BoxRec

1. Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Frazier 3, Oct 1, 1975 Manila, Phillipines. Result: Ali TKO 14.

2. Jack Dempsey vs Luis Firpo. Sept. 24, 1923 Polo Grounds. Result: Dempsey KO 2.


3. Joe Jeannette vs Sam McVey, April 17 1909. Paris, France. Result: Jeannette TKO 49.


4. Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Frazier 1. Mar 8, 1971. NY. Result: Frazier W 15.

5. George Foreman vs. Ron Lyle. Jan 24, 1976. Las Vegas. Result: Foreman KO 5.

6. Rocky Marciano vs. Jersey Joe Walcott. Sept. 23, 1952 Philadelphia. Result: Marciano KO 13

7. Joe Louis vs. Billy Conn. June 18, 1941. New York. Result: Louis KO 13.

8. Jim Jeffries vs. Tom Sharkey. November 3, 1899. Coney Island, NY. Result: Jeffries W 25

9. Floyd Patterson vs. Ingemar Johansson 3. Mar 13th, 1961. Miami Beach, Fl. Result: Patterson KO 6.

10. Larry Holmes vs. Ken Norton. June 9, 1978. Las Vegas. Result: Holmes W 15 (split).


More...


http://coxscorner.tripod.com/10heavyweight.html


What do you gentlemen think?

You have got numbers 1 and 4 reversed.

yancey wrote:You have got numbers 1 and 4 reversed.

It's Mr. Cox's list...My boxing knowledge is not that vast...

yancey wrote:You have got numbers 1 and 4 reversed.

I believe you do.

Actually, I would put Ali-Frazier I at #2, not #4.

Holmes-Norton should be ahead of Patterson-Johannson III, that was a good fight but I think Marciano-Walcott I was probably better as well. And Holyfield-Bowe could be in there somewhere.

I Feel Fine wrote:

yancey wrote:You have got numbers 1 and 4 reversed.

I believe you do.

Actually, I would put Ali-Frazier I at #2, not #4.

Holmes-Norton should be ahead of Patterson-Johannson III, that was a good fight but I think Marciano-Walcott I was probably better as well. And Holyfield-Bowe could be in there somewhere.

Although not a good fight Lewis-Tyson made for some spetacular visuals:

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2007/11 ... on_300.jpg

As someone who has boxed a bit and has family that were boxers including one who was blinded in the ring I can not imagine having my face rearranged like that; not in a million years...

It is a great list though... I would take off the Patterson vs Johansson III fight out of there and put maybe Tyson vs Douglas, Tyson vs Holyfield I, Holyfield vs Bowe I or Clay vs Liston I

elmersalsa wrote:It is a great list though... I would take off the Patterson vs Johansson III fight out of there and put maybe Tyson vs Douglas, Tyson vs Holyfield I, Holyfield vs Bowe I or Clay vs Liston I

There are other lists floating around:


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=te ... gle+Search

It's just different people's opinions but an opinion that one has put a lot of work into deserves to be respected...

The first Frazier-Ali fight I would rank as being the greatest modern day heavyweight title fight, but not the "Thrilla in Manila" mainly because neither man were near their primes, and neither man was ever really "great" again following it, though that doesn't take away from it being a war, I just believe the first one was more competitive and meant more because it was the question of "Who is the true heavyweight champion of the world?" and both men were at their peak/near their peak and undefeated.

Marciano-walcott was what I would consider the greatest knockout of all time, but is truly deserving of a mention as one of the greatest heavyweight fights, clearly a top ten.

Dempsey-Firpo had alot of two fisted action, but take into account that outside of his size and power WHO THE HELL WAS LUIS ANGEL FIRPO??? He was the creation of Tex Rickard, nothing more and nothing less, who had just enough to give fellow behemoth Jess Willard a hell of a time. That and Dempsey hadn't fought in a hell of a long time, being more concerned with early motion pictures and Hollywood. It was competitive because #1 Dempsey was out of shape and didn't take Firpo seriously because #2 as I stated earlier, nobody knew who the hell he was to begin with.

