - 8 - the second best available challenger at that point
An average mark - 5,9 or 6,6 if not to count the first defence, since it obviously wasn't Ali's fault in Liston's dive.
Muhammad Ali 1974-1978
Chuck Wepner - 6 - a stiff, far from the most deserving challengers Ron Lyle - 9 - it wasn't very deserving for Lyle at that point, but he was a good fighter in an excellent shape Joe Bugner - 7 - a decent Euro level fighter, he was deserving a shot less than a row of fighters Joe Frazier III - 10 - here it's obvious Jean Pierre Coopman - 2 - a joke of a World title defence Jimmy Young - 10 - well, Norton and Foreman could be more deserving exactly at that point, but with all following circumstances a few remains to be argued Richard Dunn - 5 - a Euro-level stiff Ken Norton III - 10 - it's clear Alfredo Evangelista - 5 - a stiff, who even came off a loss Earnie Shavers - 8 - he was around the top and known as a dengerous puncher, so it deserves a good mark, although Holmes was clearly deserving it more Leon Spinks - 6 - cherry-picking gone wrong
An average mark - 7,1
So, the first reign has occurred in the lesser era, so there wasn't much to be high on, while the second of was great and could have a bigger mark, if not several cherry-picking bouts.
This thread doesn't look very popular. Let's evaluate Wlad, bois here love Klits, as we remember. Well, I won't score his first WBO reign, since that belt wasn't major in those times, but here's the second reign:
Calvin Brock 6
Ray Austin 5
Lamon Brewster II 7
Sultan Ibragimov 7
Tony Thompson I 6
Hasim Rahman 7
Ruslan Chagaev 7
Eddie Chambers 6
Samuel Peter II 6
David Haye 8
Jean-Marc Mormeck 5
Tony Thompson II 5
Mariusz Wach 4
Francesco Pianeta 2
Alexander Povetkin 8
Alex Leapai 2
Kubrat Pulev 8
Bryant Jennings 7
DrDuke wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 21:19
This thread doesn't look very popular. Let's evaluate Wlad, bois here love Klits, as we remember. Well, I won't score his first WBO reign, since that belt wasn't major in those times, but here's the second reign:
Calvin Brock 6
Ray Austin 5
Lamon Brewster II 7
Sultan Ibragimov 7
Tony Thompson I 6
Hasim Rahman 7
Ruslan Chagaev 7
Eddie Chambers 6
Samuel Peter II 6
David Haye 8
Jean-Marc Mormeck 5
Tony Thompson II 5
Mariusz Wach 4
Francesco Pianeta 2
Alexander Povetkin 8
Alex Leapai 2
Kubrat Pulev 8
Bryant Jennings 7
Average 5,9
Comparable to Muhammad Ali's first championship reign then. At least in accordance to your own values or ratings of the matches or opponent worth.
DrDuke wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 21:19
This thread doesn't look very popular. Let's evaluate Wlad, bois here love Klits, as we remember. Well, I won't score his first WBO reign, since that belt wasn't major in those times, but here's the second reign:
Calvin Brock 6
Ray Austin 5
Lamon Brewster II 7
Sultan Ibragimov 7
Tony Thompson I 6
Hasim Rahman 7
Ruslan Chagaev 7
Eddie Chambers 6
Samuel Peter II 6
David Haye 8
Jean-Marc Mormeck 5
Tony Thompson II 5
Mariusz Wach 4
Francesco Pianeta 2
Alexander Povetkin 8
Alex Leapai 2
Kubrat Pulev 8
Bryant Jennings 7
Average 5,9
Comparable to Muhammad Ali's first championship reign then. At least in accordance to your own values or ratings of the matches or opponent worth.
I knew you had an ulterior motive with this thread Henry.
