I HAVE NOT only problems with toplists compiled by boxing fans, but also (actually especially!) with heavyweight toplists compiled by experts. Because so called "experts" influence the rankings of boxing fans a lot, yet they turn out to be even more worthless, because they usually suffer from, what I call
- "Nostalgia delusion"
- "The-grass-was-greener-when-I-was-young illness"
- "Good-old-times syndrome"
- "Retreat into a fantasy past"
- "Plugged into the Clay Matrix"
I took some famous boxing trainers (e.g. Emanuel Steward) to scrutinize their toplists, views and approaches:
Please note: This article is part of a multi-part series:
- Heavyweight Boxing Rankings (#1) pound for pound, head to head, record for record
- Heavyweight Boxing Rankings (#2) A common sense formula -OR- Ratio*Quality
- Heavyweight Boxing Rankings (#3) TOP 10 by boxing experts -OR- Grandpa's champions
- Heavyweight Boxing Rankings (#4) Head-to-head toplists by trick questions
- Heavyweight Boxing Rankings (#5) Losses and avenged losses
- Heavyweight Boxing Rankings (#6) The all time greatest boxer
Jimmy Glenn's heavyweight ranking
Let's start with Jimmy Glenn (trainer of ·Jameel McCline, fought against Floyd Patterson) who has the following ranking to announce:
| It's difficult to pick whose 1-2-3 because there were so many greats. Greats like Jack Johnson. He did more than just fight. He paved the way for black fighters like Ali and Patterson. He broke the barriers and didn't care what people thought. He had guts! He was his own man…. | Jimmy Glenn uses out-of-the-ring achievements: "He did more than just fight", "He paved the way", "He broke the barriers", "He had guts". |
| AND he was knocking guys out. | No, he wasn't too much. In his entire career he KO'ed only 4 non-bums[?]. Jack Johnson was a featherfist (30%+ KO'ratio) and is at the bottom featherfistiest champions of all time. Aside from the fact that he neither was a heavyweight (median[?] weight 185 lbs) nor fighting heavyweights (median opponent 192 lbs) thus he belongs on cruiserweight toplists, not heavyweight toplists. |
| But Ali…. he brought boxing up another notch. He really turned things up and brought a lot of money into the sport. Patterson was another. He was the first guy to earn a million dollar purse. | "turned things up", "first guy to earn". |
| And, Holmes. He was a real, real good fighter also. But he never got what was due to him because he lived in the shadow of Ali. | OK, but is there any explanation why Holmes was "really really good"? Did he bring even more money into the sport? |
| Then there is Louis. He's #1 in my book. The greatest of the greats. | But why? |
Did you read ANY substantial explanation by Jimmy Glenn for why these boxers should be toplisted?
Lou Duva's heavyweight ranking
Lou Duva (trainer of approximately 20 world champs, e.g. Evan Fields and Lennox Lewis) described who are the top heavyweight boxers of all time. His answers exemplify nearly EVERYTHING I consider "just plain wrong":
| #1 Rocky Marciano. To me, the best heavyweight of all time is Marciano. | Except that Marciano not once fought a real[?] heavyweight fight. |
| No one ever beat him! Boxing was his life. | The main reason why no one beat Marciano is that Marciano boxed mainly bums[?] and former light-heavyweights and welterweights directly after World War II. |
| There were so many great fighters that it's hard to rank these guys from 1 to 10. Aside from all his faults, I gotta add Liston. He was a good puncher and a good fighter. But one of the hardest punchers was Shavers! He could knock you dead with one punch! | Knock you dead with one punch? With or without spinach? |
| Then there's Braddock. A real tough guy with lots of heart. He worked 12 hours a day in a factory, then would go to the gym at night to train. | Out-of-the-ring life as justification for a toplist ranking. And what is a Braddock, a 51-26 bum, doing in the Top10 of all-time heavyweights? His record is not impressive at all (despite him being a world champ). The most mentionworthy occurence is his KO'loss to Joe Louis EXACTLY 16000 days before Louis' death. |
| Fighters back then didn't have the luxury of investors! They had to work to earn a living! And, in the old days, fighters knew what they were doing. They knew what they were there for and they got the job done. | Glorification of the good-old-days. "No woman can reach the beauty of Elizabeth Taylor" |
