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

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

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.

No he was capable of knocking out big men because he hit damn hard.

catchweight wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

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.

No he was capable of knocking out big men because he hit damn hard.

That's total crap, he was able to knock out punch bags, the moment somebody showed him the slightest bit of movement he barely touched them let alone knock them out.

catchweight wrote:

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.

Yep. Yet little Steve Cunningham came closest to beating Fury because he was so quick and accurate he couldn't miss. Imagine he had Dempsey's chin?

Listen to yourself. You are talking about one of the greatest heavyweights in history. Its embarrassing.

Hammersmith harrier wrote: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.

I stopped reading at Kell Brook.

Klitschko would be worried about Ali (who wasn't a devastating puncher at heavyweight) but wouldn't be worried about one of the division's most devastating attacking forces?

Ok man. Thumbs up to that one.

Dempsey was a devastating force back in the 1920's just like Bob Fitzsimmons was devastating in the 1890's but times move on it's about time you two moved on with your opinions.

You would be righfully laughed out of town for your "modern opinions" of boxing by anyone who knew anything about boxing. Dempsey has ZERO chance against Klitschko and anyone who thinks otherwise is living in the past. Laughable nonsense.

Insightful as ever there Catchweight, you're far too preoccupied with what you should think to think for yourself.

No, right now im preoccupied with your rubbish. You think you are some sort of boxing renaissance man for these nonsense "opinions of your own". You dont know jack. Giving Jack Demspey zero chance of beating a heavyweight like Klitchko says it all. Too funny. Made all the more hilarious by the fact you think this is some kind of revolutionary thinking.

If thinking for yourself results in nonsense, maybe defer to those who are more clued up.

3859 posts and counting of absolute garbage, it's not revolutionary think in the slightest just using a bit of common sense.

hazharrison wrote:If thinking for yourself results in nonsense, maybe defer to those who are more clued up.

Referring to those who are apparently more clued up ends up with your nonsense, I suppose Dempsey gave Tunney a famed silent beating.

As common sense as you Fury has zero chance of beating Klitschko

Shock horror, boxing fan gets prediction terribly wrong, almost as if it's the first time it's ever happened.

Its not the prediction, its the manner of its presentation thats revealing. Anyone who thought Fury had a chance "knew nothing", they were deluded Fury fans, the talked rubbish, yada yada yada.

Now its anyone who thinks Demspsey has a chance of beating Klitschko is just copying some historian, stuck in the past and cant think for themselves.

Pull the other one and stop being a jackass all the time.

That really hurts Catchweight, I wish I had your knowledge of the sport I really do.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:If thinking for yourself results in nonsense, maybe defer to those who are more clued up.

Referring to those who are apparently more clued up ends up with your nonsense, I suppose Dempsey gave Tunney a famed silent beating.

Hilarious. A clarion call to your half-witted alliance?

It's not a competition.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That really hurts Catchweight, I wish I had your knowledge of the sport I really do.

He knows way more than you do! Maybe try some contrition instead of this pretentious notion you're always right (even when it's consistently proven you rarely are).

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That really hurts Catchweight, I wish I had your knowledge of the sport I really do.

He knows way more than you do! Maybe try some contrition instead of this pretentious notion you're always right (even when it's consistently proven you rarely are).

He knows about as much as you Haz which is very little, you seem to think there's a right and wrong when it comes to opinions, I couldn't give a toss what the historians think so bore somebody else with it.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:If thinking for yourself results in nonsense, maybe defer to those who are more clued up.

Referring to those who are apparently more clued up ends up with your nonsense, I suppose Dempsey gave Tunney a famed silent beating.

Hilarious. A clarion call to your half-witted alliance?

Can't debate without striking out like a child....Can you ?

Poor old Milky was told to "Wink away Winker"

Anyway as you were...

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That really hurts Catchweight, I wish I had your knowledge of the sport I really do.

He knows way more than you do! Maybe try some contrition instead of this pretentious notion you're always right (even when it's consistently proven you rarely are).

He knows about as much as you Haz which is very little, you seem to think there's a right and wrong when it comes to opinions, I couldn't give a toss what the historians think so bore somebody else with it.

I'll take that as a compliment!

Knows his stuff that lad

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:If thinking for yourself results in nonsense, maybe defer to those who are more clued up.

Referring to those who are apparently more clued up ends up with your nonsense, I suppose Dempsey gave Tunney a famed silent beating.

Hilarious. A clarion call to your half-witted alliance?

Can't debate without striking out like a child....Can you ?

Poor old Milky was told to "Wink away Winker"

Anyway as you were...

Ha, better than a thistle whistle.

Calm down...If you think Dempsey beats Wlad..

It's OK. ..

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That really hurts Catchweight, I wish I had your knowledge of the sport I really do.

He knows way more than you do! Maybe try some contrition instead of this pretentious notion you're always right (even when it's consistently proven you rarely are).

He knows about as much as you Haz which is very little, you seem to think there's a right and wrong when it comes to opinions, I couldn't give a toss what the historians think so bore somebody else with it.

So, when I said:

"I like Fury in this fight and think he'll give Klitschko fits, however, Wlad has that other-worldly punch power (he's ridiculously muscled for a 39-year old heavyweight) and Fury always tends to get tagged at least once with a big one.

If Wlad doesn't land a big one then I think you'll see him look more of a wet lettuce than ever before. Fury won't be intimidated, he won't fold and he'll show Wlad plenty of speed, movement and workrate.

It's must-see TV and if Fury were to win I would be absolutely over the moon."

And you said:

"Wlad within 3 in an easy one sided jab induced beat down."

Neither of us was right or wrong? Any opinion is right? Or are all opinions wrong?

Very confusing.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:If thinking for yourself results in nonsense, maybe defer to those who are more clued up.

Referring to those who are apparently more clued up ends up with your nonsense, I suppose Dempsey gave Tunney a famed silent beating.

Hilarious. A clarion call to your half-witted alliance?

Can't debate without striking out like a child....Can you ?

Poor old Milky was told to "Wink away Winker"

Anyway as you were...

Poor old milky? I found the Winkergate meltdown quite entertaining. I switched off from this spat last night when I saw how it was going... but just realised i managed to pick up an insult regardless!

Very un-poor old Milky...

milkyboy wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:If thinking for yourself results in nonsense, maybe defer to those who are more clued up.

Referring to those who are apparently more clued up ends up with your nonsense, I suppose Dempsey gave Tunney a famed silent beating.

Hilarious. A clarion call to your half-witted alliance?

Can't debate without striking out like a child....Can you ?

Poor old Milky was told to "Wink away Winker"

Anyway as you were...

Poor old milky? I found the Winkergate meltdown quite entertaining. I switched off from this spat last night when I saw how it was going... but just realised i managed to pick up an insult regardless!

I was referring to Trumpman!

Got a ring to it...