Sonny Liston (Rematch)- 2/10
Henry Cooper- 4/10
Brian London- 2/10
Floyd Patterson- 7/10
Zora Folley- 5/10
Cleveland Williams- 3/10
Karl Mildenberger- 4/10
George Chuvalo- 5/10
Ernie Terrell- 6/10
Muhammad Ali 1974-1978
Chuck Wepner- 5/10
Ron Lyle- 7/10
Jimmy Young- 7/10
Ken Norton- 7/10
Joe Frazier- 5/10*
Joe Bugner- 5/10
Earnie Shavers- 6/10
Jean Pierre Coopman- 2/10
Richard Dunne- 4/10
Alfredo Evangelista- 3/10
*Note: Although many people want to say this is the greatest heavyweight fight of all time from my perspective context as everything because Joe Frazier was legally blind suffering with arthritis up and down his back and neck and Muhammad Ali was also declining fast; one only needs to see Joe's rather lackluster performance with Jimmy Ellis prior to this match to see how far in decline he really was especially when you figure Ellis was also shot.
1964-1967 Average: 4.2
1974-1978 Average: 5.1
The totals would have been higher for Sonny Liston had the fight not been so suspicious. Either he took a dive or he got very old overnight and either way the performance was horrible along with referee Jersey Joe Walcott bungling up the fight stopping the contest after the two men started fighting again which only added to even greater confusion.
Some of the opponents I would have rated higher had I thought Muhammad Ali actually won the fights but it is so clear from my estimation that Jimmy Young and Ken Norton were robbed. Plus Muhammad Ali defending the title against opponents who had zero chance of winning also brought down his overall championship worth.
gilgamesh wrote: ↑09 Jan 2023, 20:37
Having Frazier as a 5/10 is absolute nonsense. The rest is reasonable.
Like I said I have to take into consideration just how far gone Joe Frazier really was as a fighter and the truth is he was more than burnout. The most that I could really give him would be a six but I think a five is fair. It may very well have been the last great performance of either man's career but there's no denying that Joe Frazier was passed his best.
Again this was a man legally blind in both of his eyes with crippling arthritis who was looking like crap before this fight even happened. To insist that it should be rated higher than that would be like scoring Max Schmeling 10/10 when Joe Louis beat him when it is so obvious that Max Schmeling in 1939 was certainly not the prime Max Schmeling.
As a counterbalance I will also do the championship reign of Vladimir Klitschko which is going to be harder because what would be considered average (5/10) in Muhammad Ali's era I have to make 4/10 because it is self-evident that many of the contenders of the post Lennox Lewis era simply were subpar to their predecessors in the 1990s let alone the 1970s.
Calvin Brock- 5/10
Ray Austin- 3/10
Lamon Brewster II- 5/10
Sultan Ibragimov- 6/10
Tony Thompson I- 5/10
Hasim Rahman- 4/10
Ruslan Chagaev- 6/10
Eddie Chambers- 5/10
Samuel Peter II- 4/10
David Haye- 7/10
Jean-Marc Mormeck- 4/10
Tony Thompson II- 5/10
Mariusz Wach- 3/10
Francesco Pianeta- 3/10
Alexander Povetkin- 6/10
Alex Leapai- 3/10
Kubrat Pulev- 5/10
Bryant Jennings- 5/10
Average: 4.6
Although I must admit that some of the threes I have on here could easily be twos and some of the fives could easily be fours. It's really all a matter of personal perspective because I'm sure some people might say that I should have made some people lower and some people higher. For example I could see making Bryant Jennings down to a four but making Kubrat Pulev a six. But even if I did that the average would still be the same.
I could have made Hasim Rahman a 5 as well as Samuel Peter, but my view is since they were on the decline when Vladimir Klitschko fought them it would have made them a four out of 10 making them the same as every other average contender.
gilgamesh wrote: ↑09 Jan 2023, 20:37
Having Frazier as a 5/10 is absolute nonsense. The rest is reasonable.
Like I said I have to take into consideration just how far gone Joe Frazier really was as a fighter and the truth is he was more than burnout. The most that I could really give him would be a six but I think a five is fair. It may very well have been the last great performance of either man's career but there's no denying that Joe Frazier was passed his best.
Again this was a man legally blind in both of his eyes with crippling arthritis who was looking like crap before this fight even happened. To insist that it should be rated higher than that would be like scoring Max Schmeling 10/10 when Joe Louis beat him when it is so obvious that Max Schmeling in 1939 was certainly not the prime Max Schmeling.
