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

He gave weight away to the useless Willard who is nowhere near the class of Wlad nor does he possess the same power.

A heavyweight puncher would finish him but not one weighing 190lbs, this all conquering power didn't account for either Tunney or Gibbons did it, two smaller men.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:He gave weight away to the useless Willard who is nowhere near the class of Wlad nor does he possess the same power.

A heavyweight puncher would finish him but not one weighing 190lbs, this all conquering power didn't account for either Tunney or Gibbons did it, two smaller men.

He'd be all over Wlad like a harbour shark. Another Tyson vs Bruno 2.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:He gave weight away to the useless Willard who is nowhere near the class of Wlad nor does he possess the same power.

A heavyweight puncher would finish him but not one weighing 190lbs, this all conquering power didn't account for either Tunney or Gibbons did it, two smaller men.

He'd be all over Wlad like a harbour shark. Another Tyson vs Bruno 2.

Too small......Dempsey weighed 188 for Carpentier.....

But as we will never see them fight nobody is wrong..

Reminds me of old Rod's assertion that Louis would claim the ring center against a marauding Foreman and own him with the jab..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:He gave weight away to the useless Willard who is nowhere near the class of Wlad nor does he possess the same power.

A heavyweight puncher would finish him but not one weighing 190lbs, this all conquering power didn't account for either Tunney or Gibbons did it, two smaller men.

He'd be all over Wlad like a harbour shark. Another Tyson vs Bruno 2.

Too small......Dempsey weighed 188 for Carpentier.....

Maybe, maybe not. I can see him closing the distance quicker than anyone Klitschko has seen and then CRUNCH.

If being a big giant was the trump card to heavyweight success then the heavyweight champion in every era would be a big 6'6 250 lber and nobody under 200lbs would ever have had a shot

No one is saying it does trump everything.......

Dempsey was a face first brawler.....Wlad is 60 pounds heavier.....

Much of the agument is being simplified into such and such would be too heavy for so and so. Im sure there were loads of people 60lbs heavier than the face first brawler back then. I dont believe that for half a century or more there wasnt a big man of Klitschko's size and talents anywhere to be found. They were probably being smashed out by smaller, better heavyweights.

Can't agree there catchy, there's a much larger pool of big lads to choose from now. There's an outside chance that some may have  athletic ability rather than willard - the cowboy who didn't like hurting people and didn't take up boxing until his late 20's... Or carnera, the circus freak (no offence Rowley). These guys were considered freaks and Giants.

Size isn't everything, we've all read the debates about optimal size for a heavy, where you end up with a trade off of strength, reach and power v mobility. I don't think there's such thing, boxing is always about who is able to make their advantages tell in a given fight. But we have weight classes for a reason, and the new generation of heavies have to a degree made their own class.

Dempsey transported in a time machine is giving ridiculous advantages away against a good heavy who knows how to use those advantages. Dempsey born 100 years later is a different matter. No doubt who should rank higher, but not much doubt over who would win in the time machine match up either.

So you dont think that for 70 odd years there was a boxer broadly resembling Wladimir Klitschkos size and skill lever that would have emerged to settle the argument? Not even a once off?

Of course there were. Some of them smashed by the smaller heavyweights. They are then conventiently dismissed as being pretty crap so they dont really count, But Klitschko who lost Purrity, Brewster, Sanders and Fury is the real deal.

If it was a case that a boxer of Klitschkos size and ability would have been too big for smaller heavyweights to beat, then it would have happened and it would have been obvious. Its far more telling that it didnt happen. Especially in an era where boxing was a much bigger sport than it is know with higher participation rates in the U.S.

What has been happening is that in U.S the rise of other professional sports like Basketball and American Football is now taking up all the talent and the money in those games has far outtripped what can be made by all but a handful of boxers. At schools and college levels there are no colleges offering boxing scholarships. Any talented and aspiring athlete in the U.S would be crazy to go down the boxing route unless they were in the small divisions that render them too small for the other sports. You are getting the dregs of athletes going into the heavyweights there. Failed nfl or basketball players that take up boxing late in there life.

