Top 10 heavyweights on a who beats who basis.

First topic message reminder :

This is not based on legacy, but who beats who. Size is a major issue in compiling my list,
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Lennox Lewis
George Foreman
Joe Louis
Joe Frasier
Riddick Bowe
Evander Holyfield
Mike Tyson
Vitali Klitshcko

Obviously some big names missing that would always make my top 10 all time heavy greats, i.e. Johnson, Tunney, Marciano and Dempsey, but I believe all 10 of the above would have beaten them.

The genius of PBF wrote:Prime Wladimir vs Prime Tyson

Who wins Chris?

Would have to say Tyson. Granted, Tyson could look half the fighter when faced with someone a fair bit taller than him and with an excellent jab, but I don't think Wladimir has the punch output to keep Tyson at bay for the full twelve rounds. You can question many things about Tyson, but never his workrate or industry. I don't think Wladimir likes Tyson's constant pressure and, at best, I see him losing a decision without any controversy. If Wladimir is as cautious as he has been in some of his biggest fights (Ibragimov, Haye etc) then I think he's asking for trouble and gets stopped in the mid stages.

Just my take on it, for what it's worth.

Why so ?

Because he wouldn't cow down and accept that he was inferior ? John L Sullivan was every bit as much a rabble rouser as Johnson. He was also a drunk, allegedly a woman beater, and a racist, ( although, ironically, he was generous in his praise of Johnson, ) yet he was a national hero.

Besides, to save going off down a side alley, my original point is perfectly well supported if we drop Johnson and only cite Dempsey, Louis and Ali.

---------------

Yeah but he was a wind up merchant, caused huge riots in which many people were killed, (mostly blacks), huge womaniser and as has been mentioned a very poor loser.

Joe Louis did far more for the black cause than Johnson. Louis was the first ever black champ to be accepted universally irrespective of his colour.

Super D Boon wrote:

Yeah but he was a wind up merchant, caused huge riots in which many people were killed, (mostly blacks), huge womaniser and as has been mentioned a very poor loser.

Joe Louis did far more for the black cause than Johnson. Louis was the first ever black champ to be accepted universally irrespective of his colour.

Johnson had nothing to do with the race riots following the Jeffries fight of 1910.

Joe Louis had to follow a ' five point plan ' to be accepted by white America. Among the conditions were that he was never permitted to celebrate publicly when beating a white opponent, was never allowed to be photographed with a white woman, etc., etc. Louis' promoter also drew the colour line, early on, refusing to allow Louis to fight fellow blacks.

Johnson was only controversial because he was black, were he white no one would have batted an eyelid

The way he drew the colour line as champion I always thought he was white.

rowley wrote:The way he drew the colour line as champion I always thought he was white.

But you have no problem with Langford cheating? You sound like a fanboy to me GEOFREY.

Scottrf wrote:

rowley wrote:The way he drew the colour line as champion I always thought he was white.

But you have no problem with Langford cheating? You sound like a fanboy to me GEOFREY.

Scott, a word to the wise.

If GEOFREY ROLEY gets out of his cage to bite your backside you're on your own.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:

Yeah but he was a wind up merchant, caused huge riots in which many people were killed, (mostly blacks), huge womaniser and as has been mentioned a very poor loser.

Joe Louis did far more for the black cause than Johnson. Louis was the first ever black champ to be accepted universally irrespective of his colour.

Johnson had nothing to do with the race riots following the Jeffries fight of 1910.

Joe Louis had to follow a ' five point plan ' to be accepted by white America. Among the conditions were that he was never permitted to celebrate publicly when beating a white opponent, was never allowed to be photographed with a white woman, etc., etc. Louis' promoter also drew the colour line, early on, refusing to allow Louis to fight fellow blacks.

In doing so however he advanced the cause of the black fighters far more than Johnson ever did .I would argue that Johnsons attitudes and behaviour actually harmed the cause of the black fighters in America.