| Also, back in the 30's and 40's, there were only 8 weight divisions. At the time, a light heavyweight was 175 pounds, but Braddock stepped up to fight heavyweights. |
Duva makes it sound as if Braddock was sooo incredible that he could successfully challenge 200ers, whereas the truth is that Braddock was 160+ lbs when he started (with 20 years) and then 4 years later he reached the 175 limit and simply continued to box as a cruiser until 32 years of age (ending with 199 lbs). As a sub-175er he had a record of 35-7 (= he was an OK lighheavyweight), as a cruiser 175+ he had a record of 16-19 = featherfisted cruiser bum (only 5 KO wins). The heaviest non-bum he managed to KO was 173 lbs (= sub-cruiser). |
| A good example of that were guys like Conn, Moore and Charles. But you haven't got that today! Today's light heavyweight fighters couldn't carry their gym bags!" | Did Lou Duva just mention ·Billy Conn (median[?] weight 159 lbs, median opponent weight 160 lbs, KO'ratio 18%) as a proof for how bad the cruiser division and heavyweight division is today? |
Unbelievable. Duva's whole approach to rank boxers is based on ANYTHING BUT their actual real-world achievements.
These are Lou Duva's other heavyweight toplist members:
Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, Billy Conn (!!), Archie Moore (!!), Ezzard Charles (!!), Sonny Liston, Ernie Shavers, Jim Braddock (!!) and Max Baer.
Al Certo's heavyweight ranking
Al Certo (Al Certisimo) (worked with Andrew Golota) compiled the following toplist:
| Marciano and Louis were great, and they were classy guys too. And, Walcott was my idol. So they're at the top of my list. | He even admits it! "When I was young Boxer X was my idol, therefore he is in the top of the toplist". And these are the experts who try to tell us who tell us that the current division is bad (see his statements below)! |
| But I don't want to classify any of these fighters over the others because they were all tremendous. I gotta stick Conn in there too. Even though he was a light heavyweight, he moved up to heavy and fought Louis. He had Louis beat up until the 13th round. | Conn lost both encounters (got KO'ed), thus it's especially silly to mention KO'losses as a proof of greatness. |
| I'll put LaStarza up there too. He was a tough S.O.B. | Aside from the fact that LaSarza (and Conn) never had 1 single real heavyweight fight being a "son of a bitch" is hardly a quality that should grant a toplisting. |
| In those years, guys never backed away from a fight and they would drop you on your ass. But fighters nowadays? You know what the guys on my list would've done to these modern days fighters? Forget about it! I know what the guys in my era were capable of, and let me tell you… it'd be no competition what so ever! | Of course, grandpa Certisimo. In "those years" music was still music and boxing was still boxing. |
Angelo Dundee's heavyweight ranking
Angelo Dundee (worked with Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Jimmy Ellis, Sugar Ray Leonard) has the following to say:
| I don't want to sound biased, but the greatest heavyweight of all time was Ali. There's a reason there. See… before Ali, none of the fighters talked. The manager, trainer, cousin… everyone else talked but the fighter, because they did their talking in the ring. When Ali came around, the fans got to where they wanted to hear from the star. | Oh, my gods! Ali is the greatest because of his mouth. Dundee even admits it! |
| Liston belongs in the top ten too because the only guy who could lick him was Ali. | Circular logic. But as the trainer of Ali he naturally tends to upvalue Ali's win opponents. Moreover it's not true that Ali was the only one. |
| Foreman is one of the greats too. When he came back, he was a completely changed guy when he won the championship. I don't know if it was the religion or being out of boxing for such a long time. When he first started, he was a tough guy. Then he became a gentleman. | So Foreman is one the best because he bacame a gentleman? |
| Holmes and Frazier, I have to put them in there also. Dempsey was Mr. Excitement, and, oddly enough…. Schmelling. He showed people how to hit Louis with a right hand. Then of course, Braddock belongs in there too. | Again no reasons or useless reasons given. |
Gil Glancy's heavyweight ranking
Gil Clancy (Hall of Fame boxing trainer, worked with Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Gerry Cooney Oscar De La Hoya) announces the following:
