Ring poll: 20 Greatest Heavyweights All Time

First topic message reminder :

https://www.ringtv.com/488242-ring-greatest-heavyweight-time/

Done to death, I know, but I like the top ten. Quite where the likes of Charles and Walcott are (in the top 20), is another matter:

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Johnson
4. Marciano
5 Holmes
6. Dempsey
7. Foreman
8. Frazier
9. Tyson
10. Liston

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'll class that as a win for me then Haz seeing as how your toys are well and truly out the pram, not sure if you think making sexist comments strengthens your views.

My soiled tena lady contains more substance than your posts .

The Luis Santana of wins from the Charlie Zelenoff of forum posters.

A win is a win.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:A win is a win.

What have you won you sap? The most outraged forum poster of 2017?

I guess you need a W to offset all those Ls. Well done.

You're so tough dishing out insults on the Internet aren't you.

Don't tell me, you're outraged?

I'm amused watching you cry again, were you on Shooting stars?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm amused watching you cry again, were you on Shooting stars?

Jesus, even your banter is shocking. I'm writing to my MP over this. What an absolute outrage.

As long as you amuse yourself Haz because your as funny as dry rot.

...awaits witty retort.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:As long as you amuse yourself Haz because your as funny as dry rot.

...awaits witty retort.

*you're

Haz I don't care what you think of Floyd.

The fact you don't rate him makes you look a complete idiot.

AdamT wrote:Haz I don't care what you think of Floyd.

The fact you don't rate him makes you look a complete idiot.

I do rate him. I don't like him. Jesus, that's your theory blown out of the water. Take an L and sit down next to your mate.

I think you will find you need to take an L. Any sane individual,unless on a complete wind up would not rate Walcott along with Wlad.

Wlad crushes him in a few rounds and was world champ for a decade. It's not even open for a debate. I know you have a hard on for the history of the sport, believe it or not I do read some myself, but Walcott over Wlad?

Haz it isn't even good trolling. Lol

AdamT wrote:I might be an asset with a silent et.

The forum is full of Bert Sugar wannabes.

The problem some of you guys have, is you need historians to tell you who is great and walk you by the hand.

I clown about, but thankfully I believe in the evidence of my own eyes. Leave the history books down and make your own minds up.

Its the main reason I got into the Sport of boxing reading and learning the history of great fights/fighters throughout the decades. Thankfully I do believe the evidence from some of the great historians and trainers who have a better eye than me and you - I don't need TV to make my own mind up, I've made my mind up that Genghis Khan wasn't a pleasant chap and I have no footage to say otherwise. Reading the history certainly beats the drivel which is uploaded constantly about how much money Mcgregor and Mayweather have threw in the swimming pool over the weekend.

Cheers

That's your view and fair enough.

I will take the evidence of my own eyes.

AdamT wrote:That's your view and fair enough.

I will take the evidence of my own eyes.

So most of your opinions on Old timers are not valid then ? You can't base an opinion on old flimsy footage - The opinions from trainers, historians etc they weren't watching grainy, jumpy films, they were seeing the actual fights as they happened and from a few feet away. Put Walcott in UHD see what he looks like.

It's a more valid way of gauging an opinion than second hand accounts from biased commentators who mostly seem stuck in the past, hell some of them thought Marciano could beat Ali.

I don't need to see Walcott in UHD to a) know his record and b) see how he fights, you may wish to base your opinions solely on the opinions of others that's your prerogative but I like Adam prefer to use my own eyes.

Oh no they are. I rate Sugar Ray Robinson the greatest ever. I rate Louis the second greatest heavy ever, if we are talking records.

Though I like to rate head to head. People do it in all sports. Messi is now seen as the greatest player ever. Has modern science and science helped him? Of course, but many say he is.

Going back to Louis, he has a greater record, but I can't imagine a world were Tyson or Foreman wouldn't smash him to pieces.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's a more valid way of gauging an opinion than second hand accounts from biased commentators who mostly seem stuck in the past, hell some of them thought Marciano could beat Ali.

I don't need to see Walcott in UHD to a) know his record and b) see how he fights, you may wish to base your opinions solely on the opinions of others that's your prerogative but I like Adam prefer to use my own eyes.

So when you're saying Willard is absolutely useless - you're basing this on what ? a few minutes of grainy footage and few minutes of him being beat to a pulp ? If I was for example to watch 1 fight and this be Wlad v Fury I'd say both look pretty poor wouldn't you agree ?

Cheers

AdamT wrote:Oh no they are. I rate Sugar Ray Robinson the greatest ever. I rate Louis the second greatest heavy ever, if we are talking records.

Though I like to rate head to head. People do it in all sports. Messi is now seen as the greatest player ever. Has modern science and science helped him? Of course, but many say he is.