I have Louis top of this list with only Ali close.That fight head to head would be a close one .The smaller aggressive guys who bring the fight to Louis are made for him and will get knocked out.The big slower guys will be either outpointed or eventually ko'd .That's my in depth analysis of it anyway

Whether it's wrong or right, Louis did more to get black fighters accepted in the national American and world consiousness than Johnson. Remember reading about the "no clebration" part on beating whites by his grandson which is a shame but my point still stands.

Louis was influencial to such an extent that it's kinda gone full circle (e.g. the K bros). It is now seen that white champions are not accepted and it must be an indication that the heavyweight division is "weak".

Hell the opening tagline of THIS Boxing forum is to "debate the poor state of the Heavyweight divsion". Being realisitc, is the heavyweight divsion at present REALLY that poor? Given that Johnson himself lost to some lanky cowboy who didn't start boxing until he was about 30, can't help thinking that Johnson's period wasn't as strong as the romantics like to make out!

Not sure I would consider it cheating Scott, but suspect you knew that already.

You don't think an agreement on how a fight is fought is cheating?

How old was Johnson when he lost to Willard? Not as if it was the best of Johnson that fight, if anything his legacy was built before he won the title

skidd1 wrote:
In doing so however he advanced the cause of the black fighters far more than Johnson ever did .I would argue that Johnsons attitudes and behaviour actually harmed the cause of the black fighters in America.


I have Louis top of this list with only Ali close.That fight head to head would be a close one .The smaller aggressive guys who bring the fight to Louis are made for him and will get knocked out.The big slower guys will be either outpointed or eventually ko'd .That's my in depth analysis of it anyway

I wouldn't disagree, skidd.

However, if white America hadn't been habitually bigoted and racist there would have been no problem. Nobody disputes that Johnson loved to rub white folks' noses in his successes, ( just as Ali would, half a century later, ) but the origin of the problem lay with prevailing attitudes of the day.

In any event, I compared the struggles of Johnson, Dempsey, Louis and Ali to those of Tyson. This would beg the questions : Did Tyson not bring many of his problems upon himself ? Was Tyson a shining example of morality ?

HumanWindmill wrote:Was Tyson a shining example of morality ?

Yes he was. Come help me out TysonKing...

If you're refering to the Ketchel fight there was no arrangement made before hand. What happened were Ketchel's camp had agreed to give Sam a proper title fight further down the line so Sam realised if he went too full on or knocked Stanley cold he would probably scupper this so he tried to look impressive enough to create interest in a proper title fight but not enough to scupper it. May well have been trying to win but may have misjudged it, certainly some of the papers called it for him.

There is a difference between carrying someone, which countless fighters have done, even Robinson and throwing a fight. One is a little naughty, one is cheating. To the best of my knowledge Sam certainly carried guys in fights but certainly never agreed beforehand to lose a fight.

Fair enough.

Super D Boon wrote:Given that Johnson himself lost to some lanky cowboy who didn't start boxing until he was about 30, can't help thinking that Johnson's period wasn't as strong as the romantics like to make out!

The lanky cowboy, ( who was the same size as Vitali and fought in EXACTLY the same style, ) was handpicked for endurance and stamina. Johnson was thirty seven years old, fat, tired and disinterested. Everybody knew that he would hammer Willard early on - which he did - and everybody knew that if Willard could survive he would eventually knock out an exhausted Johnson, since the fight was scheduled for forty five rounds in the searing Sun of Havana, and since Willard had a monstrous right hand.

Lewis looked pretty awful against Vitali when he was old and overweight. It happens at the end of a great fighter's career.

And again, I didn't raise Johnson to debate his ability or the strength of his era, but rather I the question of his out of ring struggles, along with those of Dempsey, Louis and Ali, in comparison to Tyson's. Johnson's systematic ducking of Langford, McVea and Jeannette was a disgrace, so I'm not ' banging his drum ' on that issue, and haven't done so at any point in this discussion.