The last paragraph is undoubtedly true, I referenced talent pools in an earlier post... It's offset to some degree by the fact that global mobility means we have more countries competing, latterly the demise of the Soviet Union has opened up those countries or we wouldn't be talking about klitschko.

You'll have to find examples to prove your earlier point... Of course there will have been some bigger guys, just a far smaller proportion and the reason why you or I haven't heard of them is because they weren't any good. Not because the klitschko clones were getting smashed by the small guys. Willard was considered a lumbering oaf and a pacifist... He won the title. Carnera, was world champion and, sorry again rowley, but are you really suggesting he was better than klitschko?

Also I think you're looking at absolutes not relatives. A guy like Willard at 6'5/6 and carnera were the equivalent of valuev today... And fought like him. Today's 6'5 guy is a 6'1 or 6'2 guy from that era. Genetically stronger, better fed.

It's a numbers game, look at the average size of top heavyweights... Why are the behemoths dominating if it's not an advantage? Sure there are guys like Tyson, like Holyfield, that prove if you're good enough you can win... But both weighed more than Dempsey and they're the exception. Just like big guys were the exception in dempsey's time.

I'm hardly suggesting that klitschko is the perfect model heavyweight, and that size us everything... I made that clear earlier, just that he has the attributes to make a better fist of fighting Dempsey than Willard!

Carpentier took plenty off Dempsey and he weighed 168..

Guess Dempsey's power dropped dramatically after Willard..

Strange that..

So do you believe he carried a metal spike Truss?

My point is, that if a Klitschko size and standard boxer was "too big" for smaller heavyweights then one would have emerged to prior 1990, 1980 or however far back you want to go, and would have become a dominant champion.

Yes there are more people now. Yes the average size of people have increased. Although "genetically stronger" makes it sound likes we have evolved into a different species rather than simple got a bit bigger. Fitter, stronger, faster is only as hard as you work in the gym and most of the heavyweights are slobbish.

That would make these guys even more at a premium back then. And every boxing promoter and trainer would be actively recruiting these big guys. There were still plenty of big guys around back then. People act like a 6'6 foot man weighing 250lbs was rarer than Bigfoot up until the 80s.

It would have taken just one boxer of Klitschko's size and abitlity in about 70 years to have emerged and had a dominat reign to emphasise this. Instead actually the opposite happened. The Klitschko sized boxers that ever did get near the title were walloped by the smaller ones spectacularly.

So yes, less big men about back then, but those that were should have been even more dominant champions against the smaller heavyweights. I think it is far more a case of the smaller quality heavyweights going into other sports leaving the crapper, bigger heavyweights to have a better run at things.

Rowley wrote:So do you believe he carried a metal spike Truss?

I don't know.......Just seemed very devastating...Willard's cheekbone broken in 12 places...ear done...Nose done...Broken ribs..

I've seen Carpentier and for a super middle he took some good shots in 4 rounds..

Decent fight for three rounds..

I'm biased against oldies...You're the other way..

Just how it is

Don't think it's a question of bias, more one of considering the evidence and what's plausible. In support of the theory we have the testimony of a disgruntled ex manager with a book to flog, corroborated by nobody else who was there.

Against that we have the footage that does not support the theory, and actually counters it. We have the counter evidence of other who were there and the sheer implausibility of it all.

As with most conspiracy theories I'll go with what common sense and the actual evidence tends to support.

Seeing as how Milky has mentioned time machines I have a serious question for anyone who wants to answer.

People talk about how heavyweights of today are too big for the heavyweights of the past. So I'm wondering, as Ali weighed between 201 to 212lbs during his first reign, if it was possible to grab Ali from 1966-67, and bring him into todays era, how would he do?

I wouldn't pick Ali to beat Lewis. He was faster and had more mental/physical toughness.

Lewis has a calm head, he wouldn't punch himself out. I think he has the jab and size to nick it on points.

Blasphemy I know, but even the great one can be beat.

Ali himself did say that he thought Lennox Lewis would beat him and that he was the best ever heavy

But Lewis was an exceptional heavyweight, one of the best. How would Ali cope with everyone else? He wasn't exactly a power punching heavyweight against fellow 200lb fighters, so how would he be able to stop 250lb fighters even though they may be very limited talent wise?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No one is saying it does trump everything.......

