The Greatest Heavyweight. My All Time Top Twenty

First topic message reminder :

Been a while since we did one of these so thought it might be worth revisiting our oft debated topic of the top heavyweights. Just for variety and to push myself a bit I have broken with tradition and not stopped once I reached ten. Today you get a full top twenty. As tends to be the trend I have not included Sullivan, despite him generally being considered the first champion under Queensbury rules as most of his significant fights were under London Ring Rules it seems unfair to include him as he would either feature far lower than his talents deserve or far higher than his record under Queensbury rules warrants.
 
Putting this together was a lot harder than I imagined. I tend to have a solid seven or eight fighters I feel confident deserve to feature in the top ten and then around another six or seven fighting it out to make up the top ten. Splitting them or deciding who warrants to make up the top ten is nigh on impossible. All of them tend to have some significant highs in their career, i.e Tunney beating Dempsey twice, but some serious lows i.e Lewis getting sparked by Rahman.  Also once you get past those deciding who should fill out the top twenty is similarly a bit tricky. Despite being the flagship division the talent pool is not always that deep at heavy. Seems odd to do a top twenty for 120 years of the division where guys who either have one or two defences to their name or none whatsoever warrant genuine consideration.  Also saying one guy’s one defence is better than another guy’s one defence does somewhat feel like an exercise in sorting out who is the tallest dwarf.

1 Ali
2 Louis
3 Johnson
4 Jeffries
5 Holmes
6 Dempsey
7 Foreman
8 Frazier
9 Lewis
10 Marciano
11 Holyfield
12 Tyson
13 Tunney
14 Liston
15 W Klitschko
16 Charles
17 Walcott
18 Wills
19 Langford
20 Corbett

AdamT wrote:But Dempsey wouldn't be the puncher. Wlad would!

It's a different time. Punchers now, most likely hit a lot harder than 80-100 years ago.

Wlad would just grab and lean on him. Bully him with the jab. Dempsey was most likely better for his time, but it's absurd to think he could beat the monster heavyweights now. It's like a different division.

You're basing that argument on the Dempsey of the Tunney fights though Adam where he had lost 50% of his speed and most of his ferociousness the Willard Dempsey would have Wlad pee ing before they even touched gloves

Or it could just be that Gene Tunney was lightyears ahead of his time and simply a better boxer than Dempsey not to mention being one tough SOB.

Just coz I won't go along with your group think I'm now a comedy account?

Dempsey's promoter Kearns said years later his gloves were illegal when he beat Willard...

Doc Kearns showed an 8mm projector film to Pacheco just before he died..where Kearns pointed to an iron spike falling out of Dempsey's glove at the end of the first and a man in a hat taking it away....

Secondary evidence so take it or leave it...Films can be altered and Kearns seemed to take pleasure in admitting it one minute and denying the next.....

But I wouldn't have put it past Dempsey or Kearns..

After all Dempsey was a draft dodger that threw fights..

Ok Hammer if you think the Tunney Dempsey was the same as the earlier version then that backs up my claim that your knowledge of the division is scant at best

It's common sense to believe a far bigger good man wins.

How would Andre Ward do against David Haye?? He is better pound for pound, but he would be destroyed.

Size matters. Ali was close to Wlad's size, but Dempsey/Marciano are no where near.

Herman Jaeger wrote:Ok Hammer if you think the Tunney Dempsey was the same as the earlier version then that backs up my claim that your knowledge of the division is scant at best

Gene Tunney was the best opponent that Dempsey faced, he was years ahead of anyone else at the time, he was very tough and his skill set meant Dempsey couldn't get near him. Facing stationery opponents he looked destructive but the Gibbons fight showed that against movers and those strong on the inside he looked anything but.

These chinny supers have a terror of the short compact dynamite punchers that's the way it is there have been very few of them though but Tyson was another one of them

AdamT wrote:It's common sense to believe a far bigger good man wins.

How would Andre Ward do against David Haye?? He is better pound for pound, but he would be destroyed.

Size matters. Ali was close to Wlad's size, but Dempsey/Marciano are no where near.

You're forgetting styles make fights.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

AdamT wrote:It's common sense to believe a far bigger good man wins.

How would Andre Ward do against David Haye?? He is better pound for pound, but he would be destroyed.

Size matters. Ali was close to Wlad's size, but Dempsey/Marciano are no where near.

You're forgetting styles make fights.....

And?? you think 13 stone heavies beat 17 stone ones??