I on the other hand have got that more than covered

Tyson brought most of his troubles on himself .Certainly those in the ring.Outside of the ring I am not so sure?
A shining example of morality?No he wasn't but his upbringing was hardly ideal and would be similar to that of Dempsey, Louis,Ali etc.That explains some of the attitides and behaviour without it being an excuse.

skidd1 wrote:Tyson brought most of his troubles on himself .Certainly those in the ring.Outside of the ring I am not so sure?
A shining example of morality?No he wasn't but his upbringing was hardly ideal and would be similar to that of Dempsey, Louis,Ali etc.That explains some of the attitides and behaviour without it being an excuse.

That's exactly my point, skidd.

Others had appalling upbringings - Floyd Patterson, for starters, and those whom I have already mentioned - but they don't get a pass.

Best example might actually be Sonny Liston, come to think of it. If ever a great fighter had reasons to come off the rails it was Liston, but until the second Ali fiasco he was all business in the ring.

Plenty of fighters have bad upbringings, that's exactly how they generally end up in boxing usually!

Johnson had nothing to do with the race riots following the Jeffries fight of 1910.

-------------

Not saying it was his fault but he indirectly caused riots leaving a dozen men dead. I read it somewhere........can't remember where.

Like it or not, Johnson's gloating and hatred of whites incited a great deal of racial hatred in an already racially tense country, they wouldn't let blacks fight for the title for years after Willard beat him.

Come to think of it I forgot what I was arguing about....oh yeah Joe Louis

Super D Boon wrote:Johnson had nothing to do with the race riots following the Jeffries fight of 1910.

-------------

Not saying it was his fault but he indirectly caused riots leaving a dozen men dead. I read it somewhere........can't remember where.

Like it or not, Johnson's gloating and hatred of whites incited a great deal of racial hatred in an already racially tense country, they wouldn't let blacks fight for the title for years after Willard beat him.

Come to think of it I forgot what I was arguing about....oh yeah Joe Louis

If you think Johnson was someone who demonstrated gloating and a hatred of whites then I suggest you find yourself some better sources, preferably from the 'non-fiction' section. You've shown yourself to be staggeringly ignorant with that comment.

Johnson loved whites, he'd defend his title against little else.

Hated whites so much he married one

Someone please tell me Superbaboon is not being serious?

The riots were because Americas "big white hope" got the beating of his life at the hands of Johnson.

Jesus christ

I still maintain there should be a quiz (that has a time limit to avoid googlign etc) so that we can weed out such 'fans' before they get to post on the boards....

GaryMabbuttYidLegend wrote:This is not based on legacy, but who beats who. Size is a major issue in compiling my list,
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes

~ Why sir, it buggers belief how Mr. Larry could beat all these champs when he never beat but one, Mr. Norton in a highly disputed decision with nary a sniff of the big money rematch.

He either ducked or lost to every other champ he faced, except one supposes in BarneyWorld where he has become heir to the throne of St. Ali!

I dont agree with Super D boon but it is his opinion coxy...like your ridiculous comment yesterday that Tyson was a "chinless wonder".

Perfessor Albertus Lion V wrote:

GaryMabbuttYidLegend wrote:This is not based on legacy, but who beats who. Size is a major issue in compiling my list,
Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes

~ Why sir, it buggers belief how Mr. Larry could beat all these champs when he never beat but one, Mr. Norton in a highly disputed decision with nary a sniff of the big money rematch.

He either ducked or lost to every other champ he faced, except one supposes in BarneyWorld where he has become heir to the throne of St. Ali!

Not a fan of Ken Norton always thought he was overrated.

HumanWindmill wrote:

skidd1 wrote:Tyson brought most of his troubles on himself .Certainly those in the ring.Outside of the ring I am not so sure?
A shining example of morality?No he wasn't but his upbringing was hardly ideal and would be similar to that of Dempsey, Louis,Ali etc.That explains some of the attitides and behaviour without it being an excuse.