Now Foreman-Lyle is what I would rank higher than Dempsey-Firpo because #1 they were in their prime and #2 everybody knew who they were, their credentials and #3 both were MONSTER hitters; five rounds of pure hell that has yet to be matched

Ali v Foreman has to be up there.

Seamus wrote:Ali v Foreman has to be up there.

Truth...

Foreman opened as 7-1 favorite...Closed as a 3-1 favorite...He was coming off a two round knock out and a one round knock out against two opponents that Ali couldn't put away in a combined fifty one rounds...

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:1. Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Frazier 3, Oct 1, 1975 Manila, Phillipines. Result: Ali TKO 14.

2. Jack Dempsey vs Luis Firpo. Sept. 24, 1923 Polo Grounds. Result: Dempsey KO 2.


3. Joe Jeannette vs Sam McVey, April 17 1909. Paris, France. Result: Jeannette TKO 49.


4. Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Frazier 1. Mar 8, 1971. NY. Result: Frazier W 15.

5. George Foreman vs. Ron Lyle. Jan 24, 1976. Las Vegas. Result: Foreman KO 5.

6. Rocky Marciano vs. Jersey Joe Walcott. Sept. 23, 1952 Philadelphia. Result: Marciano KO 13

7. Joe Louis vs. Billy Conn. June 18, 1941. New York. Result: Louis KO 13.

8. Jim Jeffries vs. Tom Sharkey. November 3, 1899. Coney Island, NY. Result: Jeffries W 25

9. Floyd Patterson vs. Ingemar Johansson 3. Mar 13th, 1961. Miami Beach, Fl. Result: Patterson KO 6.

10. Larry Holmes vs. Ken Norton. June 9, 1978. Las Vegas. Result: Holmes W 15 (split).


More...


http://coxscorner.tripod.com/10heavyweight.html


What do you gentlemen think?

IMO, Louis-Conn was the best ever in terms of excitment and drama.

I agree that Ali-Frazier I should be rated over the 3rd fight. It had much more drama and significance than the third fight, which took place when both were old farts. IMO, the 3rd fight gets a lot of over-exposure and overhype, particularly by ESPN, which has an obvious fondness for Ali (and which makes me wonder if the fight isn't deliberatley overhyped as a way of detracting attention from the fact that Ali lost the first fight, which almost never gets shown on TV and seems to get glossed over somewhat whenever Ali's career is discussed).

I think Holmes-Norton should be higher on that list.

And some might argue that Marciano-Charles I or even Marciano-Moore might be considered for this list. (The Moore fight is my personal favorite Marciano fight, moreso than Walcott I).

An old fart-lover like Cox should've mentioned Sullivan-Mitchell II.

My2Sense wrote:I agree that Ali-Frazier I should be rated over the 3rd fight. It had much more drama and significance than the third fight, which took place when both were old farts. IMO, the 3rd fight gets a lot of over-exposure and overhype, particularly by ESPN, which has an obvious fondness for Ali (and which makes me wonder if the fight isn't deliberatley overhyped as a way of detracting attention from the fact that Ali lost the first fight, which almost never gets shown on TV and seems to get glossed over somewhat whenever Ali's career is discussed)

That was moathfull. You gathered all that from what ESPN shows and doesn't show? Interesting. Another conspiracy theorist.

Ali was coming off a long layoff, so the first fight is tainted. So is the third fight, because of Frazier's eye. The most important fight of the trilogy is the second fight, where they were on a more level playing field. That said, I thought Manila was a more exciting fight, and it was a very famous fight before the ESPN network came into existence; it didn't need "ESPN hype." So a bit of revisionist history from my2sense in this post.

