Top 10 heavyweights. Who gets the last spot?

Morning all,

Whenever I try to put together a top ten of heavyweight greats, I always struggle with the last spot. I have most of the obvious names there, and the nine I am comfortable with, in no particular order, are as follows: Ali, Louis, Jeffries, Johnson, Holmes, Marciano, Dempsey, Lewis and Foreman.

So who takes the final place?

The last time I tried a list, I had Joe Frazier in the last spot, primarily down to 1971 and "that" fight with The Greatest. Yes he was crushed by Foreman twice and beaten in his second and third fights with Ali, but that night in 1971, in the "fight of the century", he showed a monumentally big heart and no little skill in beating an unbeaten and unequalled Muhammad Ali. It was such a massive effort and demonstration of fortitude that will forever be synonymous with Smokin' Joe. Enough for the last place?

What about Sonny Liston? Absolute reign of terror prior to meeting the phenom that was Cassius Clay in 1964. Solid wins over Williams, Folley, Machen and Valdes, coupled with two wins over Patterson that could not have been any more empathic. For me, his skills are often overlooked in favour of his brooding nature, intimidating presence and links to the mob. He was a hugely skilled operator who would surely be a tough proposition for anyone in history on a head to head basis. The problem with Sonny remains the nature of his defeats to Ali, particularly the second meeting and the phantom punch. Is his ledger, outside of defeats to The Greatest, and his obvious skills, enough to grab him the number 10 spot?

The last guy I consider is Holyfield. Obviously his career recently is a cause for concern and I would like to see him retire now, but we should never overlook what he has achieved over the years. A four time heavyweight champion, including stellar wins over Riddick Bowe in their second meeting, and the two victories over Tyson, especially their first fight. He has a host of other notable names on his CV, and repeatedly came back from being dismissed as a force in the division. Performed well against Lewis in their second fight, and as recently as 2008 was considered unlucky by some observers to have lost to Valuev. He always showed a terrific heart, chin and will to win, allied to supreme conditioning and solid technique. There will always be question marks over the Evan Fields affair and he did lose twice to Bowe and failed to beat Lennox Lewis. Can he make the top 10 for anyone?

So help me out. Who should take the last spot out of these three heavyweight legends? Or is there a solid argument for anyone else?

Convince me.

I'd have Frazier in there. Find it hard to have a top 10 without Smokin Joe for the reasons you've mentioned. Only lost to two men and they are in you're top 10.

For what its worth I'd also have Liston in ahead of Lewis. Find it hard to leave out Holyfield (my 2nd fav HW) but struggling to see who he replaces at the moment. In fact I'd have either Liston or Holyfield in instead of Lewis, slightly leaning towards Liston.

Thanks PP. On a previous thread, I picked Liston to beat Lewis on a head to head basis, but taking other criteria into account, I couldn't justify swapping them around in a top 10. Just don't see enough in Liston's CV, prior to 1964, that gives him the edge over Lewis. They are close and both have glaring defeats on their records, for different reasons, but Lewis did show enough gumption to come back and have multiple title reigns, as well as beating every man he faced.

Like you I have the same nine, was always a bit on the fence about Lewis but on the back of a number of persuasive arguments on here and the old 606 I tend to have him in the ninth spot although the defeats and the people they came against tends to count against him getting any higher. However the tenth spot is tricky at the minute I like Frazier for it as the Ali win is truly expectional and all three fights were pretty close affairs, and Foreman aside he did establish himself as one hell of a fighter in a great era.

However I do flip between a few guys and Liston is an excellent shout, as you can make an argument he was the best heavyweight in the world a good couple of years before his reign and wins over Folley and Williams were excellent wins and performances however the nature of the losses to Ali have to count against him. Other than that can also see an argument for Tunney but the brevity of his reign and the fact a lot of his best work come at light heavy probably means at the minute he misses out, but not by much.

rowley wrote:Like you I have the same nine, was always a bit on the fence about Lewis but on the back of a number of persuasive arguments on here and the old 606 I tend to have him in the ninth spot although the defeats and the people they came against tends to count against him getting any higher. However the tenth spot is tricky at the minute I like Frazier for it as the Ali win is truly expectional and all three fights were pretty close affairs, and Foreman aside he did establish himself as one hell of a fighter in a great era.