That's exactly my point, skidd.

Others had appalling upbringings - Floyd Patterson, for starters, and those whom I have already mentioned - but they don't get a pass.

Best example might actually be Sonny Liston, come to think of it. If ever a great fighter had reasons to come off the rails it was Liston, but until the second Ali fiasco he was all business in the ring.

The thing with Tyson's upbringing is that his socio-economic circumstances aren't the main issue. Plenty of fighters, Holmes, Lewis, Patterson etc. were poor. This hasn't affected them. They've all gone on to live good clean lives in and out the ring. Poverty is not the underlying reason for 'immoral' behaviour. Tyson's problems weren't a product of poverty, much more a product of all his circumstances. Lewis, Holmes, Patterson et al all had, and still do have, a loving, benevolent maternal figure. They have friends and wives etc. Tyson had no relationship with his mother, and his first wife quite famously only cared for him in direct correlation to his bank balance. IMO Tyson appeared to suffer (and perhaps continues to suffer) from mental health issues.

I am not a Tyson apologist per se, no matter your upbringing certain things are just inexcusable, but it is, to my mind at least, a bit more of a complex issue than to simply say that other fighters were also poor and as such they can all be judged to the same standard. Who's to say Holmes would have turned out any better were he to have been in Tyson's shoes? Conversly, perhaps Tyson would have been a happy, healthy, well adjusted young man given Holmes' upbringing? Everyone is a product of their environment to a certain extent. It's impossible to compare people's upbringings accurately as there are just too many unquantifiable variables to consider.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Hated whites so much he married one

More than one, wasn't it?

Super D Boon wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Jonhnson???

Hes probably come up with more excuses than every other heavyweight combined for his poor performances and losses.

Granted the circumstances of his era were more challenging but he was no stranger to pointing the finger.

Don't recall saying he was.

The point is, Tyson had the world at his feet, whereas Johnson was persecuted.

Brought a lot of that on himself though didn't he?

Johnston wasn't a slave, he was Heavyweight Champion of the World. Why should he be treated different to other Champions at the time?

The genius of PBF wrote:I dont agree with Super D boon but it is his opinion coxy...like your ridiculous comment yesterday that Tyson was a "chinless wonder".

What Super D said though about Johnson hating whites has more contradictory evidence than coxy's statement about the peakprimeGOATTysonFACT.

The genius of PBF wrote:I dont agree with Super D boon but it is his opinion coxy...like your ridiculous comment yesterday that Tyson was a "chinless wonder".

Difference is mine's an opinion he got wobbled and wasn't Marciano like in once he got hurt he stayed hurt. Not a great chin. And his is an arguement with FACT!

It's not an opinion, the race riots were because he handed out a whooping. He didn't incite them from get a loudspeaker and holding racists rallys!

Trot on please. Don't want you getting banned for stalking and sniping again do we?

The Galveston Giant wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Jonhnson???

Hes probably come up with more excuses than every other heavyweight combined for his poor performances and losses.

Granted the circumstances of his era were more challenging but he was no stranger to pointing the finger.

Don't recall saying he was.

The point is, Tyson had the world at his feet, whereas Johnson was persecuted.

Brought a lot of that on himself though didn't he?

Johnston wasn't a slave, he was Heavyweight Champion of the World. Why should he be treated different to other Champions at the time?

Because he was black and they weren't not saying that is the way things should be but lets not be naive. We are not talking about the most tolerant of times here.

Excellent points, Gentleman 01, and in the case of the upbringing issue, almost impossible to refute.

I could still quibble over out - of - ring distractions but, given that the thread has spent too long down a blind alley, I'll leave that for another time and another debate.