| Without a doubt, the three greatest of all time are Louis, Marciano and Ali. | Without a doubt!? Obviously it's so doubtless that he doesn't even need to give any explanation whatsoever. |
| After them, it's very hard to analyze something like that because there are so many heavyweights that brought different things to the sport. | Wow! So it's not only that they are the 3 toppest, but they are also leagues apart from #4 |
| Jack Johnson was a pioneer and a good fighter. In the 70's you had Ali, Frazier and Formen. They were kings. And, I hate to say it, but Tyson belongs up there too. He had so much speed and power. No one could beat him in his prime. | Why does he hate to say it? Because Mike Tyson is obviously too new for grandpas to be accepted as comparable to the greatness of ancient boxers. |
Buddy McGirt's heavyweight ranking
Buddy McGirt (trainer of Tomasz Adamek, Antonio Tarver, Lamon Brewster, Audley Harrison) gives me hope:
| To me, the greatest is Ali. After that, it's hard to say who goes where because there were so many greats. | Finally someone who admits that there are many greats. |
| But, I wasn't impressed with Marciano or Dempsey. But I was impressed with Tyson. He had great speed and combinations…. a really devastating puncher. | A breath of fresh air. |
| As for Johnson, he was a really great defensive fighter. He was a very smart fighter and put you into situations that were hard to get out of. The moves that Johnson made, were very surprising to see… especially during the era that he was fighting in. | Good. At least he tries to base his rankings on some in-the-ring assessment. |
| Holyfield… he did it all! Combinations. He was tough. Lots of heart. And, he fought everyone they put in front of him. No matter how big they were. He always took on the challenge. | Dito. |
| Walcott was a great fighter. Very slick and smart. He could really punch too. But he didn't get his just due until later in his years. Ezzard Charles…. same thing. I think if these guys fought Marciano in their youth, they woulda beat the *Censor* outta him. | Jersey Joe Walcott was a featherfist. Median KO'victim 180+ lbs. Both, Charles and Walcott had only 1 real heavyweight fight. Their achievements are good, but they were cruisers and sub-cruisers. |
Kevin Rooney's heavyweight ranking
Kevin Rooney (trainer of Mike Tyson) obviously loves "Streaks" and "Firstes".
| "Louis had the most title defenses and was the longest reigning heavyweight champ ever. So, he's number one on my list. | Aargh! Using streaks during World War II as a proof. But at least we know why there's no other champ on #1. Because there hasn't been a World War III. |
| Marciano was undefeated | Using streak nonsense again. |
| Then you had Ali who won the title three times. | Using "Number of title wins" nonsense. To become a three-times champ you have to have lost it 2 times. |
| Frazier belongs up there too because he knocked Ali on his backside and beat him under all that pressure in their first fight | Using a single fight nonsense. |
| Foreman was a killer, even though Ali took him to school. But he came back and became the oldest heavyweight champ ever! | At least this is an in-ring achievement. |
| Holyfield gets my ranking also. He was a warrior…. and a four-time heavyweight champ too, after everyone kept telling him to quit. | Again using number-of-title-wins nonsense. |
| Then there's the great Jack Johnson…. the first African American to win the heavyweight title. That was a tremendous feat in itself – for him to get the opportunity to fight for the title in that era. He was 'the man' back in the early 1900's. | Using "The first who"-nonsense. |
| I put Patterson and Tyson on my list too because they were the youngest heavyweight champs ever. | Using "The youngest who" nonsense |
| In fact, Tyson could have been the greatest heavyweight in history. He had faster hands than Ali and he punched harder. | Except that it's nothing special to be faster than Ali or to punch harder than Ali. |
| People say that Tyson would have folded under the mental pressure of Ali. But I know that Tyson would've been a stone cold killer against him. Ali would not have been able to rattle Tyson. | At least he considers a modern boxer (Tyson) beating an ancient one (Ali), on the other hand as Tyson's trainer he is biased. |
Kevin Rooney probably combines the most features how to NOT rank a boxer. HOWEVER it seems that he tries to statistify his rankings by using factual data ("the first who"). It's the wrong kind of data to use, in my opinion, but it's better than ranking by hype alone.