However I do flip between a few guys and Liston is an excellent shout, as you can make an argument he was the best heavyweight in the world a good couple of years before his reign and wins over Folley and Williams were excellent wins and performances however the nature of the losses to Ali have to count against him. Other than that can also see an argument for Tunney but the brevity of his reign and the fact a lot of his best work come at light heavy probably means at the minute he misses out, but not by much.

Thanks Jeff. I do often wonder about Tunney. He was such a great fighter and if it was purely on skills then he would be a shoe-in. But, like you have said, he just didn't hang around long enough to cement a place in the top 10. Great fighter though.

I'd have no qualms with someone having Lewis in their top 10. For me though he never makes it. I know its tiresome hearing it (its tiresome writing it) but he really doesn't have that defining fight. He has several good wins but no great ones. Can never forgive him getting beat by Rahman or McCall either. Fair play he avenged the losses but he shouldnt have put himself in the position of of having to. Weakish era, not his fault I know but just misses out on top 10 for me.

As for Sonny I think he gives anyone in history a hard nights work at his best. Unbelieveble jab and power as well as under rated skills. I'd be more willing to forgive Liston's losses to Clay than Lennoxes. Liston was past his best by the time he became champ and was arguably facing the beginning of the greatest HW ever seen. No idea what went on in the 2nd fight and its a black mark beside his name either way. I think he beat equally average opposition in more devestating and convincing fashion and his performances against Williams were quality. All in all I just think hes a far more memorable heavyweight that Lewis, had greater attributes and would make my top 10 ahead of him.

I think Frazier should be nailed on by the way.

PP can see where you're coming from and in terms of the losses suspect I agree with you a lot strongly than many on here, to lose to a second tier opponent once is poor to do it twice is nigh on unforgivable. However the whole defining fight argument for me is harsh. Take out Jeffries and Ali and how many reigns are littered with Hall of Fame guys, truth is for all its hype the heavyweight talent pool is often pretty shallow and so a guy can only beat what is out there and Lewis tended to do this and the fights that did not happen cannot be considered his fault.

Think if you look at the top ten similar accusations could be made of Johnson, Holmes and maybe even Dempsey, at least in the case of Lewis you can say he faced everyone he realistically could, the same can certainly not be said of Johnson, who shamelessly avoided a number of challengers.

Following on from this Jeff, I always take the second Holyfield fight as Lewis's defining moment. I am guessing that the majority of people will probably disagree, but stripping away what went before and after, it was a great performance from Evander. Sure, it may have been his last hurrah, dead cat bounce, or whatever else you want to call it, but to me, he looked in good form that night. The old bounce was there, the jab was working and the footwork was good.

It wasn't as if Lewis became old or shot between the first and second fights, I just think Evander, most probably stung by the criticism following the first fight, reached deep into the memory banks and pulled out a last great performance. Lewis came though it and beat a good version of Holyfield for me. Perhaps I am clutching at straws but, like you, I feel Lewis gets a raw deal on this front sometimes.

Frazier, I think. Yes, the Ali trilogy is the most significant part of his career, but we mustn't forget that he also cleaned up the division in Ali's absence, with guys like Bonavena, Chuvalo, Ellis, Quarry, Machen and Mathis making for a pretty distinguished list of victims.

I find it relatively easy to forgive Frazier his thumpings by Foreman, just as I do Duran's loss to Hearns. He couldn't have beaten George in a hundred goes - the match-up was all wrong for Joe, bravely as he advanced towards the gunfire. His performance in Ali I was one of the greatest in all heavyweight history and he will do for me in the tenth spot of an all-time list.

Thats true Rowley. There are guys that are in the same boat as Lewis but I have them ahead of him based on other things. I think a top 10 should be full of memorable champions, ones that inspire and have a certain x factor about them and Lennox doesnt fit the bill for me.

