BoxRec

joe louis
sonny liston
jack dempsey
joe frazier
jack johnson
rocky marciano
larry holmes

this is going by the 7 best guys each fighter beat



IMO

1. joe Frazier-ali, quarry, bonavena, chuvalo, ellis, Mathis, Foster, bugner

2. joe louis- walcott, baer, schmeling, nova, conn, Sharkey, Paster


3. rocky marciano- charles, walcott, moore, lastarza, layne, old louis, mathews

4. Jack Dempsey- Miske, fulton, brennan, gibbons, sharkey, Firpo, old willard




5. Liston- Folley, williams , machen, patterson, De john , harris, bethea



6. Larry Holmes- Ken norton, Earnie shavers, trevor berbick, witherspoon, cooney, bonecrusher smith, mike weaver


7. jack johnson - joe jeanette, young sam mcvey, 156lb langford, tommy burns, , moran, ed martin, 155lb george gardner. i still rate johnson # 3, and think he would have beat jeanette, langford, mcvey at aany point of there careers.


im not confident with my 3-7 picks, anyone of them could be changed in any place.

Just by going by the 7 opponents that are listed, this is how I would rate their competition:

1. Holmes
2. Frazier
3. Louis
4. Liston
5. Marciano
6. Johnson
7. Dempsey

I thought at first it would Frazier, but I took a hard look at who I have in my top 100, and I had to go with Holmes. Obviously Frazier had the biggest win (Ali) but I don't have Foster and Mathis matchup with Holmes opponents. Even, Holmes worst opponent was #72.
As for Louis, I don't believe that Conn and Nova match up with Holmes opponents either.
As for Liston, DeJohn, Harris and Bethea don't compare to Holmes opponents.
Marciano -Don't believe that Moore,Mathews, and Louis (when Marciano fought him), compare very well to Holmes opponents.

Johnson - A little harder to decide because Langford, and McVey were inexperienced. I gave him some credit for Jeanette, but Gardner and Martin are nowhere near Holmes competition.

Dempsey- By far the worst. Outside of Sharkey, I don't have anyone he ever beat in the top 80 heavyweights.

I wasn't sure if I should consider multiple wins, so I didn't. Liston, for example may have been shortchanged becasue I only gave him credit for beating Patterson once.

This doesn't mean that I agree that Holmes fought the best opposition, but by going by these rules, I would have to go with him.

Ambling Alp wrote:Just by going by the 7 opponents that are listed, this is how I would rate their competition:

1. Holmes
2. Frazier
3. Louis
4. Liston
5. Marciano
6. Johnson
7. Dempsey

I thought at first it would Frazier, but I took a hard look at who I have in my top 100, and I had to go with Holmes. Obviously Frazier had the biggest win (Ali) but I don't have Foster and Mathis matchup with Holmes opponents. Even, Holmes worst opponent was #72.
As for Louis, I don't believe that Conn and Nova match up with Holmes opponents either.
As for Liston, DeJohn, Harris and Bethea don't compare to Holmes opponents.
Marciano -Don't believe that Moore,Mathews, and Louis (when Marciano fought him), compare very well to Holmes opponents.

Johnson - A little harder to decide because Langford, and McVey were inexperienced. I gave him some credit for Jeanette, but Gardner and Martin are nowhere near Holmes competition.

Dempsey- By far the worst. Outside of Sharkey, I don't have anyone he ever beat in the top 80 heavyweights.

I wasn't sure if I should consider multiple wins, so I didn't. Liston, for example may have been shortchanged becasue I only gave him credit for beating Patterson once.