Freddie Roach's heavyweight ranking
Freddie Roach (trainer of Manny Pacquiao, Mike Tyson, Oscar De La Hoya, James Toney, Michael Moorer, Mickey Rourke, Wladimir Klitschko) is a disappointment in the ranking department:
| Louis was the best text book fighter…. ever. He was a classic boxer! | Whatever that means for him. It's also circular logic because text books may be based on the style of Joe Louis, since Louis had a successful style. |
| Then, Ali was more of an athlete. He had a lot of natural ability. | What ever that means for him, again. |
| Jack Johnson, well he was a fighter that was ahead of his time. He was a little unorthodox when compared to today's fighters, but he was the first black man to break through and win the heavyweight championship. So he had to be a very talented guy to do that… especially in that era. |
"The first who"-nonsense. Moreover sounds like hearsay.
So far Roach listed #1 Louis = text book fighter, #2 Ali = natural ability and #3 Jack Johnson = unorthodox. Is this the only way how Roach conducts rankings? By style and supposed talent? |
| Tyson? Early in his career, he was unbeatable. He feared no one and was always in great shape. Great speed and a great puncher. | "Unbeatable"? I can't believe I have to read this "casual fan myhology" from Freddie Roach. |
| But Toney, he has the most natural ability and is the most gifted fighter I've ever seen. He's a throwback from the old timers. As a middleweight, he was a good fighter. But as a heavyweight, his punch came with him and he's better now than I think he ever was. He fights more consistently and fights every round. I've never seen a fighter that is so cool in the ring. Nothing bothers him!" | And again we see Roach listing a fighter because of "natural ability". What the heck? What is Toney doing on a heavyweight toplist? |
Emanuel Steward's heavyweight ranking
Emanuel Steward is the most read worthy. At least he gives explanations that I could understand.
|
If you ask me who is the greatest boxer and who could have beaten all of the champions, I'd say Ali. He fought all over the world and in anyone's home town…. left hander or right hander. He had everything! |
This is true. Ali had the let's-get-it-on attitude and was fighting in 13 different countries (that's a lot!) He also fought 2 southpaws. |
| I have a lot of respect for Ali because Ali was the only champion that I know of that fought anybody, everybody. It was nothing about styles. He fought guys who were terrible for him style wise, but Ali would just tell Angelo Dundee, "Let’s fight"… He didn’t care whose style that he had to fight so in that way. |
This is not true. When it comes to diversity Wladimir Klitschko has faced the more diversified opponents. For example Ali never faced a non-bummy southpaw heavyweight 200+ lbs. |
| Ali was the greatest because fought anybody, everybody, in their country, if it was a style that was bad for him he didn’t care, fight him in a rematch he’d do that, whatever. |
Ali's number of different fight countries is 13. That's the most of all heavyweight champs, but runner-up Nikolay Valuev has fought in 11 countries (= barely less) thus by that logic Valuev would be Top #2. However(!) Ali's number of birth countries (= the nationalities of his opponents) is only 8. That's far lower than Wladimir Klitschko's (16) or Herbie Hide's (20). I find birth countries far more important than fight countries. |
| But there is only one champion, and even Ali will tell you…. it's Joe Louis. He was champion for 11 years…. with 25 defenses! He went into the military and did everything he was supposed to do. He opened the door for black people and brought the whole world together. He never got into a scandal and epitomized the word 'champion.' | Interestingly Manny Steward distinguishes between "only one champion" and "greatest boxer". |
| Foreman and Holmes are much better than people give credit to. | That's it? 1 short sentence for 2 boxers? |
| Tunney was the first guy of the modern boxing era. In fact, his style is the style that Ali picked up from. | But why does ·Gene Tunney belong on a toplist? |
| And, Marciano was phenomenal! He was 188 pounds, had short arms, was a clumsy fighter and he cut easily. And he STILL overcame and knocked out everyone easily. | If an easy-cutting blown-up light-heavyweight can be heavyweight champ then this is rather a proof of a bad era. Moreover it isn't true hat he KO'ed everyone easily. |