As for Ali-Frazier I not being televised; maybe they don't own the rights to it. If they had access to it, I think they would show it as it might get ratings; something tells me ESPN cares more about ratings than it does about Ali's legacy. If they do put more stock in Ali-Frazier III than Ali-Frazier I, which I see no basis for saying, maybe its because that's the fight that won Ali the trilogy; the trilogy being more important than one fight. That said, Ali-Frazier I is not "glossed over," if anything, boxing fans put too much stock in it.

Joe Louis getting out boxed until he finally came back and KO'd a man who was fighting over 26 pounds below him in weight is not the best Heavyweight fight of all time. Great fight, but not in my top ten.

Ali-Frazier II wasn't a title fight, and Ali basically John Ruized his way into a win.

Yes, though I think "Ruized" is a bit extreme, but my statement still stands. Most important doesn't necessarily equal most exciting.

I Feel Fine wrote:

My2Sense wrote:I agree that Ali-Frazier I should be rated over the 3rd fight. It had much more drama and significance than the third fight, which took place when both were old farts. IMO, the 3rd fight gets a lot of over-exposure and overhype, particularly by ESPN, which has an obvious fondness for Ali (and which makes me wonder if the fight isn't deliberatley overhyped as a way of detracting attention from the fact that Ali lost the first fight, which almost never gets shown on TV and seems to get glossed over somewhat whenever Ali's career is discussed)

That was moathfull. You gathered all that from what ESPN shows and doesn't show? Interesting. Another conspiracy theorist.

Ali was coming off a long layoff, so the first fight is tainted. So is the third fight, because of Frazier's eye. The most important fight of the trilogy is the second fight, where they were on a more level playing field. That said, I thought Manila was a more exciting fight, and it was a very famous fight before the ESPN network came into existence; it didn't need "ESPN hype." So a bit of revisionist history from my2sense in this post.

As for Ali-Frazier I not being televised; maybe they don't own the rights to it. If they had access to it, I think they would show it as it might get ratings; something tells me ESPN cares more about ratings than it does about Ali's legacy. If they do put more stock in Ali-Frazier III than Ali-Frazier I, which I see no basis for saying, maybe its because that's the fight that won Ali the trilogy; the trilogy being more important than one fight. That said, Ali-Frazier I is not "glossed over," if anything, boxing fans put too much stock in it.

Your whole post just proves exactly what I'm talking about.

Ali was coming off a long layoff, so the first fight is tainted.

Really? Tell that to the millions upon millions of excited fans who piled into the arena, into closed circuit theatres, and around every television they could find to watch this fight. Anyone trying to diminish the importance of that fight in the slightest is either intentionally revising history, or just isn't familiar with the situation in the first place.

As for Ali-Frazier I not being televised; maybe they don't own the rights to it. If they had access to it, I think they would show it as it might get ratings; something tells me ESPN cares more about ratings than it does about Ali's legacy.

I noted that the fight doesn't get shown on TV, ESPN or otherwise. How do you explain the fact that the most highly anticipated fight in history (and a great fight to boot) simply never gets shown on TV?

And if ESPN is so preoccupied with ratings, why do they persist in showing Ali-Wepner, one of the dullest heavyweight title fights of all time?

If they do put more stock in Ali-Frazier III than Ali-Frazier I, which I see no basis for saying, maybe its because that's the fight that won Ali the trilogy; the trilogy being more important than one fight.

Since when is the third fight in a trilogy automatically considered the most important or memorable? Which fight between Gatti and Ward gets the most attention? Or Barrera-Morales? Or going back in time, Gans and Nelson? Among plenty of other examples, I'm sure...

That said, Ali-Frazier I is not "glossed over," if anything, boxing fans put too much stock in it.

The fight warrants all the stock it can get. It was a heavyweight unification fight between two undefeated future Hall of Famers that captured the attention of an entire country, and mirrored very troubling social conditions in that country.