Back on topic, I have to say I agree with Perfessor about Holmes. No doubt whatever that he was a fine fighter, but a stretch to say he beats the rest of them, in my opinion.

coxy0001 wrote:

The genius of PBF wrote:I dont agree with Super D boon but it is his opinion coxy...like your ridiculous comment yesterday that Tyson was a "chinless wonder".

Difference is mine's an opinion he got wobbled and wasn't Marciano like in once he got hurt he stayed hurt. Not a great chin. And his is an arguement with FACT!

It's not an opinion, the race riots were because he handed out a whooping. He didn't incite them from get a loudspeaker and holding racists rallys!

Trot on please. Don't want you getting banned for stalking and sniping again do we?

Hope irony is not lost on you coxy

Super D Boon wrote:Why so ?

Because he wouldn't cow down and accept that he was inferior ? John L Sullivan was every bit as much a rabble rouser as Johnson. He was also a drunk, allegedly a woman beater, and a racist, ( although, ironically, he was generous in his praise of Johnson, ) yet he was a national hero.

Besides, to save going off down a side alley, my original point is perfectly well supported if we drop Johnson and only cite Dempsey, Louis and Ali.

---------------

Yeah but he was a wind up merchant, caused huge riots in which many people were killed, (mostly blacks), huge womaniser and as has been mentioned a very poor loser.

Joe Louis did far more for the black cause than Johnson. Louis was the first ever black champ to be accepted universally irrespective of his colour.

The riots happened because Johnson beat Jefferies, not exactly his fault is it, more a view of how White America felt at the time. Prostitution was rife back in the day and would be hard to find any other establishment that would outnumber brothels, had it been black women he was with nobody would have cared.

rowley wrote:

The Galveston Giant wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Jonhnson???

Hes probably come up with more excuses than every other heavyweight combined for his poor performances and losses.

Granted the circumstances of his era were more challenging but he was no stranger to pointing the finger.

Don't recall saying he was.

The point is, Tyson had the world at his feet, whereas Johnson was persecuted.

Brought a lot of that on himself though didn't he?

Johnston wasn't a slave, he was Heavyweight Champion of the World. Why should he be treated different to other Champions at the time?

Because he was black and they weren't not saying that is the way things should be but lets not be naive. We are not talking about the most tolerant of times here.

Jeff if he was white he wouldn't have been hunted down the way he was, yes it's a sign of the times, not exactly his fault is it, he liked to rub their nose in it a bit because he could.

Absolutely agree mate. I fully respect Johnson's right to live the way he pleased and on the back of being shut out of the title picture for so long and being made to compete in the infamous battle royals I can fully understand when he got the title him thumbing his nose at the white establishment. However there are things I cannot forgive so readily. Knowing how hard it was for him to get a title shot, to deny the opportunity to other black challengers, all of who were far more qualified than many he faced rankles with me. Also whether we like it or not certain people are thrust into situations where they have to represent something bigger than themselves and Johnson was one of those and for me his conduct reinforced a lot of prejudices towards black people and denied a lot of fighters a lot of opportunites for a lot of years, which again sticks in my craw. Good fighter though (to prove I can be nice about him)

Think the thing here is the problem was Johnson, the society of the time was the problem and feel he was fully justified in lets say act like a normal white man would be able to without the manhunt.

He gave the great Jim Johnson a shot Jeff, a man obviously more qualified than the likes of Langford, Mcvea and Jeannette, all of whom had spent years beating him whenever they chose.

rowley wrote:Absolutely agree mate. I fully respect Johnson's right to live the way he pleased and on the back of being shut out of the title picture for so long and being made to compete in the infamous battle royals I can fully understand when he got the title him thumbing his nose at the white establishment. However there are things I cannot forgive so readily. Knowing how hard it was for him to get a title shot, to deny the opportunity to other black challengers, all of who were far more qualified than many he faced rankles with me. Also whether we like it or not certain people are thrust into situations where they have to represent something bigger than themselves and Johnson was one of those and for me his conduct reinforced a lot of prejudices towards black people and denied a lot of fighters a lot of opportunites for a lot of years, which again sticks in my craw. Good fighter though (to prove I can be nice about him)

I was disappointed Johnson didn't tone down a bit once he seen the negative impact his attitude/behaviour was having on his fellow blacks at the time, the only reason i could think on why he didn't defend against the likes of Langford, Jeanette etc is that they were harder fights in which probably wouldn't have paid aswell as a white challenger. Would have loved to see a Langford rematch for the belt.