Going back to Louis, he has a greater record, but I can't imagine a world were Tyson or Foreman wouldn't smash him to pieces.

Adam I have no idea what you're talking about most of the time. Just lots of one lined opinions he's rubbish, he'd get smashed etc.. with no logical explanation.

Rodney for heavens sake, what do I need to explain? Tyson is bigger than Louis. He is faster than Louis. He is even more accurate than Louis imo. He certainly has better skills than Louis. What is so hard to understand??

I never said Joe Louis was rubbish. He was a fantastic fighter/puncher for his time. Good at stalking and very accurate himself.

He just gets killed by Tyson. Watch them both fight and if you understand speed, power and other things, you will find your winner.

There's footage of quite a few Willard fights and based on that I'd only consider Primo Carnera to be a worse genuine Heavyweight champion, there's very little to suggest he was anything approaching a quality champion. His record was equally poor with the exception of outlasting a semi retired Jack Johnson.

The thing is Rodney there's footage of over 50 Wlad fights so it would be a fairly stupid thing to do wouldn't you agree?

AdamT wrote:Rodney for heavens sake, what do I need to explain? Tyson is bigger than Louis. He is faster than Louis. He is even more accurate than Louis imo. He certainly has better skills than Louis. What is so hard to understand??

Adam what I don't understand you're telling us to put down the books and watch with our eyes in one sentence yet the next sentence you're telling us SRR is the best of all time when most of his greatest work went unpublished. Can't be bothered to get in the debate about Tyson v Louis - debate is wasted on you.

It's not a debate though. Tyson kills him.

SRR has the best record in boxing. That's when it matters to look at history books.

Also Wlad has a better record than Jack Dempsey according to history books.

All I am saying is, I like to judge with my own eyes and make my own mind up.

The records of Robinson and Greb speak for themselves, there's enough footage of their opponents to gauge an idea of how good they must have been, we're not talking about relatively poor records.

I don't tend to judge either of them in fantasy match ups as it's an impossible thing to do but based on record alone they have to rank amongst the best boxers of all time.

Yeah that's true and from the footage I have seen, there is a world of difference between SRR and Walcott regarding their ability. This was Robinson at Mw, not Welter!

AdamT wrote:It's not a debate though. Tyson kills him.

SRR has the best record in boxing. That's when it matters to look at history books.

Also Wlad has a better record than Jack Dempsey according to history books.

All I am saying is, I like to judge with my own eyes and make my own mind up.

So you've said - but still offer contradictory rubbish.

AdamT wrote:It's not a debate though. Tyson kills him.

SRR has the best record in boxing. That's when it matters to look at history books.

Also Wlad has a better record than Jack Dempsey according to history books.

All I am saying is, I like to judge with my own eyes and make my own mind up.

Arguable.

Harry Greb's is probably better and Henry Armstrong's is on a par. You could also make a case for Ezzard Charles having a comparable record.

Rodney you think GGG is a modern great, when it is clear to see he is anything but. He is a very good fighter, but nothing special. Again I have seen that with my own eyes.

I hope I don't see you on here in a couple of years stating GGG is overrated, because Kellerman and the gang will say it when he loses.

superflyweight wrote:

AdamT wrote:It's not a debate though. Tyson kills him.

SRR has the best record in boxing. That's when it matters to look at history books.

Also Wlad has a better record than Jack Dempsey according to history books.

All I am saying is, I like to judge with my own eyes and make my own mind up.

Arguable.  

Harry Greb's is probably better and Henry Armstrong's is on a par.  You could also make a case for Ezzard Charles having a comparable record.  

Make a case for Ali too.

AdamT wrote:Rodney you think GGG is a modern great, when it is clear to see he is anything but. He is a very good fighter, but nothing special. Again I have seen that with my own eyes.

I hope I don't see you on here in a couple of years stating GGG is overrated, because Kellerman and the gang will say it when he loses.

Depends how we define great ? - he hasn't done a whole lot wrong has he ? mopped up most of his division and in devastating fashion. Have no idea why GGG has been brought up again - you seem to clearly have a bee in your bonnet about him Adam - let it go.

Ali is an odd one, easily has the best record of any Heavyweight but based purely on p4p he'd be behind the four SF mentions.

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Greb
4. Charles (Over-rated as a Heavyweight but massively under-rated at Middleweight and Light Heavyweight)
5. Ali

The historical stand of Ezzard Charles is a major reason why I don't prescribe to historians knowing best, there is no justification for him being outside the top 6/7 boxers of all time yet he's often found in the lower reaches of a top 50.

Rodney wrote:

AdamT wrote:Rodney you think GGG is a modern great, when it is clear to see he is anything but. He is a very good fighter, but nothing special. Again I have seen that with my own eyes.