Yeah, it makes sense. Old Frazier was so pitiful and broken down that he couldn't possibly have given Ali the hardest fight of his or anybody else's life in one of the all time great Heavyweight Battles.
Shot fighters don't put up fights like that Henry.
gilgamesh wrote: ↑09 Jan 2023, 20:37
Having Frazier as a 5/10 is absolute nonsense. The rest is reasonable.
Like I said I have to take into consideration just how far gone Joe Frazier really was as a fighter and the truth is he was more than burnout. The most that I could really give him would be a six but I think a five is fair. It may very well have been the last great performance of either man's career but there's no denying that Joe Frazier was passed his best.
Again this was a man legally blind in both of his eyes with crippling arthritis who was looking like crap before this fight even happened. To insist that it should be rated higher than that would be like scoring Max Schmeling 10/10 when Joe Louis beat him when it is so obvious that Max Schmeling in 1939 was certainly not the prime Max Schmeling.
Yeah, it makes sense. Old Frazier was so pitiful and broken down that he couldn't possibly have given Ali the hardest fight of his or anybody else's life in one of the all time great Heavyweight Battles.
Shot fighters don't put up fights like that Henry.
There is shot and then there is completely shot. I'm not talking Danny Williams shot here but clearly he was not the fighter that he once was by any real measurable metric. I'm not even talking Mike Tyson losing to Kevin McBride shot here. But how can anyone say a man legally blind with arthritis in his spine actually was a prime heavyweight?
I think the fact that Muhammad Ali was on the decline as well is a big part of the reason why Joe Frazier was able to look so good in Manila. Because let's face it the Wepner fight was really the last time you ever saw Muhammad Ali do any kind of dancing at all, and by this point he was adopting the rope a dope more and more as time went on.
gilgamesh wrote: ↑09 Jan 2023, 20:37
Having Frazier as a 5/10 is absolute nonsense. The rest is reasonable.
I hate agreeing with HH on this but he is close.
Frazier was clearly not the same fighter from 2 years before. I'd rate Frazier 6 at the time
If Ali beating Frazier in the Thrilla is a 6, then everything is a 6.
It's the greatest, and most significant of all of Ali's title defenses. Hands down.
To argue that Ernie Terrell or Floyd Patterson in his 1st reign was a more meaningful win is just flat out f*cking stupid.
If the Thrilla in Manilla isn't either a 9 or 10, then nothing anybody does in Boxing is special.
It may very well be the greatest fight in heavyweight history I don't think anybody is arguing against that but neither man was in their prime not by a long shot. I would argue Joe Frazier beating Muhammad Ali in their first fight would be a nine or a ten because they were in their primes or near their primes when it happened.
Joe Frazier looked absolutely horrible against Jimmy Ellis who was also shot prior to his third and final fight with Muhammad Ali. There is no disputing this and Joe retired right after this fight as well. The only time Ali would get a high score from me when it comes to Joe Frazier would be their rematch and that would be an 8 or so because Joe Frazier already lost the title to George Foreman.
Like I said I have to take into consideration just how far gone Joe Frazier really was as a fighter and the truth is he was more than burnout. The most that I could really give him would be a six but I think a five is fair. It may very well have been the last great performance of either man's career but there's no denying that Joe Frazier was passed his best.
Again this was a man legally blind in both of his eyes with crippling arthritis who was looking like crap before this fight even happened. To insist that it should be rated higher than that would be like scoring Max Schmeling 10/10 when Joe Louis beat him when it is so obvious that Max Schmeling in 1939 was certainly not the prime Max Schmeling.
Yeah, it makes sense. Old Frazier was so pitiful and broken down that he couldn't possibly have given Ali the hardest fight of his or anybody else's life in one of the all time great Heavyweight Battles.
Shot fighters don't put up fights like that Henry.
There is shot and then there is completely shot. I'm not talking Danny Williams shot here but clearly he was not the fighter that he once was by any real measurable metric. I'm not even talking Mike Tyson losing to Kevin McBride shot here. But how can anyone say a man legally blind with arthritis in his spine actually was a prime heavyweight?