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:Ok Hammer if you think the Tunney Dempsey was the same as the earlier version then that backs up my claim that your knowledge of the division is scant at best

Gene Tunney was the best opponent that Dempsey faced, he was years ahead of anyone else at the time, he was very tough and his skill set meant Dempsey couldn't get near him. Facing stationery opponents he looked destructive but the Gibbons fight showed that against movers and those strong on the inside he looked anything but.

Dempsey struggled with lighter fighters more his own size but he loved nothing better than a slow tall man suited his style right down to the ground

Herman Jaeger wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:Ok Hammer if you think the Tunney Dempsey was the same as the earlier version then that backs up my claim that your knowledge of the division is scant at best

Gene Tunney was the best opponent that Dempsey faced, he was years ahead of anyone else at the time, he was very tough and his skill set meant Dempsey couldn't get near him. Facing stationery opponents he looked destructive but the Gibbons fight showed that against movers and those strong on the inside he looked anything but.

Dempsey struggled with lighter fighters more his own size but he loved nothing better than a slow tall man suited his style right down to the ground

Based on one fight against the slow lumbering Jess Willard?

AdamT wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

AdamT wrote:It's common sense to believe a far bigger good man wins.

How would Andre Ward do against David Haye?? He is better pound for pound, but he would be destroyed.

Size matters. Ali was close to Wlad's size, but Dempsey/Marciano are no where near.

You're forgetting styles make fights.....

And?? you think 13 stone heavies beat 17 stone ones??

Spinks beat Holmes....
Conn should have beat Louis....
Jones beat Ruiz......
Burns weighed 156 when he was Heavy champ.....
Haye beat Valuev......

I'd pick Haye to beat Ward................But weight isn't everything..

Name me another 50 examples Truss, not just a few. Also have the guys at a similar skill level and we will see if size matters.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:Ok Hammer if you think the Tunney Dempsey was the same as the earlier version then that backs up my claim that your knowledge of the division is scant at best

Gene Tunney was the best opponent that Dempsey faced, he was years ahead of anyone else at the time, he was very tough and his skill set meant Dempsey couldn't get near him. Facing stationery opponents he looked destructive but the Gibbons fight showed that against movers and those strong on the inside he looked anything but.

Dempsey struggled with lighter fighters more his own size but he loved nothing better than a slow tall man suited his style right down to the ground

Based on one fight against the slow lumbering Jess Willard?

And Wlad is Meldrick Taylor quiick right

Truss do me a list of much smaller men that beat bigger men.

I will do a list were the bigger stronger man wins.

We will see who comes out on top.

There's nothing there is there Herman, just a litany of cliches you've read on here before.

Haye didn't outspeed Wlad nor did Chris Byrd so safe to say he's a lot quicker on his feet than you want to accept.

Haye is useless at getting inside the young Dempsey was a master at it

You're full blown mate you really are

AdamT wrote:But Dempsey wouldn't be the puncher. Wlad would!

It's a different time. Punchers now, most likely hit a lot harder than 80-100 years ago.

Wlad would just grab and lean on him. Bully him with the jab. Dempsey was most likely better for his time, but it's absurd to think he could beat the monster heavyweights now. It's like a different division.

I don't think there's much justification for that claim.

AdamT wrote:Truss do me a list of much smaller men that beat bigger men.

I will do a list were the bigger stronger man wins.

We will see who comes out on top.

I'm not the one with a one size fits all argument..

So I don't have to..

Well there are exceptions to the rule. However, MOST of the time the far bigger man would win. Especially if they are both champions of their eras.

Sure who cares if Wlad beats Dempsey. Tubbs beats both at the same time. hahahaha

Isn't this argument just a knock on the old guard? If you genuinely believe bigger is better, then start including Ali in these things (something tells me the tune will change).

Klitschko would surely have been too big for light-punching Ali?

Everything is black and white to you isn't it buddy ??....No grey areas.

You'll grow out of it..

Ali was significantly bigger than Dempsey and Marciano; height, reach and weight not to mention being far far quicker. I also think Liston, Foreman, Frazier and many others would dispute him being a light puncher.

On the subject of great fighters who never got a shot at the title I'll just throw in this article on Godfrey and be done with it, interesting story about Dempsey though I'm sure most of you will already know it:

http://www.theboxingglove.com/2016/08/on-this-day-george-godfrey-black-shadow.html?m=1

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Ali was significantly bigger than Dempsey and Marciano; height, reach and weight not to mention being far far quicker. I also think Liston, Foreman, Frazier and many others would dispute him being a light puncher.

But significantly smaller than Klitschko/Bowe/Lewis etc. (which seems to be the crux of your argument). If Klitschko would beat Dempsey due to his size, he'd beat Ali, too.