Its so hard to make a top 10 though. I could make a case for leaving out half of mine if I try.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Frazier, I think. Yes, the Ali trilogy is the most significant part of his career, but we mustn't forget that he also cleaned up the division in Ali's absence, with guys like Bonavena, Chuvalo, Ellis, Quarry, Machen and Mathis making for a pretty distinguished list of victims.

I find it relatively easy to forgive Frazier his thumpings by Foreman, just as I do Duran's loss to Hearns. He couldn't have beaten George in a hundred goes - the match-up was all wrong for Joe, bravely as he advanced towards the gunfire. His performance in Ali I was one of the greatest in all heavyweight history and he will do for me in the tenth spot of an all-time list.

Thanks Captain. Spot about Frazier and Foreman. Big George was always going to be Joe's biggest nightmare, no matter what he tried to do.

What about Gene Tunney even though he was not very exciting he held the title and defended twice against Jack Dempsey and retired an undefeated Heavyweight. His only loss came against Harry Greb at Light Heavyweight, but apart from that he had over 60 official wins.

MR. scotland27 wrote:What about Gene Tunney even though he was not very exciting he held the title and defended twice against Jack Dempsey and retired an undefeated Heavyweight. His only loss came against Harry Greb at Light Heavyweight, but apart from that he had over 60 official wins.

Both Rowley and myself have given Tunney his props earlier in the thread mate. But, his best work is at LHW and didn't really have the longevity at heavyweight to claim a spot.

Mr the problem with Tunney is most of his best work came at light heavy. His record there is stellar but his heavyweight record is a little brief. Whilst his wins over Dempsey are impressive even these would have to have the small asterix against them that Jack had been outside the ring a good few years before their first fight. Great fighter but outside the ten for me

Its jeffries and dempsey who flirt for omission for me from that list, at the expense of Frazier and Liston.

Jeffries has famous names on his record but they were middle/light heavies who he had huge weight advantages over. Dempsey probably has to sneak in but his popularity and charisma outweighed his ring achievements imo. Not many agree with me on this, but then that's what these lists are, opinions!

Milky, undoubtedly true of Fitz who was a natural middle but Corbett, Sharkey and Ruhlin were natural middles and very much the best of their era. Jeffries is a top five guy for me comfortably.

rowley wrote:Milky, undoubtedly true of Fitz who was a natural middle but Corbett, Sharkey and Ruhlin were natural middles and very much the best of their era. Jeffries is a top five guy for me comfortably.

Think you accidentally argued my point for me there jeff! Ruhlin I'll give you. I realise that most heavies then were light-heavies/cruisers now, but sharkey fought around 170-180 most of the time... jeffries was a much bigger guy. Corbett was also giving plenty of weight and was well past his sell by. If jeffries gets points for that, he has to lose them for johnson, when he was the guy past it.

Not top 5 for me. Opinions. Opinions!

Milky will admit I am a massive Jeffries fan. To be honest it was pretty common for heavies to weigh around 17-180 back then and whilst Jeff was bigger he was usually around the 210 mark so was by no means Valuev. Should also be noted most agreed Corbett was in terrific shape when he faced Jeff, all the reports from his training camp, which were covered in the press in forensic detail maintain he was in the best shape since he beat Sullivan.

For me all we can ask of any fighter is he beat the best of his era and with the possible exception of Johnson who didn't help his cause by losing to Hart Jeff certainly did that and whatever else we want to argue about their size Corbett, Fitz and Sharkey were all terrific fighter and hall of famers and Jeff saw for the lot of em.

For me when looking at the old timers you have to consider the rules and length of fights in place at the time and as fights back then were fought over 20 or 25 rounds and often scored on the perception of how the fight would have panned out was it a distance fight with Jeff being a fighter capable of of carrying his power late, a superhuman ability to recover from punishment and herculean stamina was almost the perfect fighter for his time and for me if you make the fights over those conditions he becomes a tough ask for almost any fighter you'd care to name.

All fair points jeff. Certainly he was the right fighter for the times, over todays championship distance his record against them might have looked different.