| Sonny Liston was awesome. But he did his best fighting before he won the title. | I watched Sonny Liston before he won the title. Sonny Liston is SLOW like Valuev ("Honey Liston"). There is no way he could be described as "awesome", but this is my subjective objection. |
| I'd have to put Tyson in there too. What was so amazing about him was he was such a small guy in an era of tall fighters… just like Marciano was. Mike was 220 but he was fighting guys 240-250. | Mike Tyson won only 2 times being 220 lbs (or below) against a 240+ lbs opponent: Against bummy[?] Sammy Scuff (21-14) (215 lbs vs 250 lbs) and and against Frank Bruno (220 lbs vs 247 lbs). The RELATIVELY lowest weight Mike Tyson had was 85% of his opponent (vs the above Sammy Scaff). Wladimir Klitschko's lowest was 84% against Paea Wolfgramm (= he has been out-weighed even more than Mike Tyson). Their medians are approximately at 100% (= Mike Tyson and Wladimir Klitschko are as much out-weighed as they out-weigh). Thus there is absolutely no reason to point out Tyson's supposed weight disadvantages or to think of him as a RELATIVELY LIGHT boxer. Manny Steward's argument reminds us how even the toppest trainers can go wrong if they base their opinion on memories or impressions. |
| But he also fought guys who were scared to death of him. When he faced a guy who wasn't afraid, he had problems like he did with Mitch Green, Tony Tucker, Bonecrusher Smith and Quick Tillis. Mike WAS in his prime when he fought them and they weren't legendary names either… they just weren't afraid of him. The type of style that Mike had isn't meant for guys after 30 years old anyway. | A very good short analysis by mentioning guys whom so called Prime Tyson couldn't KO. But that's rather a reason why to NOT put Tyson into the top10. |
| Another fighter who I'd say is Johnson. He made an impact as well. He was an unbelievable man with a lot of balls. But I put him at #7 because, actually…. his accomplishments in the ring were very limited. He was mainly known for his hatred of the white establishment… He was a pimp in Chicago and that's how he made most of his money. He hardly made any money from fighting. | So why do you put him into the top 10? To pimp the toplist ("The greatest pimp to ever box")? Moreover I disagree here about Jack Johnson's accomplishments. Jack Johnson won 7x world title fights (and 15x World Colored Championship fights). That's as many times as Marciano and more than Sonny Liston (2), Tunney (3) and Foreman (5), whom Emanuel Steward all places higher than Jack Johnson. I know that the quality of opponents of Jack Johnson is not stellar but describing his achievements as "limited" is too harsh. |
| Louis did more for the black race than any man in history. He was not only a fighter, he opened the door for race relationships. He was the one who made it easier for other generations that came along. | Again these are some US-internal and out-of-the ring achievements that should play absolutely no role, except if you compile the "greatest heavyweight boxers who did stuff I find magnificent outside of the ring in the US"-toplist. Especially since these achievements are basically meaningless for the major part of the world. |
| When Louis fought Schmeling for a second time, there was never a time in history where the whole world was all united around the radio. | I see no reason why a single cruiserweight fight (Louis 198 lbs vs Schmeling 193 lbs) should be a reason to be placed in the heavyweight toplist. |
|
That's when Louis became the biggest hero…. ever. No athlete or any political figure could have done what Louis did that night. He went beyond being a boxer. After that, no one looked so much at black and white anymore. And THAT's what a heavyweight champ is all about. That night was like the night that the world stood still, and this mean German machine that was like trying to take over the whole world, Hitler, that it was strange that these two men in a little small limited little space in America here, half naked with just something on their fists, were going to almost determine the fate of mankind so to say. … And that was like trying almost to stop that whole Hitler reign. |
Although I respect Manny's opinion: That's ranking by hype. One wonders what this has to do with *BOXING* when we have to consider US-politics and socio-cultural problems of the 1930ies(!) before we place someone onto a toplist. Moreover by this logic, Max Schmeling (had he won) would be the #1 boxer of all time, which is equally ridiculous. Moreover by this logic never ever can anyone else become the #1 because the chances for similar political circumstances are basically zero. Having said that: Manny is very entertaining to read (and the only one worth reading) and you should read his full explanations, since I used only a portion here. |
