Top 10 Heavyweights

[brownpimp88]

Joe Louis wasn't as "glass" as people make him out to be. I guess his 69 wins with only 3 losses would tell us so. One loss was in the late rounds of a fight when he was green yet, and the other two came when he was a hundred years old. If it was so easy to put him out, then everybody would have been attempting to do so after his first fight with Schmeling. Unfortunately for them, Joe was adept at recovering from a strong punch only to blast his opponent into submission with perfect inside technical boxing. Oh yeah, and his punches weren't cupcakes either.

Frazier was champ during a very brief hiccup in the division's glory years, right before the golden 70's took off. His was a style that wasn't meant to last, however, so he never really came back after his loss to Foreman. Saying that the man had a weak chin, however, is borderline ******ed. The man got blasted by George Foreman repeatedly and was dizzy before his chin gave out; heck, he even got back up five times. The man could take a beating. Any fighter who would have taken the first 4 rounds from Ali that he took in the Fight of the Century would have been out cold.

I think that Tyson fares better in head-to-head matchups than does Foreman, as Foreman stood a chance of being outboxed by a lot of great fighters. The Tyson version 1.0 (a la Rooney) would have stood a technical chance to overcome or simply mow down most champs in history. He even stands a chance to defeat guys like Foreman or Liston where Frazier would have failed simply because Mike fought at mid range, and he could beat them to the punch.

Ali does very well against any era in history, as very few of them contained counterpunchers who could handle his movement.

I think that a fight with Holmes and Foreman would be amazing. Larry liked to entice his opponents to punch, lean away from it, and then hammer a quick, responsive right hand that shook them. This could become very frustrating for Foreman who, as in his fight with Ali, started to position his gloves defensively after being poked a few times. Holmes could also dish out a little more punishment than could Ali, and like against Young, Foreman might just give up.

Lennox Lewis was certainly a great heavyweight, though he never really fought anyone of consequence until they were way beyond their best years. Nonetheless, a guy with his size and skill would stand a chance against nearly anyone on the other side of the ring. The whole Vitali thing was a freaking shame, though.

Rocky Marciano may not have been tested much, but that could also be because he was a.) that good; or b.) had the determination to simply will his way on his opponents no matter if they were outboxing him; or c.) both a.) and b.) in which case, he's a great champion anyway.

And yes, Gene Tunney had more than 80 wins, one loss, and two draws. That's why I put him on my top 10 (11) list. Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis, Floyd Patterson, Sam Langford, etc., all round out the top 15, which is really just an extension of the top 10.



Elementary, my friend. You of all people should know that this logic almost NEVER applies to boxing, or sports in general.

How many heavyweights has gene tunney actually beat? You say lennox was the master of fighting guys when they were past it. Wake up, none of rocky's opponents were in their primes.

Lennox Lewis has easily defeated enough ranked heavyweights to make a top 10. You just look at tunney's record, you dont go in depth and realize he has like 5 or 6 heavyweight fights in total.

[Brassangel]

Oh yeah, and top 5 head-to-head:

1. Muhammad Ali
Mike Tyson
-I firmly believe, after watching many tapes, training sessions, etc. of these two, that they would probably win more head-to-heads than any other; also, they would put on an amazing show against each other. Both had blazing fast hand speed, while Mike's skill and reflexes were better than Foreman, Frazier, or Shavers, and Rooney would have had Mike ready to be a stone cold killer regardless of Ali's mind games. Ali would have shown us his will to dominate no matter what the odds, and would have had to adapt on the fly against this completely different opponent. Time and again he proved capable of this, so I think it would go back and forth into the championship rounds. I have started a series of drawings depicting this by the way.

2. Larry Holmes
3. Sonny Liston
4. Joe Louis
5. Lennox Lewis

[Brassangel]

Lennox Lewis has easily defeated enough ranked heavyweights to make a top 10. You just look at tunney's record, you dont go in depth and realize he has like 5 or 6 heavyweight fights in total.

