Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

superflyweight wrote:Marciano far too high.  Foreman too low.  Dempsey (to an extent) , Frazier and Tyson possibly lucky to be in there.  

Lewis and Jeffries the notable absentees.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Marciano's high ranking is a real bug bear of mine and too much emphasise is placed on his unbeaten record, I would be shocked if any of the other top 15 Heavyweights lost to his opposition to be honest.

He fought the best providing they had a name and weren't too big; Baker, Valdes, Layne and Jackson were for the time more genuine Heavyweights than Moore, Charles or Cockell.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Marciano's high ranking is a real bug bear of mine and too much emphasise is placed on his unbeaten record, I would be shocked if any of the other top 15 Heavyweights lost to his opposition to be honest.

He fought the best providing they had a name and weren't too big; Baker, Valdes, Layne and Jackson were for the time more genuine Heavyweights than Moore, Charles or Cockell.

Rodney wrote:So you two numb nuts are basing the criteria solely on your  H2H matchups ???

AdamT wrote:Yeah why not? You seem to like average boxers with sh1t opposition.

I prefer to rank talented fighters with good opponents. Each to their own

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Heavyweights are bigger beasts now...........Louis and Johnson are my 2/3.......

Pick Joshua to beat both...........

I'd pick Woods to beat Nicklaus too....He can hit the ball a 100 yards further......

You can only beat what is in front of you......

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Heavyweights are bigger beasts now...........Louis and Johnson are my 2/3.......

Pick Joshua to beat both...........

I'd pick Woods to beat Nicklaus too....He can hit the ball a 100 yards further......

You can only beat what is in front of you......

Equipment and ball advancements are the big reason for that though.  A young Nicklaus wouldn't be far behind.  

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Heavyweights are bigger beasts now...........Louis and Johnson are my 2/3.......

Pick Joshua to beat both...........

I'd pick Woods to beat Nicklaus too....He can hit the ball a 100 yards further......

You can only beat what is in front of you......

Equipment and ball advancements are the big reason for that though.  A young Nicklaus wouldn't be far behind.  

Conjecture............Woods is one of the biggest hitters of his day........

But like the posts above it is irrelevant.....

You must think GGG is an all time great then? Has he not ruled his era??

All you can do is dominate your era...

AdamT wrote:Calling some one a degenerate online is a good way to show you're winning a debate!!

AdamT wrote:I don't care for top ten lists, was just, making a point that Tyson would smash Charles and Moore in a round or two.

AdamT wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Heavyweights are bigger beasts now...........Louis and Johnson are my 2/3.......

Pick Joshua to beat both...........

I'd pick Woods to beat Nicklaus too....He can hit the ball a 100 yards further......

You can only beat what is in front of you......

Equipment and ball advancements are the big reason for that though.  A young Nicklaus wouldn't be far behind.  

Conjecture............Woods is one of the biggest hitters of his day........

But like the posts above it is irrelevant.....

You must think GGG is an all time great then? Has he not ruled his era??

All you can do is dominate your era...

Rodney wrote:

Ezzard Charles (the greatest LH of all time) won 11 of his last 13 before he fought and lost to Rocky
Jersey Joe Walcott won 5 of his last 7 with the one loss being avenged twice against Charles
The incredible Archie Moore went on to win god knows how many fights after rocky and regain the LHW title twice. is that a poor fighter?

Rex Layne, LaStarza top contenders and dealt with by Marciano.

Only a degenerate idiot like you would be disrespectful and call those fighters sh1t.

Cheers

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

AdamT wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Heavyweights are bigger beasts now...........Louis and Johnson are my 2/3.......

Pick Joshua to beat both...........

I'd pick Woods to beat Nicklaus too....He can hit the ball a 100 yards further......

You can only beat what is in front of you......

Equipment and ball advancements are the big reason for that though.  A young Nicklaus wouldn't be far behind.  

