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

Well, no , I rate Tyson very highly and Lewis very highly, both lower echelons of top ten. I guess I was using a shorthand to say that he'd not beat a rangey jabber, ie Holmes, so it goes without saying LL is in this style of fighter; I did actually write an article some time ago here,to the effect that JLS was the Tyson of his day. A amtch up with Frazier or Tyson would be less of a problem for the obvioius reason that Sullivan is not dwarfed by a 7 inch disparity in height.

Rodney wrote:

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

I was responding to a point that Andy made so get off that high horse.

These head to head comparisons are always hampered by our assumption that any fight would be subject to modern day rules and conditions. Take modern fighters and subject them to conditions and rules applied before 1910 and it becomes much harder to assess the mythical match-ups.

Well it's kind of a "if your uncle didn't have a Rodger,he'd be your aunt"scenario. I can't see Lennox having the intestinal fortitude to fight a guy who uses his elbows over thirty or forty rounds, however, so in many ways the old-timers come out of it looking the " toughest".
I can easily see Duran in a spit and sawdust ring from a hundred years ago ,however(not a heavyweight, I know)
It is true that the criteria of the olden days was more"may the toughest man win".To start flogging this point to death,though,Sullivan could also fight recognisably "modern" ,that is to say utilising speed and timing.And whether any heavy mentioned in this top twenty could knock him out is the most futile speculation ,full stop,because he never got not near to being g kayo'd in his life.

Put a pair of gloves on Lennox Lewis and he takes him out in minutes, supreme skill beats bar room brawling every time.

andygf wrote:Well it's kind of a "if your uncle didn't have a Rodger,he'd be your aunt"scenario. I can't see Lennox having the intestinal fortitude to fight a guy who uses his elbows over thirty or forty rounds, however, so in many ways the old-timers come out of it looking the " toughest".
I can easily see Duran in a spit and sawdust ring from a hundred years ago ,however(not a heavyweight, I know)
It is true that the criteria of the olden days was more"may the toughest man win".To start flogging this point to death,though,Sullivan could also fight recognisably "modern" ,that is to say utilising speed and timing.And whether any heavy mentioned in this top twenty could knock him out is the most futile speculation ,full stop,because he never got not near to being g kayo'd in his life.

I think with a lot of these old fighters...If you saw them fight you'd be disappointed......

Anyway John L was 210 with a bit of a tyre around his waist..

Probably a cruiser......So like Marciano and Louis probably face down against Lennox or Bowe types in a couple of rounds..

Well naturally Lewis beats him .On the basis that Carnera was a veritable giant of his day,at six foot four or whatever he was...Sullivan was a giant at five ten and a half inches..in 1890!But that point of relatavism should not detract from his skillset which has been seriously under rated.
Its worth repeating that Sullivan was not a bar- room-brawler.Also,that those bareknuckle guys practised the sweet science of pugilism,there was artistry aplenty should you care to find out...
Perhaps I should have been much clearer,Sullivan would have not compared well to many heavyweigjt champions post 1900..largely based on size and advances in technique. That's why the Corbett fight is one worth coming back to; Corbett ushered in a less crude era for sure but it doesn't mean that Sullivan didn't have the skills to beat him when he was a younger man.I am convinced that he would .Johnson or Jefferies?Again,No.The incremental improvements start to leave Sullivan trailing,but I would still make a Marciano match up 50/50...and Rocky fought in the fifties with a very limited skillset... Rocky  is  as we know,rated very highly by some,  yet I can't see a gulf of ability between JLS and he.To be honest I think he is still head and shoulders  in ability above John Ruiz, a very weak champion but one nevertheless !
These are fighters from different eras but I have no qualms in stating that JLS would give them at least a real argument.
If it doesn't seem too outrageous to place smallish heavies like The Rock  in the top twenty,then you surely have to give Sullivan a fair shout also
Cheers

We know that Charles and Walcott were decent operators because we have primary evidence......Nat Fleischer made the comment that Ali wouldn't have lasted the distance with Dempsey...If moving pictures hadn't of been invented maybe I'd believe him...Hearing stories of Dempsey's incredible footwork...lightning speed...decimating power..and rapid side to side movement...The monster Dempsey that never existed..

We aren't talking Foreman v Frazier here with Corbett v JLS...By all accounts he was bemused by a moving target in a one sided drubbing.

Look you are not wrong ...I am not wrong....You choose to believe JLS was more than one dimensional...I don't...

We'll never know but we do know that Corbett was hissed and booed at pretty much from the start which lends to the argument that fans were used to brawls.

Sullivan is a great will always be a great and a proud part of Boston heritage.

"We know that Charles and Walcott were decent operators because we have primary evidence......Nat Fleischer made the comment that Ali wouldn't have lasted the distance with Dempsey...If moving pictures hadn't of been invented maybe I'd believe him...Hearing stories of Dempsey's incredible footwork...lightning speed...decimating power..and rapid side to side movement...The monster Dempsey that never existed.."

Perhaps we should halve the difference -I'm prepared to agree that both Sullivan and Dempsey were over-rated for the first part of the twentieth century, even with the minor caveats of "living legend" status-as Wlad has shown you can reign over poor opposition  through no fault of your own ( though  I am not sure  that this is the case with Jack D). As with Iron Mike the mythologising does seem to have had the  effect of a "pro" bounce  ,followed by a massive backlash- it seems to me that on these boards there is, only recently,  a more balanced approach to Tyson's career, neither the best ever or 'a bit of a  hype job' who got an easy ride , a coward etc etc ad  nauseum.