I was answering a question for somebody who asked earlier about his record; also, Gene Tunney had an incredible brain for the sport to figure out fighters. The fruition of this comes together mainly in his fights with the great Jack Dempsey. Oh yeah, and Dempsey, at the times of his fights against Tunney, was far better than anyone Lewis beat beyond their primes, and certainly better than anyone Lewis lost to.

Lewis beat a Holyfield who should have been out of the game years before, and a Tyson 3.5, who stood like a sack of sand getting punched, spouting rediculous comments at press conferences and biting people. Lewis lost to Rahman...seriously. He avenged it, true, but Marciano never lost. He fought all the contenders of his day, and that's not easy. I don't care how good or memorable the names were, he simply put them all away.

The fighters of old aren't automatically better or favored compared to those of recent years, but they did walk more difficult paths. They used to fight more than 100 fights in their careers, spanning 15+ years and several weight classes. Throw in 5-6 exhibitions a year and you'd be one tired cookie. The training was non-stop, not just the few months leading up to an over-promoted fight, and fighters used to study the science of the punch instead of simply throwing them. They were generally more prepared and seasoned than fighters of recent years.

This holds for many sports. American football, for example: in the old days, some rough and tumble guy would work 12 hours at the steel mill, and then go to football practice where he'd get slammed into by a bunch of huge guys while wearing only sweaters and leather helmets. And at game time, they played both sides of the ball. Todays players don't go through that at all. They are so protected; which, while smart, simply means that all the athelticism in the world doesn't make up for the shape the old timers got into, nor the work ethic. They were always better prepared, and didn't hold out or try less during game time because they want an extra $7 million a year.

Boxers have become the same way; they want the easy road (ie: fewer fights), to millions of dollars, while being extremely lazy during their time off. The old time fighters worked other jobs, risking injury, and yet always found time through the exhaustion to get into phenomenal shape physically, mentally, and scientifically. While athleticism and brawn can sometimes simply overpower an opponent, any fighter from way back stands just as good of a chance as those from today.

*WHEW!* Quite a rant.

[butterfly1964]

[QUOTE=Brassangel;2193176]I was answering a question for somebody who asked earlier about his record; also, Gene Tunney had an incredible brain for the sport to figure out fighters. The fruition of this comes together mainly in his fights with the great Jack Dempsey. Oh yeah, and Dempsey, at the times of his fights against Tunney, was far better than anyone Lewis beat beyond their primes, and certainly better than anyone Lewis lost to.

Lewis beat a Holyfield who should have been out of the game years before, and a Tyson 3.5, who stood like a sack of sand getting punched, spouting rediculous comments at press conferences and biting people. Lewis lost to Rahman...seriously. He avenged it, true, but Marciano never lost. He fought all the contenders of his day, and that's not easy. I don't care how good or memorable the names were, he simply put them all away.

The fighters of old aren't automatically better or favored compared to those of recent years, but they did walk more difficult paths. They used to fight more than 100 fights in their careers, spanning 15+ years and several weight classes. Throw in 5-6 exhibitions a year and you'd be one tired cookie. The training was non-stop, not just the few months leading up to an over-promoted fight, and fighters used to study the science of the punch instead of simply throwing them. They were generally more prepared and seasoned than fighters of recent years.

This holds for many sports. American football, for example: in the old days, some rough and tumble guy would work 12 hours at the steel mill, and then go to football practice where he'd get slammed into by a bunch of huge guys while wearing only sweaters and leather helmets. And at game time, they played both sides of the ball. Todays players don't go through that at all. They are so protected; which, while smart, simply means that all the athelticism in the world doesn't make up for the shape the old timers got into, nor the work ethic. They were always better prepared, and didn't hold out or try less during game time because they want an extra $7 million a year.