This doesn't mean that I agree that Holmes fought the best opposition, but by going by these rules, I would have to go with him.

holmes?!?!?!? he fought no GREAT fighters that were in their prime...no HOF fighters in their prime..he snuck in between ali and tyson..

holmes should defintley not be # 1,


ali, quarry, bonavena, chuvalo, mathis, ellis, foster were defintley better than holmes competition.


louis compeittion was also superior to holmes.

fact is, holmes beat a lot better depth than other champions. but in terms of fighting great fighters, holmes DID NOT beat many, only norton.

louis had conn, schmeling, walcott, baer, they were great fighters

marciano had moore, walcott, charles they were great fighters


frazier had ali, foster, quarry, ellis they were great fighters


johnson had jeanette and mcvey

i defintley think archie moore would beat some of the 7 fighters i listed among holmes name.


only heavyweights that could beat moore were all time greats marciano and patterson

I actaully did a point system wehen I figured this. I gave Frazier for 100 pts for beating Ali who I had at #1, and would give a guy 99 points for beating the #2 and so on. Holmes came out the best,which suprised me a little. I would have thought it would have been Frazier. However, Holmes fought a lot of guys who are in the rated in the 40's 50's 60's etc.
I think his worst win of the 7 opponents was better than the other guys.
Plus I think the Norton that Holmes had to beat was better than any of the competition that the other guys had.
I don't think that Moore was better at heavyweight than any of the guys that Holmes beat.
I didn't give Marciano any credit for beating Louis, who didn't have much left at the time. I did give Louis credit for beating Sharkey, which I'm not sure I should have done.
I don't think Johnson should be given credit for beating a very inexperienced McVey.
Once again, I don't think that this is the best way to rate competition, but it has me thinking of coming up with a better way to do this. When a fighter beat another is something that has to be factored. anyway, it was fun!

marciano should have got credit for beating louis. louis was shot, yes but he was joe louis in the mist of a comeback racking up 8 straight victories. joe was still a dangerous top contender who had his jab fully, ringsmarts, still had KO power left(ask lee savold).

it took a guy like charles or marciano to beat him. i dont care if louis was shot, its a good win to have on his resume. louis was stil a dangerous top contender and i give marciano credit for the win. u should too.

so take away points, but give him something. the louis marciano fought was a lot better than the ali holmes fought.

Ambling Alp wrote:Just by going by the 7 opponents that are listed, this is how I would rate their competition:

1. Holmes
2. Frazier
3. Louis
4. Liston
5. Marciano
6. Johnson
7. Dempsey

I thought at first it would Frazier, but I took a hard look at who I have in my top 100, and I had to go with Holmes. Obviously Frazier had the biggest win (Ali) but I don't have Foster and Mathis matchup with Holmes opponents. Even, Holmes worst opponent was #72.
As for Louis, I don't believe that Conn and Nova match up with Holmes opponents either.
As for Liston, DeJohn, Harris and Bethea don't compare to Holmes opponents.
Marciano -Don't believe that Moore,Mathews, and Louis (when Marciano fought him), compare very well to Holmes opponents.

Johnson - A little harder to decide because Langford, and McVey were inexperienced. I gave him some credit for Jeanette, but Gardner and Martin are nowhere near Holmes competition.

Dempsey- By far the worst. Outside of Sharkey, I don't have anyone he ever beat in the top 80 heavyweights.

I wasn't sure if I should consider multiple wins, so I didn't. Liston, for example may have been shortchanged becasue I only gave him credit for beating Patterson once.

This doesn't mean that I agree that Holmes fought the best opposition, but by going by these rules, I would have to go with him.

that lis is terrible

1. Frazier
2. Louis
3. Marciano
4. Liston
5. Dempsey
6. Holmes
7. Johnson

i defintley think archie moore would beat some of the 7 fighters i listed among holmes name.
only heavyweights that could beat moore were all time greats marciano and patterson

All 7 of the guys you listed among Holmes names would have beaten Moore, and it would not have been that hard. Norton, Witherspoon and Cooney would have particularly destroyed him.

theone wrote:

i defintley think archie moore would beat some of the 7 fighters i listed among holmes name.
only heavyweights that could beat moore were all time greats marciano and patterson

All 7 of the guys you listed among Holmes names would have beaten Moore, and it would not have been that hard. Norton, Witherspoon and Cooney would have particularly destroyed him.

what makes u say that??? moore showed he can beat and knock out the big top contender heavyweights.

earnie shavers lost to 17-21 bob stallings???