Dempsey was a face first brawler.....Wlad is 60 pounds heavier.....

He beat Jess Willard so size doesn't make an ounce of difference, the want to be historians will ignore that he was one of the worst ever heavyweight champions because it doesn't fit their agenda. Wlad doesn't lose to anyone weighing sub 200lbs.

The original incarnation of Ali is an interesting one and what makes him unique is his speed, unlike Dempsey or Marciano we know he can take a shot from the two biggest punchers of all time. He negates a lot of the bigger mens attributes with his own attributes something those predating him do not, Dempsey wouldn't stand up to Liston, Frazier and Foreman nor would Marciano, they'd be ragdolled in a couple of rounds.

Atila wrote:But Lewis was an exceptional heavyweight, one of the best. How would Ali cope with everyone else? He wasn't exactly a power punching heavyweight against fellow 200lb fighters, so how would he be able to stop 250lb fighters even though they may be very limited talent wise?

I think the Foreman fight is where this starts and ends, he can absorb punishment, slow his man down then close the show when he needs to, he may not have one punch power in the first round but come round 9 and 10 he'll still be there fresher than them.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No one is saying it does trump everything.......

Dempsey was a face first brawler.....Wlad is 60 pounds heavier.....

Ah the old misconception that Dempsey was just a face first brawler just ask Gene Tunney how difficult he was to catch flush constantly moving his head subtle amounts so that he was always either just outside range or too close to hit

Atila wrote:But Lewis was an exceptional heavyweight, one of the best. How would Ali cope with everyone else? He wasn't exactly a power punching heavyweight against fellow 200lb fighters, so how would he be able to stop 250lb fighters even though they may be very limited talent wise?

Simple. Most super heavies are chinny. Law of nature and Ali's got the speed to wear them out and find the chin

Lewis easy work for the young Ali by the way

Maybe. and there are examples of Ali's one -punch power.He's much overlooked for his punching power.

andygf wrote:Ali himself did say that he thought Lennox Lewis would beat him and that he was the best  ever heavy

Am always a bit wary of these comments by ex fighters. They tend to go one of two way. There is the Foreman approach of saying every heavyweight since them is the greatest of all time. Alternatively they go the way of Holmes and Corbett in saying that everyone since they hung them up could not carry their jockstrap.

I'm just glad Hearns fought Duran...

Or else people would say he beat the 6ft middle Barkley so he could have beaten Tommy..

Could Dempsey beat a 250 pound stiff...Yes..But not a good 250 pounder with a punch...fighting face first like a wild man at 12 pounds under the cruiser limit.

Like saying Louis takes center ring against Foreman or Frazier and owns them with the jab..

Doesn't happen with his chin.

If Fury, Sanders, Brewster and Purrity could beat Klitschko then Im sure Dempsey could. Weight be damned.

These big fighters from past generations that lost get written off as useless. The same kind of comments that are used about the current heavyweight champion ironically.

Willard was useless and Wlad is very good, there is a world of difference between the two, I appreciate that Dempsey has a legendary reputation but that is the sole reason why people are picking him to win despite standing zero chance.

Fury had zero chance against Klitschko as well. You can keep you predictions.

Dempsey and Fury are carbon copies of each other aren't they, sound logic.

Useless lumps don't beat Jack Johnson, even aged versions.

No, just your predictions are sh1t carbon copies of each other.

Only a moron would deal in absolutes involving great heavyweights.

Dempsey has zero chance against Klitschko is about as accurate as your Fury has zero chance against Klitschko.

It's hugely accurate, a past peak Wlad lost an uneventful fight against somebody bigger than him, there is zero possibility he loses to a reckless 190lb man with no real defence.

Your opinion is based purely on Dempsey having an overblown reputation, his so called devastating power was no where to be seen against two Light Heavyweights in Gibbons and Tunney.

Rowley wrote:Useless lumps don't beat Jack Johnson, even aged versions.

It happened so they do.

Its not accurate at all. You dont have a clue. That you would rule Dempsey out completely against a boxer like Klitschko say it all. As accurate as Fury having zero chance against Klitschko.