I don't agree with any of that - just hoisting you by your own petard.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Ali was significantly bigger than Dempsey and Marciano; height, reach and weight not to mention being far far quicker. I also think Liston, Foreman, Frazier and many others would dispute him being a light puncher.

But significantly smaller than Klitschko/Bowe/Lewis etc. (which seems to be the crux of your argument). If Klitschko would beat Dempsey due to his size, he'd beat Ali, too.

I don't agree with any of that - just hoisting you by your own petard.

"Petard", Truss, "Petard". Not "leotard".

superflyweight wrote:"Petard", Truss, "Petard".  Not "leotard".    

Wasn't he in Star Trek ?

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Ali was significantly bigger than Dempsey and Marciano; height, reach and weight not to mention being far far quicker. I also think Liston, Foreman, Frazier and many others would dispute him being a light puncher.

But significantly smaller than Klitschko/Bowe/Lewis etc. (which seems to be the crux of your argument). If Klitschko would beat Dempsey due to his size, he'd beat Ali, too.

I don't agree with any of that - just hoisting you by your own petard.

Not really the same argument is it, Ali on his return was a solid 220lbs that's a good 2 stone heavier than Dempsey ever was not to mention he was simply better than him.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:"Petard", Truss, "Petard".  Not "leotard".    

Wasn't he in Star Trek ?

Yeah - and Kirk whips him every which way but loose. So much for generational improvement.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Ali was significantly bigger than Dempsey and Marciano; height, reach and weight not to mention being far far quicker. I also think Liston, Foreman, Frazier and many others would dispute him being a light puncher.

But significantly smaller than Klitschko/Bowe/Lewis etc. (which seems to be the crux of your argument). If Klitschko would beat Dempsey due to his size, he'd beat Ali, too.

I don't agree with any of that - just hoisting you by your own petard.

Not really the same argument is it, Ali on his return was a solid 220lbs that's a good 2 stone heavier than Dempsey ever was not to mention he was simply better than him.

And Klitschko was heavier again. If you think size is the crucial factor in a hypothetical match between ATGs, then surely you have to apply the same logic to Klitschko/Bowe/Lewis vs Ali?

Load of old fluff in my book. The old guys were quicker and tougher - Dempsey would have been all over Wlad like you and a Hopkins photo shoot. Especially on the "supplements" WK has been quaffing.

You think Dempsey would beat Wlad???

AdamT wrote:You think Dempsey would beat Wlad???

Yep. Dempsey was a great fighter, Wlad wasn't. If you're inventing a time machine fo them to fight in, then either Jack is provided the old ripped fuel to bulk up or Klitschko goes on a harsh diet to slim down. Dempsey would have chased him out of the ring.

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:You think Dempsey would beat Wlad???

Yep. Dempsey was a great fighter, Wlad wasn't. If you're inventing a time machine fo them to fight in, then either Jack is provided the old ripped fuel to bulk up or Klitschko goes on a harsh diet to slim down. Dempsey would have chased him out of the ring.

Was Wlad caught taking ripped fuel??

I can only judge fighters on what I have seen. On video evidence, Dempsey looks like he would be destroyed by someone like Frazier or Tyson.

You can't compare fighters on a head to head basis across eras... nutrition, training, technique, talent pool size are all different. With heavies you have the added factor of size. It's futile. You can only look at records, and only be the best of your era.

You can compare records across eras and factor in strength of competition etc, but even that's subjective as dominant champions will often make the opposition seem weak.... De Jesus might be many people's greatest lightweight were it not for Duran. We love atg p4p lists as it makes good pub talk but it's all bollox

Still if you have time for a Friday afternoon bickering session then why not.

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:You think Dempsey would beat Wlad???

Yep. Dempsey was a great fighter, Wlad wasn't. If you're inventing a time machine fo them to fight in, then either Jack is provided the old ripped fuel to bulk up or Klitschko goes on a harsh diet to slim down. Dempsey would have chased him out of the ring.

Was Wlad caught taking ripped fuel??

I can only judge fighters on what I have seen. On video evidence, Dempsey looks like he would be destroyed by someone like Frazier or Tyson.

So you'd not rate Napoleon or Alexander as great military leaders despite most historians suggesting as much because you never saw them in action?

I can see that fighters like Tyson, or Holyfield were better than Dempsey head to head. Don't need fossils to tell me otherwise.

My eyes can judge for themselves.