Boxers have become the same way; they want the easy road (ie: fewer fights), to millions of dollars, while being extremely lazy during their time off. The old time fighters worked other jobs, risking injury, and yet always found time through the exhaustion to get into phenomenal shape physically, mentally, and scientifically. While athleticism and brawn can sometimes simply overpower an opponent, any fighter from way back stands just as good of a chance as those from today.

*WHEW!* Quite a rant.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it was.

[QueensburyRules]

[QUOTE=butterfly1964;2193210]

I was answering a question for somebody who asked earlier about his record; also, Gene Tunney had an incredible brain for the sport to figure out fighters. The fruition of this comes together mainly in his fights with the great Jack Dempsey. Oh yeah, and Dempsey, at the times of his fights against Tunney, was far better than anyone Lewis beat beyond their primes, and certainly better than anyone Lewis lost to.

Lewis beat a Holyfield who should have been out of the game years before, and a Tyson 3.5, who stood like a sack of sand getting punched, spouting rediculous comments at press conferences and biting people. Lewis lost to Rahman...seriously. He avenged it, true, but Marciano never lost. He fought all the contenders of his day, and that's not easy. I don't care how good or memorable the names were, he simply put them all away.

The fighters of old aren't automatically better or favored compared to those of recent years, but they did walk more difficult paths. They used to fight more than 100 fights in their careers, spanning 15+ years and several weight classes. Throw in 5-6 exhibitions a year and you'd be one tired cookie. The training was non-stop, not just the few months leading up to an over-promoted fight, and fighters used to study the science of the punch instead of simply throwing them. They were generally more prepared and seasoned than fighters of recent years.

This holds for many sports. American football, for example: in the old days, some rough and tumble guy would work 12 hours at the steel mill, and then go to football practice where he'd get slammed into by a bunch of huge guys while wearing only sweaters and leather helmets. And at game time, they played both sides of the ball. Todays players don't go through that at all. They are so protected; which, while smart, simply means that all the athelticism in the world doesn't make up for the shape the old timers got into, nor the work ethic. They were always better prepared, and didn't hold out or try less during game time because they want an extra $7 million a year.

Boxers have become the same way; they want the easy road (ie: fewer fights), to millions of dollars, while being extremely lazy during their time off. The old time fighters worked other jobs, risking injury, and yet always found time through the exhaustion to get into phenomenal shape physically, mentally, and scientifically. While athleticism and brawn can sometimes simply overpower an opponent, any fighter from way back stands just as good of a chance as those from today.

*WHEW!* Quite a rant.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it was.

- -While in general older gens can be seen as tougher, as a kid coming in his own, never felt many were tougher than me and more so with the youth of today.

No matter, top ten list by Nat proved to be an epic game changer in how fighters are viewed, and now we have top 10 and top 5 lists for everything from cars to hamburgers and underwear, et al.

Joe Louis still #1 in my book from start until today and into the future.

[QueensburyRules]

Oh yeah, and top 5 head-to-head:

1. Muhammad Ali
Mike Tyson
-I firmly believe, after watching many tapes, training sessions, etc. of these two, that they would probably win more head-to-heads than any other; also, they would put on an amazing show against each other. Both had blazing fast hand speed, while Mike's skill and reflexes were better than Foreman, Frazier, or Shavers, and Rooney would have had Mike ready to be a stone cold killer regardless of Ali's mind games. Ali would have shown us his will to dominate no matter what the odds, and would have had to adapt on the fly against this completely different opponent. Time and again he proved capable of this, so I think it would go back and forth into the championship rounds. I have started a series of drawings depicting this by the way.

2. Larry Holmes
3. Sonny Liston
4. Joe Louis
5. Lennox Lewis

- -Wonder if Brassangel could be boxing artist Leroy Neiman featured in the upcoming Ring?

[The Old LefHook]

1 Marciano
2 Dempsey
2 Tunney
4 Jeff
5 Fitz
6 Corbett
7 Clay
8 Foreman
9 Liston
10 Saddler

Looks pretty accurate.