| In their own ways they both (Joe Louis ands Muhammad Ali) were the two greatest, I think, heavyweight champions, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they could have still beaten a prime Larry Holmes or maybe even a George Foreman. | Thank you Emanuel for clearly stating that what-you-consider the 2 greatest boxer would be beatable by Holmes and Foreman. |
George Foreman's heavyweight ranking
Let's see what George Foreman (famous boxer and face of the Foreman Grill) has to say:
| 1) Joe Louis. To be honest with you, number two is way off. Joe Louis is in a class by himself. | No reason given. We simply have to believe it. |
| 2) Rocky Marciano. Just look at Rocky Marciano's record. Nobody beat him. You can't take that from him. | I already addresed it above. |
| 3) Jack Johnson. A big brave cat, because he'd do whatever he wanted and get out of the way | And what has this to do with boxing? |
| 4) Muhammad Ali. Put him down as the GREATEST MAN to ever box, and a hero bigger than boxing. Once Ali lost his speed, it only showed that he'd never developed a great defense. | Foreman was defeated by Ali, so a #4 position for Ali may be biased, especially since he places Ali below Jack Johnson. "Never developed a great defence" is an understatement: Ali was amongst the worst. |
| 5) Joe Frazier. Only because he depended solely on his left hook do I rate Joe Frazier below Marciano. Marciano could hit with both hands. | Although I disagree, this is at least an in-ring assessment. |
| 6) Jack Dempsey. Jack Dempsey's very name means strength and courage. Other than Joe Louis, there is not a name in boxing or in sports with more meaning. | What the heck? What a nonsense. |
| 7) Mike Tyson. A phenomenon. What Mike Tyson was able to do with his speed of hand and punching power is as phenomenal as what Muhammad Ali did when he was Cassius Clay with speed of feet. | What? |
| 8) Sonny Liston. If Sonny Liston truly had not lost his cool, had not underestimated a young Cassius Clay; and kept the same mind set that he had as a contender, history would have been a lot kinder to him. Sonny Liston could not believe Muhammad Ali was so fast and had so much courage. It just made him fall apart. | So why do you put him into the top 10? |
| 9) Floyd Patterson. The First Two-Time Heavyweight Champion of the World. | "The first who"-nonsense. |
| 10) Evander Holyfield. For standing up to Mike Tyson. | A slender reason from someone who sells the Foreman Grills. But at least this is an in-ring-assessment of Evander "The Real Meal" Holyfield. |
Summary
There IS NOT A SINGLE PROPERLY SUBSTANTIATED toplist ranking by any of these American boxing experts. All they do is ranking their childhood memories or ranking the hype (with Buddy & Manny being the slight exceptions).
You could sum up their rankings as
- Number #1 is the boxer who was my hero when I was a small kid
- Number #2 is the boxer who did the most for blacks
- Number #3 is the boxer who was the first black who…
- Number #4 is the boxer with the biggest mouth
- Number #5 is the boxer with the biggest hype
- Number #6 is the boxer with slightly less hype
- Number #7 is the boxer of whom no more than 5 filmed fights exist so you have to trust my expertise
- Number #8 is the boxer who could supposedly kill a horse with 1 punch
- Number #9 is a boxer whom I mention but won't explain why
- Number #10 is someone whose last fight was definitely not within the last 60 years.
*Uff*
My site was overdue.
Please also note the amount not only of black boxers, but racial arguments for black boxers ("He paved the way for black fighters", "The first black who…", "Opened the door for black people").
One wonders, one wonders.
Heavyweight Boxing Rankings (#3) TOP 10 by boxing experts -OR- Grandpa's champions,
Yes , it's all true.
Same with all the other articles too.
Most people just believe the hype these days.
Say it often & long enough & via the internet everyone takes it as gospel
Most have never even watched the fights.
Yes – Ali & the 'golden era' were all overrated
They were competitive with each other – but that's only b/c they were equally mediocre.
Ali was possibly the MOST OVERRATED BOXER in history
A guy that lacked boxing fundamentals (didn't know how to block the jab & left hook) with poor defense, who got HIT A LOT.