The reason the fight is often diminished by today's media is that Ali was the idol of the anti-establishment, anti-Vietnam movement, and a victory for Ali would have symbolized for them a win over the "establishment" (which Frazier supposedly represented). It was the same as how a win for Joe Louis over Schmeling was supposed to represent a win for American freedom over Nazi Germany. Unlike Louis-Schmeling, the guy that most people in the US today would've rather won, didn't, so the result of the fight isn't celebrated nearly as much as Louis-Schmeling's is (even though it should be). No one in today's post-Vietnam, post-Civil Rights era wants to celebrate a "win" for the villified establishment of the '60s, any more than anyone would want to celebrate a win for Nazi Germany should Schmeling have won the rematch with Louis. But you can bet if Ali had won that fight, its importance would still be celebrated to no end today, and there wouldn't be any debate about it being "tainted" or otherwise.

I Feel Fine wrote:

My2Sense wrote:I agree that Ali-Frazier I should be rated over the 3rd fight. It had much more drama and significance than the third fight, which took place when both were old farts. IMO, the 3rd fight gets a lot of over-exposure and overhype, particularly by ESPN, which has an obvious fondness for Ali (and which makes me wonder if the fight isn't deliberatley overhyped as a way of detracting attention from the fact that Ali lost the first fight, which almost never gets shown on TV and seems to get glossed over somewhat whenever Ali's career is discussed)

That was moathfull. You gathered all that from what ESPN shows and doesn't show? Interesting. Another conspiracy theorist.

Ali was coming off a long layoff, so the first fight is tainted. So is the third fight, because of Frazier's eye. The most important fight of the trilogy is the second fight, where they were on a more level playing field. That said, I thought Manila was a more exciting fight, and it was a very famous fight before the ESPN network came into existence; it didn't need "ESPN hype." So a bit of revisionist history from my2sense in this post.

As for Ali-Frazier I not being televised; maybe they don't own the rights to it. If they had access to it, I think they would show it as it might get ratings; something tells me ESPN cares more about ratings than it does about Ali's legacy. If they do put more stock in Ali-Frazier III than Ali-Frazier I, which I see no basis for saying, maybe its because that's the fight that won Ali the trilogy; the trilogy being more important than one fight. That said, Ali-Frazier I is not "glossed over," if anything, boxing fans put too much stock in it.

Joe Louis getting out boxed until he finally came back and KO'd a man who was fighting over 26 pounds below him in weight is not the best Heavyweight fight of all time. Great fight, but not in my top ten.

Not revisionist history at all from My2Sense.

He is exactly on target with his thoughts regarding the Ali-Frazier trilogy.

Your thoughts that their 2nd fight is the most important one and that the first fight was tainted are ludicrous.

I Feel Fine wrote:Yes, though I think "Ruized" is a bit extreme, but my statement still stands. Most important doesn't necessarily equal most exciting.

Oh, I love John Ruiz. I used to cover those Don King pay-per-views he fought on for Inside Fighting because no one else wanted any part of them. He was the dredge of the heavyweight division, and I was the dredge of internet boxing writers. I've always viewed his career with great humor, and I've always laughed at the frustration of people who hate him. In reality, some "great" fighters, including Muhammad Ali, Bernard Hopkins, Harry Greb and Winky Wright, and been equally boring/evil/hated, but Ruiz has been the receptacle of the most merciless hate boxing has seen since... well... Muhammad Ali. There is an art to what he does, just as there's art in some of the terrible things you'll see in a modern art exhibit at your local museum, or in the "free jazz" of the 1960s. He's a reminder of what boxing is, a nasty, mean old fight.

I Feel Fine wrote:Joe Louis getting out boxed until he finally came back and KO'd a man who was fighting over 26 pounds below him in weight is not the best Heavyweight fight of all time. Great fight, but not in my top ten.

The fact that an all time great heavyweight champ can be behind against a man 26 or so pounds lighter is exactly what makes that fight so memorable and dramatic.

Also, you make it sound like Louis was simply getting outboxed the whole fight. He wasn't, there were dramatic shifts in momentum throughout, and the fight was close enough that Louis could still win it on points or get a draw, if he finished strong.

Big Bad John wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:Yes, though I think "Ruized" is a bit extreme, but my statement still stands. Most important doesn't necessarily equal most exciting.