Poor old Dempsey, he has received a bigger kicking on here than anyone ever gave him in the ring. Not only is Willard a lumbering oaf, he is a lumbering oaf Dempsey could only get past by cheating!

As it goes, with the metal lump story I have never been sold it is correct. Kearns and Dempsey had issues later in their working career and so Doc had reasons to try and stick the boot in. Also if you watch the fight there are countless occasions Dempsey pushes Willard off with open gloves, if he was carrying a piece of metal this is a complete impossibility without dropping the lump. Post-fight there is certainly a small lump in the ring, but a more plausible explanation is it was a cigar stub thrown in during the post-fight hullaballoo. Also if you were going to use a metal bar, which you know is a serious offence that would result in an almost certain ban from the sport, would you not dispose of it with a bit more subtlety. Surely passing it to one of your corner men when they entered the ring at the conclusion would make a lot more sense.

I appreciate it is not the most popular view point around here at the minute but Dempsey could actually fight. He had decent head movement, a lot of power and at the time represented something of a leap forward from what had been seen previously. Very few heavyweights utilised the crouched style and the bobbing and weaving Dempsey relied on, most stood upright a la Corbett or Johnson, a genuine heavyweight looking to slip punches, get on someone’s chest and hook opponents to head and body was something of a new innovation. It does not really take too much imagination to believe such a fighter would be able to overwhelm a solid but unspectacular heavyweight such as Willard, particularly when one throws in a good amount of inactivity on Jess’ part.

Most boxing historians state that SRR was the finest WW that ever lived and although there's no footage to back this up we'll happily go along with that opinion because the people who came to that conclusion knew what the f*ck they were talking about.

Don't care what they say. They wouldn't be biased, would they??

Loads of historians would also state Pele as the best footballer ever. My eyes tell me different. Athletes get better. Not worse.

AdamT wrote:Don't care what they say. They wouldn't be biased, would they??

Loads of historians would also state Pele as the best footballer ever. My eyes tell me different. Athletes get better. Not worse.

Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Muhammed Ali, Mike Tyson....Audley Harrison!

Would Bob Fitzsimmons be competitive in today's HW division, Would Marciano, would Louis, would Ali?

Would Pele be competitive in todays footballing circles, would Di Stefano, would Maradonna? It's a matter of opinion but some opinions can be backed up with pretty compelling evidence.

AdamT wrote:Loads of historians would also state Pele as the best footballer ever. My eyes tell me different

Would he still feature near the top of the list of players you've seen play, though, especially given the amount of footage there is available?

Rowley wrote:Poor old Dempsey, he has received a bigger kicking on here than anyone ever gave him in the ring. Not only is Willard a lumbering oaf, he is a lumbering oaf Dempsey could only get past by cheating!

As it goes, with the metal lump story I have never been sold it is correct. Kearns and Dempsey had issues later in their working career and so Doc had reasons to try and stick the boot in. Also if you watch the fight there are countless occasions Dempsey pushes Willard off with open gloves, if he was carrying a piece of metal this is a complete impossibility without dropping the lump. Post-fight there is certainly a small lump in the ring, but a more plausible explanation is it was a cigar stub thrown in during the post-fight hullaballoo.  Also if you were going to use a metal bar, which you know is a serious offence that would result in an almost certain ban from the sport, would you not dispose of it with a bit more subtlety. Surely passing it to one of your corner men when they  entered the ring at the conclusion would make a lot more sense.

I appreciate it is not the most popular view point around here at the minute but Dempsey could actually fight. He had decent head movement, a lot of power and at the time represented something of a leap forward from what had been seen previously. Very few heavyweights utilised the crouched style and the bobbing and weaving Dempsey relied on, most stood upright a la Corbett or Johnson, a genuine heavyweight looking to slip punches, get on someone’s chest and hook opponents to head and body was something of a new innovation. It does not really take too much imagination to believe such a fighter would be able to overwhelm a solid but unspectacular heavyweight such as Willard, particularly when one throws in a good amount of inactivity on Jess’ part.  

Dempsey was a product of his times.......An early 20th century Tyson.....Top fighter but limited..

As for Kearns he did show Pacheco the film.....Pacheco and others were dumbfounded...

Do I believe his gloves were loaded I don't really care.....

But none of us are experts are we ??

For his era yeah. Though athletes get better.

Was Dempsey better for his era that Lewis? Maybe!

Would he beat him? Not a chance in hell.

AdamT wrote:For his era yeah. Though athletes get better.

Was Dempsey better for his era that Lewis? Maybe!

Would he beat him? Not a chance in hell.

Unfair comparison...............People were smaller in Dempsey's day..