I think the fact that Muhammad Ali was on the decline as well is a big part of the reason why Joe Frazier was able to look so good in Manila. Because let's face it the Wepner fight was really the last time you ever saw Muhammad Ali do any kind of dancing at all, and by this point he was adopting the rope a dope more and more as time went on.
I don't think anybody has ever said that he was in his "Prime" exactly. For that 3rd fight. Neither he nor Ali were in their respective primes by then.
But the personal animosity that was always there for both meant that he was going to give everything he had to give and then some to beat Ali.
I hate agreeing with HH on this but he is close.
Frazier was clearly not the same fighter from 2 years before. I'd rate Frazier 6 at the time
If Ali beating Frazier in the Thrilla is a 6, then everything is a 6.
It's the greatest, and most significant of all of Ali's title defenses. Hands down.
To argue that Ernie Terrell or Floyd Patterson in his 1st reign was a more meaningful win is just flat out f*cking stupid.
If the Thrilla in Manilla isn't either a 9 or 10, then nothing anybody does in Boxing is special.
It may very well be the greatest fight in heavyweight history I don't think anybody is arguing against that but neither man was in their prime not by a long shot. I would argue Joe Frazier beating Muhammad Ali in their first fight would be a nine or a ten because they were in their primes or near their primes when it happened.
Joe Frazier looked absolutely horrible against Jimmy Ellis who was also shot prior to his third and final fight with Muhammad Ali. There is no disputing this and Joe retired right after this fight as well. The only time Ali would get a high score from me when it comes to Joe Frazier would be their rematch and that would be an 8 or so because Joe Frazier already lost the title to George Foreman.
Frazier's win over Ali is a 10, and arguably the single biggest win in Heavyweight Boxing History.
If Ali beating Frazier in the Thrilla is a 6, then everything is a 6.
It's the greatest, and most significant of all of Ali's title defenses. Hands down.
To argue that Ernie Terrell or Floyd Patterson in his 1st reign was a more meaningful win is just flat out f*cking stupid.
If the Thrilla in Manilla isn't either a 9 or 10, then nothing anybody does in Boxing is special.
It may very well be the greatest fight in heavyweight history I don't think anybody is arguing against that but neither man was in their prime not by a long shot. I would argue Joe Frazier beating Muhammad Ali in their first fight would be a nine or a ten because they were in their primes or near their primes when it happened.
Joe Frazier looked absolutely horrible against Jimmy Ellis who was also shot prior to his third and final fight with Muhammad Ali. There is no disputing this and Joe retired right after this fight as well. The only time Ali would get a high score from me when it comes to Joe Frazier would be their rematch and that would be an 8 or so because Joe Frazier already lost the title to George Foreman.
Frazier's win over Ali is a 10, and arguably the single biggest win in Heavyweight Boxing History.
You won't get much of an argument from me on that though I will say had I included the matches where they won the title Muhammad Ali probably would have had a 9 or 10 victory on the basis of defeating George Foreman. But I wanted to base it on title defenses more than anything else.
I think a score of 10 is almost virtually impossible to find in the heavyweight division but could probably find solid 10 scores in lighter weight divisions such as welterweight in the 1980s where Roberto Duran defeated Sugar Ray Leonard, and that's largely because you had so many people in their prime all in the same time and there was no special circumstances really preventing the matches from being made like Muhammad Ali being exiled from the sport for 3 years.
A victory that's a true 10/10 on the resume is definitely pretty rare. Requires a guy to be either Prime or near Prime, and a Hall of Fame type legacy to boot. Plus the victory needs to be decisive, and in no way controversial.
Rare for all those things to come together.
Ali's win over Foreman is undoubtedly a 10, yes
And indeed Duran's win over Leonard and Leonard's over Hearns are as well.
To me Ali's win over Frazier in the 3rd fight is a 10, primarily due to the circumstances of their personal animosity for each other. If Frazier was fighting anyone else that night he probably woudn't have been half the fighter he was. But it meant EVERYTHING to him to beat Ali.
For that reason he could always dig a little deeper, and try a little harder when faced with his arch nemesis.