Oh, I love John Ruiz. I used to cover those Don King pay-per-views he fought on for Inside Fighting because no one else wanted any part of them. He was the dredge of the heavyweight division, and I was the dredge of internet boxing writers. I've always viewed his career with great humor, and I've always laughed at the frustration of people who hate him. In reality, some "great" fighters, including Muhammad Ali, Bernard Hopkins, Harry Greb and Winky Wright, and been equally boring/evil/hated, but Ruiz has been the receptacle of the most merciless hate boxing has seen since... well... Muhammad Ali. There is an art to what he does, just as there's art in some of the terrible things you'll see in a modern art exhibit at your local museum, or in the "free jazz" of the 1960s. He's a reminder of what boxing is, a nasty, mean old fight.

Thati's fair. Though I think its a little unfair to say that Ali and Hopkins were equally boring, Ali was in more "fights of the year" than any other fighter, including Basilio, and Hopkins had some exciting fights when he was younger. Winky's fight with Taylor wasn't too bad, more interesting than any Ruiz fight I've seen, anyway.

Ali was coming off a long layoff, so the first fight is tainted.

Really? Tell that to the millions upon millions of excited fans who piled into the arena, into closed circuit theatres, and around every television they could find to watch this fight. Anyone trying to diminish the importance of that fight in the slightest is either intentionally revising history, or just isn't familiar with the situation in the first place.[/quote]I think my knowledge of the fight and the things surrounding the fight is quite adequate. And it was a great fight. And my comment still stands; it was tainted.

I noted that the fight doesn't get shown on TV, ESPN or otherwise. How do you explain the fact that the most highly anticipated fight in history (and a great fight to boot) simply never gets shown on TV?

And if ESPN is so preoccupied with ratings, why do they persist in showing Ali-Wepner, one of the dullest heavyweight title fights of all time?

They show Ali-Wepner because anything with Ali in it will probably be better for ratings than, say, Giardello-Graham. But, again, I do not know that ESPN has access to the first fight. Do you have any evidence that they have access to the fight, in which case it would be odd that they wouldn't show it, or are you just pulling this all out of your ass as you seem to be? Seems to me that you're just being a conspiracy theorist, like elmer. The idea that they're not going to show the fight to "protect" Ali is paranoid bullshit.

Since when is the third fight in a trilogy automatically considered the most important or memorable? Which fight between Gatti and Ward gets the most attention? Or Barrera-Morales? Or going back in time, Gans and Nelson? Among plenty of other examples, I'm sure...

That's not what I said. You stated that the first fight was the most important. I provided a reason why the third fight might be. Winning the third fight and the trilogy is pretty significant. Is that the reason why ESPN Classic shows the fight often? No, they show it because its one of the most famous fights in history, and anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of boxing history knows that. You apparently do not have that knowledge.

The fight warrants all the stock it can get. It was a heavyweight unification fight between two undefeated future Hall of Famers that captured the attention of an entire country, and mirrored very troubling social conditions in that country.

Its an important fight historically, its exciting as hell; I never said that it wasn't; again, there is nothing that you are going to tell me about this fight that I do not already know. What I did say was that, in terms of boxing importance, Ali was coming off a long layoff and was at a disadvantage in that close split decision loss. If Frazier came off a long layoff and lost to Ali at his best you would be bitching about how Ali's win was bullshit.

The reason the fight is often diminished by today's media is that Ali was the idol of the anti-establishment, anti-Vietnam movement, and a victory for Ali would have symbolized for them a win over the "establishment" (which Frazier supposedly represented). It was the same as how a win for Joe Louis over Schmeling was supposed to represent a win for American freedom over Nazi Germany. Unlike Louis-Schmeling, the guy that most people in the US today would've rather won, didn't, so the result of the fight isn't celebrated nearly as much as Louis-Schmeling's is (even though it should be). No one in today's post-Vietnam, post-Civil Rights era wants to celebrate a "win" for the villified establishment of the '60s, any more than anyone would want to celebrate a win for Nazi Germany should Schmeling have won the rematch with Louis. But you can bet if Ali had won that fight, its importance would still be celebrated to no end today, and there wouldn't be any debate about it being "tainted" or otherwise.