My view is that the proportional difference between the guys he fought at those weights was significant. 30lbs is a lot at that size. To put it another way how many exceptional light heavies tried and failed to win the heavyweight title (without relinquishing and beefing up a little) before spinks.

Not knocking him jeff, just to me these are factors that keep him lower in my eyes than yours.

For me Milky there are always dints we can put against any fighter, for me is also worth remembering Jeffries won the title in something like his thirteenth fight. How many guys, even with a weight advantage could pull such a trick against a fighter as great as Fitz. I have absolutely no doubt though that you are right in that over todays distance his record would look different as he was very much a guy who got better the longer the fight went often outlasting guys rather than outskilling them, although even in this respect he improved greatly with some reports even suggesting he outboxed Corbett in their rematch.

Real pity for me there was a lack of challengers outside of Johnson for Jeff and fights were so hard to maek because of the legality because had Jeffries continued and had someone worth fighting think he could have reigned for some time.

Nice to see Rowley has a mini-me

stinkersbridge wrote:Nice to see Rowley has a mini-me

??????????????

Jeffries out. Tyson and Frazier in for me. Captain sums up the case for frazier very well IMO. Also, in light of one of TRUSS' recent articles, his valiant loss to Ali in their 3rd encounter should add, rather than detract, from his overall standing. Nailed on top 10 for me, regardless of the Foreman losses.

Tyson' run from 1986 up until Douglas places him top 10 for my money. 10 consecutive title fight wins, defeating 2 HoFers (albeit both with asteriks next to them), an Olympic Gold medallist, and 5 former / future world champs (to the best of my recollection?). He ruled in an admittedly 'weak' era, however, I really don't think his opponents were as bad as sometimes portrayed. Tucker, Tubbs, Bruno, Thomas, Berbick, Biggs, Homes and Spinks isn't the worst list of title defences I've seen. I think it at least as impressive a list as Marciano's (who, lest we forget made only 6 defences of his crown). Louis, Charles x 2, Walcott x and Moore certainly looks very good, however Tyson is rarely afforded genuine credit for beating Spinks and Holmes. Tyson suffers for the Holyfield losses. This certainly pins him back and rightly so, but I do think that 3 years without any form of boxing training during what would have been his peak physical years is a mitigating factor.

As for Jeffries, his record is clearly very strong. However, he did heavily outweigh his opponents and this certainly was a HUGE factor in deciding the Fitz contests in particular. By all accounts Jeff was getting completely annihalated until he was able to find the money shot which took the much small Fitz out. A very impressive win over Corbett, mind, and I also certainly don't hold the Johnson loss against him, just as I don't hold the Lewis loss against Tyson. A great without doubt, but I prefer Tyson and Frazier to Jeffries.

Can't find a place for Liston at all. A top fighter but absolutely lacks the longevity and defences of a top 10 guy. Although, having said that, D'Amato's refusal to let Patterson in with him certainly was an injustice that was out of Liston's hands.

Again feel obliged to defend Jeffries, whilst it is true Fitz was outboxing him it has to be noted Jeff tended to come on late in fights and as the fight ended in the 11th only half the story had been told at that point and the second half was traditionally where Jeff's powers of recovery, stamina and conditioning tended to tell.

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

With Liston 11th

rowley wrote:Again feel obliged to defend Jeffries, whilst it is true Fitz was outboxing him it has to be noted Jeff tended to come on late in fights and as the fight ended in the 11th only half the story had been told at that point and the second half was traditionally where Jeff's powers of recovery, stamina and conditioning tended to tell.

Certainly not trying to disparage Jeffries Jeff, and clearly it is the outcome that really counts in any contest. However, I just feel that, based on what I've read of many of his fights, he tended to rely a lot on his superior physicality. Again, not really a criticism in itself, Lewis used to do the very same, it's just that Lewis also proved his worth against a bigger opponent whereas the only time Jeffries came up against a similar sized man he got walloped. Again, completely agree that the Johnson fight is no indcator of Jeffires' abilities but the point still stands that of the quality he beat he was supposedly heavily reliant on his size rather than his boxing ability.