Barrera and Morales brought that same thing out of each other. There was nobody on Earth that they'd hate to lose to more than each other, and because of that you could always count on them giving it absolutely everything they had to give.
gilgamesh wrote: ↑09 Jan 2023, 21:51
I wonder if anybody would really be objective enough to rate this kinda thing fairly.
For the most part this forum consists of guys moving the goalposts on arguments to fit the guy that they want to come out better
For instance. Wlad beating David Haye is better than Ali beating Joe Frazier in the Thrilla
I know it's hard people, but try to be objective. Try to apply the same criteria across the board.
I'll give an example. Duran's win over Leonard is a 10 right?
I'm sure elmersalsa would say Leonard's win in the rematch is only a 6 or 7 or something because "Duran wasn't prepared" or some such horsesh*t.
The rematch was the very next fight after the 1st one. If Duran's win is a 10, Leonard's is a 10.
You can't move the goalpost just because your guy didn't win.
I don't think I'm moving my goal posts on this one. Like I said I hate agreeing on this with HH.
I am an Ali fan. I just feel that though the fight was great, hell it was awesome but Frazier was past his best and that is why I would rate the quality of defense above average but not as high as you do.
gilgamesh wrote: ↑09 Jan 2023, 21:51
I wonder if anybody would really be objective enough to rate this kinda thing fairly.
For the most part this forum consists of guys moving the goalposts on arguments to fit the guy that they want to come out better
For instance. Wlad beating David Haye is better than Ali beating Joe Frazier in the Thrilla
I know it's hard people, but try to be objective. Try to apply the same criteria across the board.
I'll give an example. Duran's win over Leonard is a 10 right?
I'm sure elmersalsa would say Leonard's win in the rematch is only a 6 or 7 or something because "Duran wasn't prepared" or some such horsesh*t.
The rematch was the very next fight after the 1st one. If Duran's win is a 10, Leonard's is a 10.
You can't move the goalpost just because your guy didn't win.
I don't think I'm moving my goal posts on this one. Like I said I hate agreeing on this with HH.
I am an Ali fan. I just feel that though the fight was great, hell it was awesome but Frazier was past his best and that is why I would rate the quality of defense above average but not as high as you do.
It can't be any less than an 8. If you want to say it's not as big as Frazier's win over Ali because of the 4 years passed, ok fine.
I'd disagree, but at least it's reasonable to say.
But to say that it's less meaningful than Ali beating Ernie Terrell, Ron Lyle or Floyd Patterson
To say it's less meaningful than Wlad beating Haye or Povetkin?
gilgamesh wrote: ↑09 Jan 2023, 21:51
I wonder if anybody would really be objective enough to rate this kinda thing fairly.
For the most part this forum consists of guys moving the goalposts on arguments to fit the guy that they want to come out better
For instance. Wlad beating David Haye is better than Ali beating Joe Frazier in the Thrilla
I know it's hard people, but try to be objective. Try to apply the same criteria across the board.
I'll give an example. Duran's win over Leonard is a 10 right?
I'm sure elmersalsa would say Leonard's win in the rematch is only a 6 or 7 or something because "Duran wasn't prepared" or some such horsesh*t.
The rematch was the very next fight after the 1st one. If Duran's win is a 10, Leonard's is a 10.
You can't move the goalpost just because your guy didn't win.
I don't think I'm moving my goal posts on this one. Like I said I hate agreeing on this with HH.
I am an Ali fan. I just feel that though the fight was great, hell it was awesome but Frazier was past his best and that is why I would rate the quality of defense above average but not as high as you do.
It can't be any less than an 8. If you want to say it's not as big as Frazier's win over Ali because of the 4 years passed, ok fine.
I'd disagree, but at least it's reasonable to say.
But to say that it's less meaningful than Ali beating Ernie Terrell, Ron Lyle or Floyd Patterson
To say it's less meaningful than Wlad beating Haye or Povetkin?
That's just completely and absolutely ridiculous.
I never said any of those or implied them. I stand by my opinion on this.
I'd rate Frazier's win over Ali in the first fight A 9
Ali's win over Frazier in the second a 7
The third fight a 6.
Again just my opinion
but you guys just copy and paste and put whatever number you feel is necessary next to the names in terms of worth.