No need to be explain how that one panned out after the event. We all saw it.

The fact you give Dempsey even the smallest chance shows that you're doing it based purely on media reputation, oh no but ducks and dives under his jab and then bang it's over, that kind of crap yeah Catchy?

This guy is the gift that keeps on giving.

Thought that it was a given that smaller heavies are useful at fighting on the inside...of course his tactic would be something like that. I would have thought that if we want to think of a more "limited" smaller heavy atg, we would come up with Marciano? Couldn't see him mixing it with Tunney tbh, Dempsey's rule was more convincing than his...just a thought..

Limited he may have been Marciano but every punch he threw hurt on the arms body wherever he never threw weak punches he loaded up on everything and he could do it for fifteen rounds. A truly ferocious fighting man

Rowley, Chris and hammy are far more clued up on the old guys than me, so I'm happy to be corrected, but My understanding was that Willard was a big lump of a cowboy, with a rep as a lumbering oaf, and a bit of a pacifist in the ring who fought as a counter puncher, because he liked to think of it as self defence... But with an ability to absorb large amounts of punishment. That durability is the reason why the destruction by Dempsey was so shocking... In itself enough reason for conspiracy theories to develop.

Whichever, we're not talking about Willard in our top 20 heavies... Or top 40 or top whatever

Also which wlad are we talking about... The more reckless pre manny version could potentially get knocked out by any heavy with a punch if he didn't get them first, which he usually did. The guy who learnt how to protect his chin with the jab and grab was a more boring but much harder problem to solve. Hard for me to see how he doesn't lean on any cruiser for a few rounds to knacker them out before delivering the coup de grace.

The only comparison between Willard and wlad is size.

milkyboy wrote:
The only comparison between Willard and wlad is size.

You've hit the nail on the head with that one Milky, being big on it's own doesn't mean a thing but being big and very good as Wlad is makes him an impossible proposition for the small old time Heavyweights.

Carlos Monzon for instance is undoubtably one of the two finest Middleweights in history, would feel confident rating him higher P4P than Bob Foster but wouldn't give him a hope in hell of winning, the size difference is too big to overcome combined with the ability. We'll take everyones favourite Floyd Mayweather, clearly a better boxer than Golovkin but the size makes it a mismatch.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

milkyboy wrote:
The only comparison between Willard and wlad is size.

You've hit the nail on the head with that one Milky, being big on it's own doesn't mean a thing but being big and very good as Wlad is makes him an impossible proposition for the small old time Heavyweights.

Carlos Monzon for instance is undoubtably one of the two finest Middleweights in history, would feel confident rating him higher P4P than Bob Foster but wouldn't give him a hope in hell of winning, the size difference is too big to overcome combined with the ability. We'll take everyones favourite Floyd Mayweather, clearly a better boxer than Golovkin but the size makes it a mismatch.

You must apply the same logic to Ali vs Klitschko then? Ali never beat anyone that big.

Heavyweights are a different kettle of fish to middleweights. Dempsey had a heavyweight punch. Klitschko would have crapped himself with Jack coming at him. He'd have been caught, hurt and then fallen to pieces.

catchweight wrote:No, just your predictions are sh1t carbon copies of each other.

Only a moron would deal in absolutes involving great heavyweights.

Dempsey has zero chance against Klitschko is about as accurate as your Fury has zero chance against Klitschko.

Worst tipster on the board. Made worse because he's always so aloof when making the wrong pick! "This guy will definitely beat that guy....sniff..."

Some guys just like keeping Roger Mayweather in the catchphrase business.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

milkyboy wrote:
The only comparison between Willard and wlad is size.

You've hit the nail on the head with that one Milky, being big on it's own doesn't mean a thing but being big and very good as Wlad is makes him an impossible proposition for the small old time Heavyweights.

Carlos Monzon for instance is undoubtably one of the two finest Middleweights in history, would feel confident rating him higher P4P than Bob Foster but wouldn't give him a hope in hell of winning, the size difference is too big to overcome combined with the ability. We'll take everyones favourite Floyd Mayweather, clearly a better boxer than Golovkin but the size makes it a mismatch.