bonecrusher lost to tubbs, MARVIS FRAZIER, witherspoon


mike weaver lost many times throuought his career



20-18 leroy caldwell fdought a draw vs berbick, and bernado mercado, ST GORDON, and renaldo snipes could beat berbick, but NOT MOORE???


do u think michael spinx could have beaten some of those 80s alpha champs??

why not moore????



moore could defintley beat some of the fighters on holmes list.

dempsey should get more respect,


brennan was a very good boxer who IMO is underated. tommy gibbons was a HOF master boxer, and billy miske was also a good solid boxer and top contender. fred fulton whom dempsey killed in 18 seconds was a bigg slugger and top contender who had skill. i could go on and on

Decagon wrote:1. Frazier
2. Johnson
3. Louis
4. Dempsey
5. Liston
6. Holmes
7. Marciano

did dempsey ever beat a walcott or charles or moore?



yes im sure beating HOFs archie moore, ezzard charles, jersey joe walcott wasnt great competition




u have johnson at 2 BUT



he beat 156lb langford, a small middleweight!


he beat 155lb george gardner!


young green sam mcvey


168lb tommy burns


frank moran??


besides jeanette, he didnt beat langford or mcvey when they were bigger and at there heavyweight best.

decagon, this thread is rating on the 7 fighters they beat, not overall as a fighter.

to put marciano last is questionable IMO, and i would like to know ur reasoning

I also agree and think Holmes had the best competition,

and here is why.. ( just short and sweet i have chemistry study to do )

Ken Nortan - Well say no more, the guy was a great, and mabey when he fought larry he wasnt at his best, but he was still a great boxer, as seen in the Larry fight.

Witherspoon- Witherspoon was unbeaten at the time, although he only had a few fights and he may have been raw, he was still a great fighter at the time, and mabey at him best ( comming close to beaten )

Cooney - was 25-0 before the Larry fight, and he had destroyed Ken Nortan in one round! also knocked out Ron Lyle and Jimmy Young ( these guys were shot and past their prime, but whats to say that Cooney was no good cose they were past their prime?t!!)

Ernie Shavers - Well the guy is arguably the most hardest hitter of all time! in 1978 he was still in an alright peek, and was not at all shot.

Mike Weaver - Although not having a great record, his record does not reflect how good Mike Weaver actually was! After the holmes fight he went on to beating Tate and Tillis when they had perfect records without losses.

Trevor Berbick - Young up comming with only one loss at the time of the Holmes fight. After Holmes fight he went on to beating a shot Ali , and also went on to defeated Greg page, Mitch Green and Pinklon Thomas, who all had perfect no losses at the time.

Bonecrusher Smith- Mabey the worst on the list, but still he had a KO victory over Bruno who at the time held an unbeaten record.

I think the only one that comes close to Holmes would be Frazier imo...

i would like to hear your reasons for having Holmes at 6th in that list BB.

what makes u say that??? moore showed he can beat and knock out the big top contender heavyweights.

Nino Valdez was the only Heavyweight of note that Moore beat and to call him mediocre would be kind.

earnie shavers lost to 17-21 bob stallings???

There are a few fighters on Moores record that makes you ask yourself, "how did he lose to that guy?" But I admit I spoke too harshly and should have written any of those heavyweights are capable of defeating Moore, and except for the three i singled out, vise versa. I stick by my assessment that Norton Witherspoon and Cooney would have definitly beat Moore. Too big too strong too tough for the Mongoose who would have been ko'd by all three.

u have johnson at 2 BUT
he beat 156lb langford, a small middleweight!
he beat 155lb george gardner!
young green sam mcvey
168lb tommy burns
frank moran??
besides jeanette, he didnt beat langford or mcvey when they were bigger and at there heavyweight best.

Brockton, correct me if I'm wrong but havent you agrued with me before when I stated Johnson is overrated? Didnt even say that Johnson was one of the greatest and would have even beat your man Marciano? But here you seem to be very critical about his quality of oppisitoion. Quality of oppisition should be one or the main factor in judging a fighters greatness. If you dont think so highly of his opposision why do you think he was so great?

Decagon wrote:Yeah, beating a bunch of 40-year-olds is really special. Marciano's comp was the worst.