That's a bunch of bull. Ali-Frazier I is one of the most celebrated fights in boxing history; maybe the most. The notion that someone is hiding this fight is paranoid nonsense. And, again, your amateur attempts at giving me a history lesson about this fight are sorely unneeded.

]1. Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Frazier 3, Oct 1, 1975 Manila, Phillipines. Result: Ali TKO 14.

A grea fight...nay a war...not my number one though

2. Jack Dempsey vs Luis Firpo. Sept. 24, 1923 Polo Grounds. Result: Dempsey KO 2.

I have never felt this was a great fight, I have read so much about it
and been told it was all that...but I just dont 'appreciate' it perhaps.

3. Joe Jeannette vs Sam McVey, April 17 1909. Paris, France. Result: Jeannette TKO 49.

I have never seen this fight :(

4. Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Frazier 1. Mar 8, 1971. NY. Result: Frazier W 15.

Great fight, I prefer this to the third and second meeting...great back and forth
duel when both were near their peaks.

5. George Foreman vs. Ron Lyle. Jan 24, 1976. Las Vegas. Result: Foreman KO 5.

Was one of the first Foreman fights I ever saw it..had great respect
for him after it, short lived but fun to watch.

6. Rocky Marciano vs. Jersey Joe Walcott. Sept. 23, 1952 Philadelphia. Result: Marciano KO 13

I have not seen this one in a while..but I always wanted Walcott to win
it..he worked so hard in it but that short range power of Marciano..

7. Joe Louis vs. Billy Conn. June 18, 1941. New York. Result: Louis KO 13.

Great work by Conn...Louis never seemed to look frustrated...he seemed to
stalk after his fleet footed foe..one that should be studied.

8. Jim Jeffries vs. Tom Sharkey. November 3, 1899. Coney Island, NY. Result: Jeffries W 25
Film quality is poor sadly...and I have only seen whgat is on YouTube..hard
to determine what is realy happening unfortunately.

9. Floyd Patterson vs. Ingemar Johansson 3. Mar 13th, 1961. Miami Beach, Fl. Result: Patterson KO 6.
A good fight, not my favourite Patterson bout to watch but one of his
best wins.
10. Larry Holmes vs. Ken Norton. June 9, 1978. Las Vegas. Result: Holmes W 15 (split).
A good fight, both guys leave it all in the ring..

My Top 10....let me watch more fights...but it really depends on
my 'mood'.
So hard to compress so many great fights into just a top 10 :(

yancey wrote:
Not revisionist history at all from My2Sense.

He is exactly on target with his thoughts regarding the Ali-Frazier trilogy.

Your thoughts that their 2nd fight is the most important one and that the first fight was tainted are ludicrous.

I'm sure Frazier fans would have no problem with Frazier losing a fight where he was coming back from a long layoff, and would put less stock in the rematches.

Again, since everything needs to be explained very carefully on this forum, did I say that the second fight was as famous and as hyped and as "historically significant" as the first one? No. Was it more important in terms of the actual boxing, because they were on a level playing field? Yes. Do I care if you disagree? No.

The second fight needed three more rounds. A clear win for Ali,
but both men seemed a little 'flat' in comparison to their other
two fights.

When you say they were "at their peaks" that is a red herring, you see. Ali was certainly at his peak, or at least very close to it. That's not the issue. In the second fight he and Frazier were both active going in, so it was a level playing field. That's the difference. Was the fact that it wasn't a 15 rounder a damper on it, yeah, but that's not enough of a reason for me to say that it wasn't the most important of the three. And, as for those who want to say the first fight was the most important, which is very questionable in my mind; that still doesn't make the trilogy as a whole less important than the first fight individually.