I guess with Sullivan, the big problem, if it is a problem, is that he was given a status as a sort of living Greek god ,(being an American Truss I suspect you'll have heard of the similarities to  Jesse James in his appeal)who was unbeatable.I wonder if that has had a trickle down affect over the years.

Dempsey on video footage to me was underwhelming too, apart from the "knocked through the ropes" fight- I would have to agree that he was massively entertaining for the time , and again, I would expect him to give smaller heavies of the post-war period 'an argument'  or two.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Put a pair of gloves on Lennox Lewis and he takes him out in minutes, supreme skill beats bar room brawling every time.

Its a ridiculous comparison even by your standards.. John L Sullivan v Lennox Lewis ??? Classing John L Sullivan as a bar room brawler clearly shows you have no knowledge of that particular era. By your and Adam's theory Lewis and Tyson wipe out the lineage of old time champions in about a avg of 90 seconds, yet Lewis is a guy who went life and death with Ray Mercer and was cleaned out cold by two very basic fighters.

Cheers

Rodney wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Put a pair of gloves on Lennox Lewis and he takes him out in minutes, supreme skill beats bar room brawling every time.

Its a ridiculous comparison even by your standards.. John L Sullivan v Lennox Lewis ??? Classing John L Sullivan as a bar room brawler clearly shows you have no knowledge of that particular era. By your and Adam's theory Lewis and Tyson wipe out the lineage of old time champions in about a avg of 90 seconds, yet Lewis is a guy who went life and death with Ray Mercer and was cleaned out cold by two very basic fighters.

Cheers

Lewis and Tyson would wipe out the lineage of old champions in no time, the sport has moved on significantly since then and Sullivan simply was a bar room brawler, it's what boxing was back then. I'm not sure what McCall and Rahman have to do with it as both beat him easily anyway.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Rodney wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Put a pair of gloves on Lennox Lewis and he takes him out in minutes, supreme skill beats bar room brawling every time.

Its a ridiculous comparison even by your standards.. John L Sullivan v Lennox Lewis ??? Classing John L Sullivan as a bar room brawler clearly shows you have no knowledge of that particular era. By your and Adam's theory Lewis and Tyson wipe out the lineage of old time champions in about a avg of 90 seconds, yet Lewis is a guy who went life and death with Ray Mercer and was cleaned out cold by two very basic fighters.

Cheers

Lewis and Tyson would wipe out the lineage of old champions in no time, the sport has moved on significantly since then and Sullivan simply was a bar room brawler, it's what boxing was back then. I'm not sure what McCall and Rahman have to do with it as both beat him easily anyway.

The oracle has spoken. So at what point in time in the HW title lineage would Lewis and Tyson stop beating them easily. Don't tell me when "Ali" arrived.

Cheers

From about Sonny Liston onwards I'd say or are you suggesting that the sport hasn't developed in over 100 years?

Er,Jack Johnson is number three in the Ring list.So they put a guy in the list from nearly a century ago.And Jeffries ,lest we forget,would beat more 'modern' fellows than Sullivan would

The Ring is an American Magazine. Is that why there is no British fighters mentioned in the top ten? or do they believe that the Brits have never had a top heavyweight ?

Well,yes,to be honest, they have always thought exactly that.
Brian London  ...Bugner...Cooper was a European level fighter,Bruno......... was Bruno.
Lewis admitted to being a third British, fair to say that he received prejudice in the US  for fighting as a Brit nevertheless.
Fitzimmons (Cornish) was our best for a hundred years.
Apart from maybe Tommy Farr who landed plenty in Joe Louis' first defence,and nicked a few rounds too.But as Dorothy Parker said:"If all the British heavyweights were laid out head to toe ,I wouldn't be at all surprised. "

" John L was 210 with a bit of a tyre around his waist.."
Not in the first third of his reign.He had great muscle definition and no belly at all!
He was into his conditioning,and his fitness regime was quite ahead of the time.He ran and exercised lots so that puts paid to the misconception that he was a slob from the get-go.
It is true that he let himself go quite badly,he was an alcoholic so his body went to ruin,although he got fully fit for Kilrain after being at deaths door,beat him,then spun it out for a while as a shadow of his former self.

i like the way boxing has moved on and old fighters were bar room brawlers, yet tyson fury is currently one of the best heavyweights out there

Hammersmith harrier wrote:From about Sonny Liston onwards I'd say or are you suggesting that the sport hasn't developed in over 100 years?

No but you're being your usual dismissive self. You diminish old time fighters yet when it comes to your pet fighters boxing suddenly perked up, and hasn't got better. Listons prime is nearly 60 years ago you saying boxing hasn't come on since then ? Its impossible to make an assessment of Rahman and McCall would smash Sullivans, Jeffries etc.

When we talk about John L Sullivan and Jim Jeffries for example, we have to define what we are assuming that he was, before we can even start to make head to head predictions. You happily dismiss the reports of others yet you can compile nonsense that Tyson would smash everyone in 90 seconds. You can accomplish a lot with contemporary fight reports. We have a very good idea what these fighters styles were, what their strengths and weaknesses were, and when they did something unusual for them. I find your contradictory methods quite amusing Hammer I must say, just someone with a an agenda.

Cheers.

compelling and rich wrote:i like the way boxing has moved on and old fighters were bar room brawlers, yet tyson fury is currently one of the best heavyweights out there

Nailed it.