I hope I don't see you on here in a couple of years stating GGG is overrated, because Kellerman and the gang will say it when he loses.

Depends how we define great ? - he hasn't done a whole lot wrong has he ? mopped up most of his division and in devastating fashion. Have no idea why GGG has been brought up again - you seem to clearly have a bee in your bonnet about him Adam - let it go.

I just don't rate him, like many don't rate Wlad. I will let it go, until I see him mentioned again.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Ali is an odd one, easily has the best record of any Heavyweight but based purely on p4p he'd be behind the four SF mentions.

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Greb
4. Charles (Over-rated as a Heavyweight but massively under-rated at Middleweight and Light Heavyweight)
5. Ali

The historical stand of Ezzard Charles is a major reason why I don't prescribe to historians knowing best, there is no justification for him being outside the top 6/7 boxers of all time yet he's often found in the lower reaches of a top 50.

I've never seen Charles rated as low as that, but top six or seven is stretching it. He's often been underrated, however, enjoyed something of a reappraisal in the hands of Bill Dettloff (both in Ring Mag and then in his biography). He's now probably overrated (definitely here). Charles was erratic and often didn't turn up in fights (dropped seven times by Bivins, eight times by Marshall etc.). Ali's record is better (without question, for me).

AdamT wrote:I never said Joe Louis was rubbish. He was a fantastic fighter/puncher for his time. Good at stalking and very accurate himself.

He just gets killed by Tyson. Watch them both fight and if you understand speed, power and other things, you will find your winner.

Tyson was beaten by two combination punchers in Douglas and Holyfield - neither possessing the power of Louis. While I can see a case for Tyson, I can easily see one for Joe. That's why these types of debates are fun but largely fruitless.

Holyfield was post jail Tyson. Douglas did however beat him.

hazharrison wrote:

I've never seen Charles rated as low as that, but top six or seven is stretching it. He's often been underrated, however, enjoyed something of a reappraisal in the hands of Bill Dettloff (both in Ring Mag and then in his biography). He's now probably overrated (definitely here). Charles was erratic and often didn't turn up in fights (dropped seven times by Bivins, eight times by Marshall etc.). Ali's record is better (without question, for me).

Often being a couple of times, he wasn't always pretty to watch but he invariably got the job done, he ended having clear superiority over both Bivins and Marshall, two borderline great 175lbers.

He had countless wins over; Maxim, Burley, Moore, Bivins, Marshall, Walcott and Lesnevich, his record is a who's who of the 40's and 50's from Middleweight up to Heavyweight.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

I've never seen Charles rated as low as that, but top six or seven is stretching it. He's often been underrated, however, enjoyed something of a reappraisal in the hands of Bill Dettloff (both in Ring Mag and then in his biography). He's now probably overrated (definitely here). Charles was erratic and often didn't turn up in fights (dropped seven times by Bivins, eight times by Marshall etc.). Ali's record is better (without question, for me).

Often being a couple of times, he wasn't always pretty to watch but he invariably got the job done, he ended having clear superiority over both Bivins and Marshall, two borderline great 175lbers.

He had countless wins over; Maxim, Burley, Moore, Bivins, Marshall, Walcott and Lesnevich, his record is a who's who of the 40's and 50's from Middleweight up to Heavyweight.

He also failed to get past Ken Overlin twice (though that was a case of Overlin having far more experience). But what about his absolute trouncing at the hands of Kid Tunero (who was coming off two losses)?

Unless I'm overlooking someone, none of the other top ten candidates were so summarily beaten (or put in such desultory shifts on so many occasions).

I'm not trying to knock Charles, who was a true ATG. I just think he belongs somewhere closer to 10-15.

The obvious one would be Duran, there's a lot of similarities between their careers, incredible highs punctuated with embarrassing lows. A placing of 10-15 is perfectly reasonable for Charles, he and Tunney are the two I know I rate higher than most but I don't feel it's unnecessarily high.

It's far easier to absolve poor performances when they were avenged in an often sublime manner; in Bivins and Marshall we're talking about two guys who would be hell to face in any era.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The obvious one would be Duran, there's a lot of similarities between their careers, incredible highs punctuated with embarrassing lows. A placing of 10-15 is perfectly reasonable for Charles, he and Tunney are the two I know I rate higher than most but I don't feel it's unnecessarily high.

It's far easier to absolve poor performances when they were avenged in an often sublime manner; in Bivins and Marshall we're talking about two guys who would be hell to face in any era.

The difference between that pair would be that Duran's career peaked against Leonard, after which he wasn't ever quite the same fighter (and was horribly erratic). Charles was hot and cold throughout his career - save for a few amazing streaks. Saying that, he took fights at the drop of the hat and fought hall of famers, often umpteen times in quick succession. Much tougher to be consistent under those circumstances.