Conjecture............Woods is one of the biggest hitters of his day........

But like the posts above it is irrelevant.....

You must think GGG is an all time great then? Has he not ruled his era??

All you can do is dominate your era...

GGG will be a great middle.............But he hasn't dominated his era...............In the old days 160/175..............

Now it is 160/168...........

No excuse for not dipping your feet.............By the way argue with my quotes....Don't change them !!

88Chris05 wrote:Who underrates Marciano's opposition, Haz? Do you mean posters on here or fans / writers in general?

Personally, I'm not sure his opponents are particularly over or underrated, but I do think the legend of his '0', still unique amongst great Heavyweight champions today, is given too much weight.

I appreciate the argument that he's the only Heavyweight generally regarded as great to retire unbeaten, and it's fair enough to ask why, if his undefeated status is given overblown praise as I claim, none of the rest have managed to duplicate it over time.

But I do think Marciano was extraordinarily lucky with regards to the timing of his career. Hey, you've still gotta beat them all, which he did (well, the ones he fought anyway) and which entitles him to immense praise. But here's the rub: if he'd been 48-1 instead of 49-1, would he ever make a top ten? Would he be that much better thought off than the likes of Patterson?

If Ali's 61-5 had been 60-6 instead, or Louis' 66-3 been 65-4, or even Foreman's 76-5 turned in to 75-6, there's still enough quality in their win column, and still enough longevity to their careers, to mean that their overall reputation wouldn't have taken much of a hit. Conversely, Marciano doesn't have those to fall back on; his win column is steady rather than spectacular in the grand scheme of things, and he totalled just six world title defences.

It leads me to think that Marciano's '0' seems to add an extra 30% or so to all other factors, like the ones I've mentioned, when people evaluate him. An extra loss for most others on the Ring's list wouldn't be devastating to their ranking, but for Marciano I believe it would be. That tells me that his opposition, longevity as a high-level performer and all-round ability weren't all that compared to many other greats.

Most would disagree, but I'd put Frazier ahead of him, for instance. Some similarities in how they fought, but Frazier was much better technically and in a million years I could never see Marciano being capable of producing what Frazier did first time out against Ali. Even allowing for the fact that he ended up 1-2 against Ali, Frazier's other wins at least bear a decent comparison with the best that Marciano has on his record.

Frazier has four defeats on his record, but they were all to genuine Heavyweight greats of the top tier - and there were none of those around in Marciano's heyday to test his mettle against. Given all that, I ain't putting Marciano ahead of Frazier simply because he never lost whereas Joe did, and unless I'm missing something I think that's the only justification why anyone would.

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Heavyweights are bigger beasts now...........Louis and Johnson are my 2/3.......

Pick Joshua to beat both...........

I'd pick Woods to beat Nicklaus too....He can hit the ball a 100 yards further......

You can only beat what is in front of you......

Equipment and ball advancements are the big reason for that though.  A young Nicklaus wouldn't be far behind.  

88Chris05 wrote:As is usually the case (in my opinion, anyway!), Marciano and Dempsey are just too high. Marciano might get in to my top ten, but Dempsey doesn't tend to.

I love Dempsey as a fighter of great historical significance. He took boxing to a financial high that had seemed unimaginable before his reign; the first million dollar gate, and within a few short years until his retirement in 1927 he'd done it a further four times. To put that in to context, there wasn't another million dollar gate until 1948, when Louis rematched Conn.

He was a colourful character and explosive fighter, a welcome break from the more workmanlike or lumbering gloved champions which had come between Sullivan and himself, and of course even as late as Louis' reign it was commonplace to see him rated as the best Heavyweight of the lot. But there have been many decades of boxing since then and, while the records of some of his contemporaries such as Tunney and Benny Leonard have stood the test of time to ensure that they're still right near the top - maybe even at THE top in Benny's case - in the 175 and 135 lb divisions respectively, I just don't feel Dempsey's record has aged anywhere near as well. For me, he's been surpassed by too many names to justify anything like the ratings he still routinely gets today.