You must apply the same logic to Ali vs Klitschko then? Ali never beat anyone that big.

Heavyweights are a different kettle of fish to middleweights. Denpsey had a heavyweight punch. Klitschko would have crapped himself with Jack coming at him. He'd have been caught, hurt and then fallen to pieces.

Why must that logic apply to Ali vs Klitschko, it is an entirely different match up involving the smaller guy being far far better than the bigger guy negating his size with his speed and dazzling footwork, Dempsey has neither of those things.

You say they're different because it doesn't suit your agenda to accept that size can and does play a part, it doesn't fit your agenda to even merely suggest that a modern boxer can beat a revered old timer.

Baloney. Dempsey was a vicious puncher with the ability to knock 7 bells out of big heavyweights. More than capable of knocking Klitschko out.

catchweight wrote:Baloney. Dempsey was a vicious puncher with the ability to knock 7 bells out of big heavyweights. More than capable of knocking Klitschko out.

Capable of knocking out crap like Jess Willard more like, didn't have the ability to knock out either Gibbons or Tunney did he.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

milkyboy wrote:
The only comparison between Willard and wlad is size.

You've hit the nail on the head with that one Milky, being big on it's own doesn't mean a thing but being big and very good as Wlad is makes him an impossible proposition for the small old time Heavyweights.

Carlos Monzon for instance is undoubtably one of the two finest Middleweights in history, would feel confident rating him higher P4P than Bob Foster but wouldn't give him a hope in hell of winning, the size difference is too big to overcome combined with the ability. We'll take everyones favourite Floyd Mayweather, clearly a better boxer than Golovkin but the size makes it a mismatch.

You must apply the same logic to Ali vs Klitschko then? Ali never beat anyone that big.

Heavyweights are a different kettle of fish to middleweights. Denpsey had a heavyweight punch. Klitschko would have crapped himself with Jack coming at him. He'd have been caught, hurt and then fallen to pieces.

Why must that logic apply to Ali vs Klitschko, it is an entirely different match up involving the smaller guy being far far better than the bigger guy negating his size with his speed and dazzling footwork, Dempsey has neither of those things.

You say they're different because it doesn't suit your agenda to accept that size can and does play a part, it doesn't fit your agenda to even merely suggest that a modern boxer can beat a revered old timer.

Klitschko is far more likely to lose to a speedy, busy power puncher than a guy who boxed. Ali would suit Klitschko down to the ground and he'd have no fear in what was coming back the other way (unlike against Dempsey).

If you're going to apply this "bigger = better" nonsense then you have to apply it to Ali, too. Styles make fights and Ali doesn't match up well to Klitschko (if, as you do, you feel size matters at heavyweight).

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:No, just your predictions are sh1t carbon copies of each other.

Only a moron would deal in absolutes involving great heavyweights.

Dempsey has zero chance against Klitschko is about as accurate as your Fury has zero chance against Klitschko.

Worst tipster on the board. Made worse because he's always so aloof when making the wrong pick! "This guy will definitely beat that guy....sniff..."

Some guys just like keeping Roger Mayweather in the catchphrase business.

Yup. Fury is a useless oaf with no talent and zero chance of beating Klitschko. But Klitschko is so good that that Dempsey has zero chance of winning.

catchweight wrote:Baloney. Dempsey was a vicious puncher with the ability to knock 7 bells out of big heavyweights. More than capable of knocking Klitschko out.

Dempsey was probably better suited to fighting bigger men. Look how well Tyson did against big men like Bruno, Ribalta, Holmes, Ruddock etc. As Tyson himself said, they were so big he couldn't miss. And if he could clag you right...

He'd have no fear against Dempsey whatsoever and he has the ability to end it any time he wants. Dempsey is no Ali, there's levels between them, it's like comparing Kell Brook to Ray Robinson.

This is where you're infantile, i've not said that bigger is better but there comes a point when size overcomes ability hence why there is weight classes in the first place but ignore it as it doesn't suit your historian biased agenda. Bob Mee says Jack Dempsey was a devastating freight train of a man so he therefore is in any era, unable to use your brain.