It's a fair point about Duran but your final point is the mitigation for Charles. It's all well and good being active but being that active against HOF opposition is another thing entirely. Anyone who is 5-0 with Burley and More deserves a very high ranking.

Marciano rates so highly because of the perfect record. It gives him a certain mystique the others don't have so have no issue with him being so high.

However, the yanks always go into overdrive when it comes to disparaging Lennox Lewis and despite the two sloppy losses he does not get enough credit for winning them back again.

Lewis is above the likes of 7. Foreman, 8. Frazier, 9. Tyson and 10. Liston for me so should be placed at 6th and could quite conceivably beat any of the heavyweights above him on his day.

Had a look at 11-20 of The Ring Magazine's list, was pleasantly amazed that they put Sullivan at number 14.
The writer said, it took so long for Corbett to beat a weary Sullivan ,who needless to say was way past his prime, that you can only conclude that Sullivan would have toyed with him had he not have been (past it, that is).

I grabbed a Ring Mag last week (running for a train - first I'd bought in years). That article was one of the main features! What a rip off!

They did specify this had nothing to do with who would beat who (today's big guys would have a huge advantage over yesterday's great little guys). All about how great they were in their era (who did they beat, who didn't they beat etc.).

I'm a huge advocate of Liston being top ten. Had he been granted his title shot when he should have, he may have tallied one of the longest championship runs in heavyweight history. He was the best heavyweight around for what, five years?

andygf wrote:Had a look at 11-20 of The Ring Magazine's list, was pleasantly amazed that they put Sullivan at number  14.
The writer said, it took so long for Corbett to beat a weary Sullivan ,who needless to say was way past his prime, that you can only conclude that Sullivan would have toyed with him had he not have been (past it, that is).

Sullivan is a difficult one when amassing these lists - I think if you're going to include him he has be a top 10 HW. I once thought of Sullivan as the last of the dinosaurs but learning about him he was the godfather of gloved boxing, and of modern boxing techniques

Cheers

Rodney wrote:

andygf wrote:Had a look at 11-20 of The Ring Magazine's list, was pleasantly amazed that they put Sullivan at number  14.
The writer said, it took so long for Corbett to beat a weary Sullivan ,who needless to say was way past his prime, that you can only conclude that Sullivan would have toyed with him had he not have been (past it, that is).

Sullivan is a difficult one when amassing these lists - I think if you're going to include him he has be a top 10 HW.  I once thought of Sullivan as the last of the dinosaurs but learning about him he was the godfather of gloved boxing, and of modern boxing techniques

Cheers

His fight with Corbett was the first fight under modern boxing rules.......

So if you include Sullivan then surely you have to delve further back into finding other great bare knuckle champions......

Sullivan is the first heavyweight champion......that's really where his claim to fame should end regarding lists.

I agree Truss, if you include Sullivan he has to be as near nailed on as a top 10 heavyweight as you can get - Some historians have argued that Sullivan had more than 30 title defences. But as you mentioned its best to leave him out due to rules applied.

Cheers.

I am not sure where either of you stand, now. Truss, you believe that the Corbett victory was a great result on merit, not mere historical significance (am I right?).
Sorry but I honestly do rate him as a fighter who would give most heavies a pasting, the clear exceptions are those I can't in good faith see him whipping-Ali, Louis, Liston, Jeffries, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes. Marciano I would see as a very even fight indeed- in fact I would see this match -up as one of large parity.
Rodney, it's music to my ears that you are finding out about Sullivan because his skillset to me is pretty staggering.
I'm really not trying to do a "Dave" with his Peter Jackson campaign....or Jeff, with his Adam Pollock 'old time series' campaign,but I think that he needs to be dusted down and seen clearly, definitely not an easy task I'd admit because he was over-mythologised in life but if anything we don't have enough data at hand to make a considered judgement on JLS without rooting around a bit. Then a decent placing of Sullivan ,in my opinion , places him at fourteen at the least. The "gloves or no gloves" thing is a real red herring.

So you'd have Sullivan beating Lewis and Tyson?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:So you'd have Sullivan beating Lewis and Tyson?

Here we go again Mr doom & gloom with his mythical matchups not throughout the decades but now centuries. John L Sullivan might have been the greatest ever head to head, or he might have lost to people like Scott Welch/Julius Francis. At the end of the day, we have to deal with what is known however. Sullivan took care of business in his era and quite impressively.

Nice post btw Andy, I cant see the justification of the Ring magazine ranking him at 14 - as alluded by myself earlier you either whack him in the higher echelons of the top 10 if you're ranking him or leave him out all together.

Cheers