Can see your point Gent but for me it is a tough rap for me boxing is about using what you have to it's best advantage and as he wasn't the most skilled but was a big unit for his time Jeff used these assets, Dempsey was not big but used his speed and mobility nobody criticises him for not standing and trying to trade at distance against much naturally bigger guys and rightly so obviously.

Can genuinely see where people are coming from because at 210 and 6ft + Jeff did tend to have advantages over the traditionally smaller heavies of the time but do get the impression this view does him a disservice as from what I have read his skills were and are a little underrated and were developing in his later fights. Feel sometimes you could get the impression he was some sort of Valuev character who only won a fight because he was some sort of physical freak which is far from the case.

rowley wrote:Can see your point Gent but for me it is a tough rap for me boxing is about using what you have to it's best advantage and as he wasn't the most skilled but was a big unit for his time Jeff used these assets, Dempsey was not big but used his speed and mobility nobody criticises him for not standing and trying to trade at distance against much naturally bigger guys and rightly so obviously.

Can genuinely see where people are coming from because at 210 and 6ft + Jeff did tend to have advantages over the traditionally smaller heavies of the time but do get the impression this view does him a disservice as from what I have read his skills were and are a little underrated and were developing in his later fights. Feel sometimes you could get the impression he was some sort of Valuev character who only won a fight because he was some sort of physical freak which is far from the case.

A good point. I suppose demoting Jeff for using his size is almost akin to demoting Ali for using his speed. perhaps I am being unfair on Jeffries. The Valuev comparison is clearly not accurate, but I have always got the impression from watching what I can and reading what I have, that Jeffries was very crude, so crude as to almost make Ketchel seem nuanced by comparison. I will re-assess Jeffries and perhaps revise my opinion, but right now I can't find a place for him above Tyson or Frazier. having said that though, I could perhaps find a place for him at Marciano's expense, or is a top 10 without the Rock complete madness??

A top ten without the Rock, you clearly weren't around for Azania's days, he had a top fifty without him.

Jeffries has to be above Tyson at least

Gentleman01 wrote:

rowley wrote:Can see your point Gent but for me it is a tough rap for me boxing is about using what you have to it's best advantage and as he wasn't the most skilled but was a big unit for his time Jeff used these assets, Dempsey was not big but used his speed and mobility nobody criticises him for not standing and trying to trade at distance against much naturally bigger guys and rightly so obviously.

Can genuinely see where people are coming from because at 210 and 6ft + Jeff did tend to have advantages over the traditionally smaller heavies of the time but do get the impression this view does him a disservice as from what I have read his skills were and are a little underrated and were developing in his later fights. Feel sometimes you could get the impression he was some sort of Valuev character who only won a fight because he was some sort of physical freak which is far from the case.

A good point. I suppose demoting Jeff for using his size is almost akin to demoting Ali for using his speed. perhaps I am being unfair on Jeffries. The Valuev comparison is clearly not accurate, but I have always got the impression from watching what I can and reading what I have, that Jeffries was very crude, so crude as to almost make Ketchel seem nuanced by comparison. I will re-assess Jeffries and perhaps revise my opinion, but right now I can't find a place for him above Tyson or Frazier. having said that though, I could perhaps find a place for him at Marciano's expense, or is a top 10 without the Rock complete madness??

Thanks for your comments, Gentleman. It could almost be argued that Jeffries perceived lack of skills is a counterbalance to his natural size advantages. He certainly extracted the most out of his ability and has a record packed with solid names, even if he was a bigger guy than his opponents. Sharkey, Corbett, Fitz, Jackson, are all great names to have on his ledger and more than enough to have him in a top 10 for me.

The Johnson loss obviously came after Jeffries had become happy and content in retirement, but I think I have read before that Jim claimed Johnson would have beaten him at any point in his career. Perhaps he just had his number.

I think a top 10 with Rocky is pretty harsh although I am sure there would be people who could argue for it. Wouldn't have him outside a top 10 myself though!