Charles, Walcott, and Moore were older yes, but near their prime and were three of the greatest technicians the sport has ever seen, look at this clip of Walcott...

http://x1.putfile.com/7/21023431675.gif

Decagon wrote:Yeah, beating a bunch of 40-year-olds is really special. Marciano's comp was the worst.

that was not an intelligent post. if u look at the circumstances and preformances of moore and walcott, you would realize they were at or near there best at that point in there careers.

yeah but johnson beat langford when he was 185lb and still had not yet reached his peak either and he put on a dominating preformance over langford that showed langford would never beat him

- johnson beat joe jeanette a top 25 heavyweight and pretty clearly

- johnson dominated mcvey before his best, but mcvey was still a very good fighter and i couldnt see him beating johnson at any time in his career

There are a few fighters on Moores record that makes you ask yourself, "how did he lose to that guy?" But I admit I spoke too harshly and should have written any of those heavyweights are capable of defeating Moore, and except for the three i singled out, vise versa. I stick by my assessment that Norton Witherspoon and Cooney would have definitly beat Moore. Too big too strong too tough for the Mongoose who would have been ko'd by all three.

moore lost a lot in the 40s when he was a middleweight but moores best years 49-55 he didnt lose that much. take a look at his record then. moore simply became a better and smarter fighter. he never got caught by the leonard morrows in those years


theone, first of even a past his prime valdez was a top contender in patterson and liston era. even patterson ducked a past his prime valdez.


- ask enrique, valdez was not mediocre, he was just another zora folley with a better chin and bigger frame.

. I stick by my assessment that Norton Witherspoon and Cooney would have definitly beat Moore. Too big too strong too tough for the Mongoose who would have been ko'd by all three.

ok fair enough. i dont know if witherspoon would have knocked moore, out, moore was smart very good defense and cagey. only guys like marciano and patterson were able to knock him out.

i suspect a peak witherspoon outpoints moore


cooney yes if he caught moore, cooney did have a huge size advantage but cooney was not a smart fighter and didnt have much besides a left hook. he never proved himself besides one fight which we have to judge him on.

can see cooney knocking moore out, but wouldnt u think moore would be able to defend his slower, wider, telegprahed punches??


i mean didnt michael spinx knock out gerry cooney quite easily?? a 200lb spinx???

why wouldnt moore be able to outpoint him??




norton i would pick over moore, though im not sure by KO, but he would IMO defitnley beat moore. norton wasnt a big puncher or as aggresive so i think it could go to the scorecards but u never know.





guys like shavers i could see moore oupointing. i mean yes shavers was one of the hardest hitters of all time, but he wasnt as great a puncher or fighter as marciano or patterson. shavers was slower, predictable, could be outboxed , terrible stamina, cant u see moore outsmarting earnie here and taking this one to late rounds and outpiint him??? i defitnley can.

- of course if shavers lands the big punch its most likely over

and size difference??

shavers 6'1.5 210lb
moore 5'11 190lb thats not that much at all




so out of those 7,

i see moore outpointing shavers, possibly outpointing cooney, outpointing bonecrusher, possibly outpointing the incosistent trevor berbick, weaver would be a toss up he was very incosistent, and i see norton and peak witherspoon beating moore.

i mean i am not trying to pick on holmes competition but too say they would automatically beat moore (even though moore was one of the best light-h of all time AND a proven heavyweight who could beat the big contenders ) is absurd.

these guys dotn have more boxing skill than moore, they simply have size and strength. u dont think moores smart enough not to let them use there size and strength on him, dont u think moore could pick out there flaws??

my point is moore would be competitive

ask enrique, valdez was not mediocre, he was just another zora folley with a better chin and bigger frame

Valdez record speaks for itself. He was mediocre at best.

cooney yes if he caught moore, cooney did have a huge size advantage but cooney was not a smart fighter and didnt have much besides a left hook. he never proved himself besides one fight which we have to judge him on.
can see cooney knocking moore out, but wouldnt u think moore would be able to defend his slower, wider, telegprahed punches??
i mean didnt michael spinx knock out gerry cooney quite easily?? a 200lb spinx???