Average height in 1900 - 5ft 6.....

Average Height in 2000 - 5ft 10....

People are bigger now...............Corbett was 190......Sounds great Fitz winning the midd---light heavy and Heavy.....

But he beat a small cruiser....

Amazing how the lists on here change though...............Rowley has been moaning about Gentleman Jim for years and now he's put him in his Top 20 !!

On Dempsey and the spike:

http://thecruelestsport.com/2015/06/25/hard-times-the-mystery-of-the-jack-dempsey-jess-willard-fight/

All I'm saying is, who would win. I'm not saying who was better in their time. Couldn't really care. Not old enough to have seen Dempsey fight.

Rowley wrote:

I appreciate it is not the most popular view point around here at the minute but Dempsey could actually fight. He had decent head movement, a lot of power and at the time represented something of a leap forward from what had been seen previously. Very few heavyweights utilised the crouched style and the bobbing and weaving Dempsey relied on, most stood upright a la Corbett or Johnson, a genuine heavyweight looking to slip punches, get on someone’s chest and hook opponents to head and body was something of a new innovation. It does not really take too much imagination to believe such a fighter would be able to overwhelm a solid but unspectacular heavyweight such as Willard, particularly when one throws in a good amount of inactivity on Jess’ part.  

You can argue that Dempsey straddled the eras, he brought a new style to crush the upright heavies of his day, and met his match with a fighter considered ahead of his time stylistically.

Maybe the heavies were just slow learners, gans and Leonard didn't typify their age either.

My beef with the typical (not on here!) high ranking of Dempsey. Always thought he was the media star of his day and that the record didn't quite support the billing. Still a great, obviously.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Ali was significantly bigger than Dempsey and Marciano; height, reach and weight not to mention being far far quicker. I also think Liston, Foreman, Frazier and many others would dispute him being a light puncher.

But significantly smaller than Klitschko/Bowe/Lewis etc. (which seems to be the crux of your argument). If Klitschko would beat Dempsey due to his size, he'd beat Ali, too.

I don't agree with any of that - just hoisting you by your own petard.

Not really the same argument is it, Ali on his return was a solid 220lbs that's a good 2 stone heavier than Dempsey ever was not to mention he was simply better than him.

And Klitschko was heavier again. If you think size is the crucial factor in a hypothetical match between ATGs, then surely you have to apply the same logic to Klitschko/Bowe/Lewis vs Ali?

Load of old fluff in my book. The old guys were quicker and tougher - Dempsey would have been all over Wlad like you and a Hopkins photo shoot. Especially on the "supplements" WK has been quaffing.

It seems beyond you, Ali was good enough to overcome a 25lb weight disadvantage to beat someone of the calibre of Wlad. Dempsey was not good enough to overcome a 60lb weight disadvantage to beat someone of the calibre of Wlad.

Were Ali and Dempsey the same size then your facetiousness might have some validity but they weren't.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Ali was significantly bigger than Dempsey and Marciano; height, reach and weight not to mention being far far quicker. I also think Liston, Foreman, Frazier and many others would dispute him being a light puncher.

But significantly smaller than Klitschko/Bowe/Lewis etc. (which seems to be the crux of your argument). If Klitschko would beat Dempsey due to his size, he'd beat Ali, too.

I don't agree with any of that - just hoisting you by your own petard.

Not really the same argument is it, Ali on his return was a solid 220lbs that's a good 2 stone heavier than Dempsey ever was not to mention he was simply better than him.

And Klitschko was heavier again. If you think size is the crucial factor in a hypothetical match between ATGs, then surely you have to apply the same logic to Klitschko/Bowe/Lewis vs Ali?

Load of old fluff in my book. The old guys were quicker and tougher - Dempsey would have been all over Wlad like you and a Hopkins photo shoot. Especially on the "supplements" WK has been quaffing.

It seems beyond you, Ali was good enough to overcome a 25lb weight disadvantage to beat someone of the calibre of Wlad. Dempsey was not good enough to overcome a 60lb weight disadvantage to beat someone of the calibre of Wlad.

Were Ali and Dempsey the same size then your facetiousness might have some validity but they weren't.

Even though Dempsey overcame a 60 lb. weight advantage to a man of similar proportions to Klitschko whereas - outside of tubby Buster Mathis - Ali rarely gave weight away (and certainly nothing like 25 lb.).

More fluff and nonsense.

At heavyweight, weight discrepancies are overblown. You can bang on about Klitschko's technical prowess (when compared to Willard) all you like but if a great heavyweight puncher tagged him he'd wilt.