To be honest you would have to say Johnson probably has the beating of Jeffries at any time in his career but think even on this Jeff gets a bad rap, worth remembering when Johnson was coming through and was considered a viable opponent for him he lost to Hart largely destroying the groundswell of opinion in support of him getting a shot.

Windy often repeats a story of a time Johnson was calling Jeffries out at some function or another and after a while Jeff got bored and said something along the lines of the venue here has a cellar, lets me and you go down into it and whoever comes up first can have the belt. Suffice to say Johnson declined.

rowley wrote:

Windy often repeats a story of a time Johnson was calling Jeffries out at some function or another and after a while Jeff got bored and said something along the lines of the venue here has a cellar, lets me and you go down into it and whoever comes up first can have the belt. Suffice to say Johnson declined.

Yep, have heard that one as well. Not sure anyone would fancy a scrap with Jeffries in a locked cellar.

I think Tyson is also possibly worthy of the final spot.

Although a polarizing figure on these boards, nobody can deny that he was a phenomenal talent during his early reign.

The manner in which he blitzed through the top contenders/champions of the mid-late 80’s was frightening. His victims included a faded but still excellent Holmes and an undefeated future hall of famer in Spinks……as well as convincing and memorable victories over solid fighters in Bruno, Berbick, Tubbs, Tucker, Thomas and Biggs.

It is worth noting that all these wins, and his unification of four separate belts…occurred by his 24th year (an age when most, such as Lewis, had just turned pro).

One should also not forget the significant impact in which he made on the sport, all across the world. With the only possible exceptions of Dempsey and Ali, no boxer transcended the sport in the manner Tyson did and become such a recognizable public figure. Notorious and popular at the same time, it’s likely that no boxer will ever match the global status that Tyson achieved.

rowley wrote:To be honest you would have to say Johnson probably has the beating of Jeffries at any time in his career but think even on this Jeff gets a bad rap, worth remembering when Johnson was coming through and was considered a viable opponent for him he lost to Hart largely destroying the groundswell of opinion in support of him getting a shot.

Windy often repeats a story of a time Johnson was calling Jeffries out at some function or another and after a while Jeff got bored and said something along the lines of the venue here has a cellar, lets me and you go down into it and whoever comes up first can have the belt. Suffice to say Johnson declined.

An interesting story. I've never heard that one before. I would certainly favour Jeffries in an all out brawl, he was the possesor, supposedly, of freakish strength. I agree, however, that Johnson wins at any stage in a boxing ring.

Which opens up another point of discussion, could Johnson ever be excluded from a top 10? I, and I know many others, have questioned Johnson's record, in particular his title defences.

Gentleman01 wrote:

rowley wrote:To be honest you would have to say Johnson probably has the beating of Jeffries at any time in his career but think even on this Jeff gets a bad rap, worth remembering when Johnson was coming through and was considered a viable opponent for him he lost to Hart largely destroying the groundswell of opinion in support of him getting a shot.

Windy often repeats a story of a time Johnson was calling Jeffries out at some function or another and after a while Jeff got bored and said something along the lines of the venue here has a cellar, lets me and you go down into it and whoever comes up first can have the belt. Suffice to say Johnson declined.

An interesting story. I've never heard that one before. I would certainly favour Jeffries in an all out brawl, he was the possesor, supposedly, of freakish strength. I agree, however, that Johnson wins at any stage in a boxing ring.

Which opens up another point of discussion, could Johnson ever be excluded from a top 10? I, and I know many others, have questioned Johnson's record, in particular his title defences.

His record prior to his reign is packed with talent though. McVea, Jeanette, Fitzsimmons, Langford, Flynn. I think he has enough on his ledger, coupled with fantastic skill, especially defensively, to easily have him in the top ten. Not to mention the impact he had on the sport and American culture itself. Nailed on in the top ten for me.

Gentlemen I have questioned his place in the ten before. My thing with Johnson is he is the only guy in the top ten apart from guys who didn't due to the colour line who you can honestly say he was not fighting the besyt fighters available in his era, and for me without much in the way of a valid reason as for me and most Langford, Jeanette and McVea were far more qualified than most he fought. Have argued on more than one occasion that he gets a pass on this that would not be afforded to other fighters.