I rate Moore higher at lightheavy than Spinx, but Spinx was the better heavyweight. With his frame he bulked himself up to a competitive weight without losing his mobility. Moore style would force him to go inside and that would be his undoing against Cooney.

shavers 6'1.5 210lb
moore 5'11 190lb thats not that much at all

Moores best weight was not at 190lbs. Shavers power and strenght was miles ahead of Moore's. However it wouldnt be farfetched for Moore to decision Him I will admit.

my point is moore would be competitive

A valid point at that I agree.

I rate Moore higher at lightheavy than Spinx, but Spinx was the better heavyweight. With his frame he bulked himself up to a competitive weight without losing his mobility. Moore style would force him to go inside and that would be his undoing against Cooney.

i agree partially and he did have the better frame, but spinx did have proper weight training, supplements, nutrition, technology that moore didnt have.

i have no doubt moore would use that technology in his favor just like spinx did and come in at 200-205lb.




i defintley think cooney is dangerous fight for moore. but theres so many un answered questions about cooney i dont know what to think about cooney sometimes.

To an extent i agree with both Brockton and Decagon. Firstly, Moore and Walcott were exceptional fighters even at their advanced age. However, I also agree with Decagon that Moore and Walcott did as well as they did in the heavyweight division at that time because the division was not what it once was some years ealier,or what it was going to be years later.

Am I going crazy here? Has no one mentioned Ali yet?

He beat Liston twice (first time possibly suss, second almost definitely)
He beat Frazier twice (although closely, and Frazier was def on the decline by their third fight)
He beat Norton twice (both close, one suss)
He easily beat a much younger Spinks (who he never should have lost to)
He KNOCKED OUT George Foreman
He beat Floyd Patterson twice
He beat Henry Cooper twice

the circumstances were not always the best, but surely he has to be right up there?!

Decagon wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Decagon wrote:Yeah, beating a bunch of 40-year-olds is really special. Marciano's comp was the worst.

that was not an intelligent post. if u look at the circumstances and preformances of moore and walcott, you would realize they were at or near there best at that point in there careers.

You better not question anyone else's intelligence if you're going to suggest that Walcott was as close to his peak for the two fights with Marciano as he was in his first fight with Louis.

I'd also contend that Moore was at his prime in the 1940s, and that he had so much success in the 1950s because the quality of his opposition wasn't nearly as good. Really, the best fighters he beat were light heavyweights, like Johnson and Maxim. Yes, Moore was the #1-ranked heavyweight in the world for ten years or so, but only because the division SUCKED!

walcotts peak fight was joe louis I, but that doesnt mean ur prime is one fight. walcott fought many other great fights like the charles fights and marciano I. walcotts prime lasted 33-38 years of age. walcott was defintley at or near his best when he fought charles and marciano.

I'd also contend that Moore was at his prime in the 1940s, and that he had so much success in the 1950s because the quality of his opposition wasn't nearly as good.

another common misconception.



- moore lost a lot in the 40s and was only a middle and super middle, which was not his best weight. he lost many times, and though guys like burley and bivins and marshall were great, moore was also lighter and had not yet his fighting peak. moore in 1948 was knocked out by 11-2 leonard morrow!!! a early 50s moore was NEVER knocked out or beaten by thhat kind of fighter


- moore before he fought marciano was on the best win streak of his career, 45-1 and his fighting skills were better than ever. u think he faced bad competition???? MOORE BEAT HAROLD JOHNSON 4 TIMES, and johnson was probably a top 10 light-H of all time and certianly just as good if not better than a jimmy bivins, lyoyd marshall, or eddie booker.

- guys like marshall, bivins, booker, burley were great, yes. but moore was a superior fighter, and the reason he lost to them was he had not yet reached his fighting best and was still light without ring smarts. notice as moore reaches the late 40s and starts entering his prime, he beats the guys like burley, marshall, billy smith pretty easily and it was NOT BECAUSE they were aging.



- moore had more speed, yes because he was lighter. but when he went to 175 in ealry 50s, he had far better boxing skills, ring smarts, defense, etc. he was just plain out a better fighter.