Super D Boon wrote:Johnson had nothing to do with the race riots following the Jeffries fight of 1910.

-------------

Not saying it was his fault but he indirectly caused riots leaving a dozen men dead. I read it somewhere........can't remember where.

Like it or not, Johnson's gloating and hatred of whites incited a great deal of racial hatred in an already racially tense country, they wouldn't let blacks fight for the title for years after Willard beat him.

Come to think of it I forgot what I was arguing about....oh yeah Joe Louis

Hadn't come to this bit yet, i'll leave it there.

HumanWindmill wrote:Excellent points, Gentleman 01, and in the case of the upbringing issue, almost impossible to refute.

I could still quibble over out - of - ring distractions but, given that the thread has spent too long down a blind alley, I'll leave that for another time and another debate.

Back on topic, I have to say I agree with Perfessor about Holmes. No doubt whatever that he was a fine fighter, but a stretch to say he beats the rest of them, in my opinion.

A rather circuitous blind alley at that! I always enjoy the inevitable moment any thread turns into a Tyson debate. I am perhaps more guilty of blindly walking this route than others...

Back on topic, I actually agree on Holmes insofar as he does seem to have cultivated a reputation perhaps beyond his achievements and abilities. Norton aside, he never beat any other prime all-time great fighters. his reputation is built mostly on lengevity (which is certainly to be admired) however, on a head to head basis I don't rate him as highly as some. I actually thought he lost the Witherspoon fight.

This is a difficult topic as it opens up a load of potential fighters who could quite clearly not be considered top 10 material in any other circumstance. Douglas, for example, has been brought up and as stated, I believe that is a good shout. I think Buster, at his best, gives Holmes (for example) a very competitive contest. This despite the fact that in no way can Douglas ever be considered a great champion, least of all, a champion of Holmes' stature.

Another boxer whp perhaps is worth consideration is Jack Sharkey. Although he was not a huge man, and also not popularly considered a 'great' champion, on his night he was an extremely fine boxer. Perhaps also Max Baer is worth a mention? Another man, who despite his inconsistency, could really perform when motivated to do so. I would pick Sharkey, in peak condition, to edge out Marciano...

Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Evander Holyfield
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis

On a who beats who basis....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Muhammad Ali
Larry Holmes
Evander Holyfield
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis

On a who beats who basis....

Interesting list, Truss. Ali and Foreman are certainties for a top five spot in terms of a 'who beats who' basis. Would have to disagree massively with Holyfield, though. In his Heavyweight years he was 4-4-1 with his biggest rivals, who were Tyson, Bowe, Lewis and Moorer. Surely that is proof enough that, fine fighter though he was, there would have been plenty of past Heavyweights he'd have come unstuck against? The fact that he couldn't budge a way over the hill Foreman, despite having virtually the whole twelve rounds to tee off on him, only adds more fuel to that fire, for me.

Lewis beat a past it Holy...remember Evander was 8/1 against Tyson because he was "finished"..

Evander too busy in his peak for Lewis.....................

Moorer he had a heart condition...

Bowe just had his number to a certain extent....but beats Frazier, Louis etc......

rate peak Holy highly but it's fairplay..

is that in order truss, if so cant see how holy gets over foreman. he looked poor against old foreman let alone foreman in his prime. agree with chris that holy wouldnt make mine, if he's shot before tyson then his prime is looking very short even tyson esq basically just the bowe fights really which spanned around 3 years