However to counter that should be noted he beat most of these guys on his way up and the fact that he could even secure a title back then suggests what a truly terrific fighter he was and there are not any of the guys I mentioned with the possible exception of Langford, was the timing right I would give a massive chance against Jack so for me he deserves his top ten berth but in my more contrary moments I can see an argument for dumping him in the lower reaches.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:

rowley wrote:To be honest you would have to say Johnson probably has the beating of Jeffries at any time in his career but think even on this Jeff gets a bad rap, worth remembering when Johnson was coming through and was considered a viable opponent for him he lost to Hart largely destroying the groundswell of opinion in support of him getting a shot.

Windy often repeats a story of a time Johnson was calling Jeffries out at some function or another and after a while Jeff got bored and said something along the lines of the venue here has a cellar, lets me and you go down into it and whoever comes up first can have the belt. Suffice to say Johnson declined.

An interesting story. I've never heard that one before. I would certainly favour Jeffries in an all out brawl, he was the possesor, supposedly, of freakish strength. I agree, however, that Johnson wins at any stage in a boxing ring.

Which opens up another point of discussion, could Johnson ever be excluded from a top 10? I, and I know many others, have questioned Johnson's record, in particular his title defences.

His record prior to his reign is packed with talent though. McVea, Jeanette, Fitzsimmons, Langford, Flynn. I think he has enough on his ledger, coupled with fantastic skill, especially defensively, to easily have him in the top ten. Not to mention the impact he had on the sport and American culture itself. Nailed on in the top ten for me.

And me Tino, although not top 3 as some have him. I am well aware of his pre-title record, I was really just interested to see if anyone actually could come up with a credible argument for excluding Johnson from a top 10 placement?

Gentleman01 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:

rowley wrote:To be honest you would have to say Johnson probably has the beating of Jeffries at any time in his career but think even on this Jeff gets a bad rap, worth remembering when Johnson was coming through and was considered a viable opponent for him he lost to Hart largely destroying the groundswell of opinion in support of him getting a shot.

Windy often repeats a story of a time Johnson was calling Jeffries out at some function or another and after a while Jeff got bored and said something along the lines of the venue here has a cellar, lets me and you go down into it and whoever comes up first can have the belt. Suffice to say Johnson declined.

An interesting story. I've never heard that one before. I would certainly favour Jeffries in an all out brawl, he was the possesor, supposedly, of freakish strength. I agree, however, that Johnson wins at any stage in a boxing ring.

Which opens up another point of discussion, could Johnson ever be excluded from a top 10? I, and I know many others, have questioned Johnson's record, in particular his title defences.

His record prior to his reign is packed with talent though. McVea, Jeanette, Fitzsimmons, Langford, Flynn. I think he has enough on his ledger, coupled with fantastic skill, especially defensively, to easily have him in the top ten. Not to mention the impact he had on the sport and American culture itself. Nailed on in the top ten for me.

And me Tino, although not top 3 as some have him. I am well aware of his pre-title record, I was really just interested to see if anyone actually could come up with a credible argument for excluding Johnson from a top 10 placement?

I do shift him around my top ten Gentleman, sometimes I have him around 5-6 and sometimes just a smidge below. I think Jeff has taken a good stab at reasons why he could be excluded. Be a tough argument though!

if you look hard enough you can find resaons to exclude all but ali and louis from your top 10! They all have pro's and cons. I think all this debate shows is that there is a reasonably solid top 12 or 13

... but then, much as no-one wants to, we might have to start making room for a pair of klitschkos.

Thank god for that milky, when I saw your name thought I was going to have to becomes sole defender of Jeffries honour on here again

now you come to mention it jeff, he was a bit sh*t

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:

rowley wrote:To be honest you would have to say Johnson probably has the beating of Jeffries at any time in his career but think even on this Jeff gets a bad rap, worth remembering when Johnson was coming through and was considered a viable opponent for him he lost to Hart largely destroying the groundswell of opinion in support of him getting a shot.