Willard certainly wasn't the embarrassment of a Heavyweight champion that he's sometimes painted as, granted. He was extremely durable and knew how to make the use of his size; as others have said, there is a touch of Vitali about his habit of leaning back from jabs at the waist and countering. His performance against Moran was also well received when compared to how Johnson had struggled with him. But if you look at who those guys listed in the Ring poll had to beat to become the division's top man, Dempsey must be near the bottom of that list.

The first year of Dempsey's reign was encouraging, but he lulled in to inactivity after that and, though we can argue all day about the reasons why, failed to take care of the most noteworthy potential challenger, at least until the outstanding Tunney moved up to Heavy. And when that happened, Tunney toyed with him twice, that knockdown in the rematch aside. Dempsey looked half a step slower than he'd once been in those fights, but I don't think that's enough to completely chalk those defeats down to father time catching up with him. The gulf between him and Tunney was huge - Gene made Jack look amateurish for the most part.

He has solid wins as champion against Gibbons, Carpentier and Firpo, but the performances weren't always that commanding and they just aren't enough to offset the fact that he was technically not particularly great and didn't take on all comers emphatically. Dempsey, for me, was a product of his time and was the perfect fit for the Roaring Twenties, and as such gets elevated to a status his in-ring exploits don't really warrant.

Atila wrote:

If we accept (and I've said this before) that a fighter who hasn't fought in three years is at a big disadvantage,.

88Chris05 wrote:As is usually the case (in my opinion, anyway!), Marciano and Dempsey are just too high. Marciano might get in to my top ten, but Dempsey doesn't tend to.

I love Dempsey as a fighter of great historical significance. He took boxing to a financial high that had seemed unimaginable before his reign; the first million dollar gate, and within a few short years until his retirement in 1927 he'd done it a further four times. To put that in to context, there wasn't another million dollar gate until 1948, when Louis rematched Conn.

He was a colourful character and explosive fighter, a welcome break from the more workmanlike or lumbering gloved champions which had come between Sullivan and himself, and of course even as late as Louis' reign it was commonplace to see him rated as the best Heavyweight of the lot. But there have been many decades of boxing since then and, while the records of some of his contemporaries such as Tunney and Benny Leonard have stood the test of time to ensure that they're still right near the top - maybe even at THE top in Benny's case - in the 175 and 135 lb divisions respectively, I just don't feel Dempsey's record has aged anywhere near as well. For me, he's been surpassed by too many names to justify anything like the ratings he still routinely gets today.

Willard certainly wasn't the embarrassment of a Heavyweight champion that he's sometimes painted as, granted. He was extremely durable and knew how to make the use of his size; as others have said, there is a touch of Vitali about his habit of leaning back from jabs at the waist and countering. His performance against Moran was also well received when compared to how Johnson had struggled with him. But if you look at who those guys listed in the Ring poll had to beat to become the division's top man, Dempsey must be near the bottom of that list.

The first year of Dempsey's reign was encouraging, but he lulled in to inactivity after that and, though we can argue all day about the reasons why, failed to take care of the most noteworthy potential challenger, at least until the outstanding Tunney moved up to Heavy. And when that happened, Tunney toyed with him twice, that knockdown in the rematch aside. Dempsey looked half a step slower than he'd once been in those fights, but I don't think that's enough to completely chalk those defeats down to father time catching up with him. The gulf between him and Tunney was huge - Gene made Jack look amateurish for the most part.

He has solid wins as champion against Gibbons, Carpentier and Firpo, but the performances weren't always that commanding and they just aren't enough to offset the fact that he was technically not particularly great and didn't take on all comers emphatically. Dempsey, for me, was a product of his time and was the perfect fit for the Roaring Twenties, and as such gets elevated to a status his in-ring exploits don't really warrant.