Windy often repeats a story of a time Johnson was calling Jeffries out at some function or another and after a while Jeff got bored and said something along the lines of the venue here has a cellar, lets me and you go down into it and whoever comes up first can have the belt. Suffice to say Johnson declined.

An interesting story. I've never heard that one before. I would certainly favour Jeffries in an all out brawl, he was the possesor, supposedly, of freakish strength. I agree, however, that Johnson wins at any stage in a boxing ring.

Which opens up another point of discussion, could Johnson ever be excluded from a top 10? I, and I know many others, have questioned Johnson's record, in particular his title defences.

His record prior to his reign is packed with talent though. McVea, Jeanette, Fitzsimmons, Langford, Flynn. I think he has enough on his ledger, coupled with fantastic skill, especially defensively, to easily have him in the top ten. Not to mention the impact he had on the sport and American culture itself. Nailed on in the top ten for me.

Question marks do exist around some of those wins - especially Fitzsimmons - who was fighting him with a broken arm and they'd agreed to spar and not land full punches. Until Johnson changed his mind and knocked him out.

I do think Jeffries is the safer bet of the two as a guaranteed top ten heavyweight

oxring wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:

rowley wrote:To be honest you would have to say Johnson probably has the beating of Jeffries at any time in his career but think even on this Jeff gets a bad rap, worth remembering when Johnson was coming through and was considered a viable opponent for him he lost to Hart largely destroying the groundswell of opinion in support of him getting a shot.

Windy often repeats a story of a time Johnson was calling Jeffries out at some function or another and after a while Jeff got bored and said something along the lines of the venue here has a cellar, lets me and you go down into it and whoever comes up first can have the belt. Suffice to say Johnson declined.

An interesting story. I've never heard that one before. I would certainly favour Jeffries in an all out brawl, he was the possesor, supposedly, of freakish strength. I agree, however, that Johnson wins at any stage in a boxing ring.

Which opens up another point of discussion, could Johnson ever be excluded from a top 10? I, and I know many others, have questioned Johnson's record, in particular his title defences.

His record prior to his reign is packed with talent though. McVea, Jeanette, Fitzsimmons, Langford, Flynn. I think he has enough on his ledger, coupled with fantastic skill, especially defensively, to easily have him in the top ten. Not to mention the impact he had on the sport and American culture itself. Nailed on in the top ten for me.

Question marks do exist around some of those wins - especially Fitzsimmons - who was fighting him with a broken arm and they'd agreed to spar and not land full punches. Until Johnson changed his mind and knocked him out.

Wouldn't deny that Oxy. There were a bunch of fights and fighters back then that could be called questionable to an extent. I think we have take some of it on face value though and Johnson fought most of these guys enough times to consider his record largely legitimate.

I never try to rank a guy based purely on their record either. I think his abundant skills and longevity as a fighter at the highest level are more than enough for me to feel comfortable with him in the top ten.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I do think Jeffries is the safer bet of the two as a guaranteed top ten heavyweight

I can never find enough reason to leave Jeffries out of a top ten Ghosty.

How is the wrist by the way?

Like you the top 9 picks themselves and after that it's a toss up between Liston and Frazier

Very painful, takes me ages to post reply and need to go under the knife next week sometime, serves me right for not growing up and getting ludicrously drunk

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Like you the top 9 picks themselves and after that it's a toss up between Liston and Frazier

Very painful, takes me ages to post reply and need to go under the knife next week sometime, serves me right for not growing up and getting ludicrously drunk

Ouch.

You're never too old to get ludicrously drunk!

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Like you the top 9 picks themselves and after that it's a toss up between Liston and Frazier

Very painful, takes me ages to post reply and need to go under the knife next week sometime, serves me right for not growing up and getting ludicrously drunk

Ouch.

You're never too old to get ludicrously drunk!

A theory I go out of my way to prove every weekend

But probably too old to sit in the child seat of a trolley being pushed home because I can't stand up, i'm a young 27 year old at heart but the missus doesn't appreciate me waking her and the baby up at 4 in the morning any more, what a inconsiderate cow she can be.