Had trouble with a lot of MEDIOCRE limited fighters (Norton, Frazier etc)
Gifted a LOT of dubious decisions (judges were bought)
And worst of all – never had a punch (otherwise bums like Norton, Frazier would never have even lasted 5 rounds)
Fantastic blog – telling the truth as it is!!!
Yeah that's another point ofeten overlooked. Ali was basically "given" a lot of his wins.
You are amazing. Thanks for the article!
Could you make an unbiased alltime top 10 HW list with GOOD arguments to back it up.
I really couldn't do it. Even if you have a great list, there is still a possibility that thr #5 on the list could beat the #2 for example 7 out of 10 times, cause of the fact that styles make fights..
It will be hard, but I would love to see your top 10!
Ha ha ha ha ha SERIOUSLY???? you are discounting all the great trainers and heavy weights, like marciano, tyson, ali, lennox, foreman,dempsy, johnson,holyfield,liston,holmes, frazier, norton, joe louis,sullivan etc etc, just because you are a fan of wlad??
Wlad is a good fighter, no doubt, as is vitali, but come on these guys had records that blow wlads into out of space, wlad has fought no one of any significance, none and he has been knocked out 3 times un avenged (1)has no hall of famers on his list, broght no new styles of advancements, acheivements, firsts of anything to note except the fortune of being born very very big and athletic, in the worse era of heavyweght boxing.
The most annoying thing about this drivel is that you discount that diets and training have meant that the general average weights of todays boxers are higher than they were of yesteryear,
The fighters of eras gone past excelled at there era, earning fame for there acheivements,innovations etc etc, you cant just suddenly discount all that and say that they 'wernt fighting real heavyweights' ahem EXCUSE ME they WERE FIGHTING HEAVYWEIGHTS DUMBASS FOR THERE ERA according to the diets and genetics available to the time, and they excelled at it.
Wlad and vitali also excell in this the joint WORSE era ill admit, but wlad has been flattened in it and is boring as he goes along, he also outmatchs his opponents and is the betting fasvourite in every fight, no one even knows any of his opponents, ther are compelete no bodies, even in the 'connected age" of the internet nobody knows or worse even cares.
That tells you something. WAKE UP
Why dont you put you considerable intelect and usefullness and ,make a proper informative nuetral boxing site instead of a wladimir klitchko trolling site, it would actually be very welcome and i would be a fan, untill then good luck.
Wlad is a good fighter, no doubt, as is vitali, but come on these guys had records that blow wlads into out of space
And maybe Oscar De La Hoya has an even better record but NOT IN TERMS OF REAL HEAVYWEIGHT.
Additionally I doubt it that Wlad has a worse record than the majority of these guys be it heavyweight or p4p.
I pre-answered this already at
[post=932]
and
[post=2413]
I pre-answered this already at
[post=488]
–> "Lorentz contraction"
Doesn't change the fact that at fight night Joe Louis vs Max Schmeling was 198 vs 192 = a cruiser fight. Whether the diet/life style was the best of their times is irrelevant. It was 198 vs 192. That's not even a real cruiserweight fight nowadays.
This _IS_ a neutral website. It just happens to disagree with American and British Complainers ("ABCs") like yourself.
I wrote about guys like you at
[post=2888]
Wesley there you go again. Of course most of those guys, with a few exceptions, must be discounted because they're not even HW's, wouldn't be allowed to box at HW and would be killed if they tried. Wlad's opposition is much better than most of those guys too. The guys that beat Wlad had punching power beyond anything forty years ago.
This is the only neutral site I know of so far, you must know how ridiculous these statements are mate!!
Look im sorry dude, this is NOT a nuetral boxing site, no way near, you have had the balls to at least leave the negative comments on and answer them back, fair play. but please dont try and pass the 'this is nuetral' nonsense, you only write about wladimir, not any other boxers in any other weight divisions, you completely discount every other heavy weight as non existant, small,
so let me ask you, do you mean that because of wlads size and that this era had brought about a few fighters that could fit into a weight division above? if that is your point then il will go along with that, as valuev, vitali, and wlad are the 3 biggest champions in history, but they would be in a division of 3 fighters…not a division at all.and so by even your own conclusions, wlad, would be the best "super dupa heavy weight" of all time..out of 3!!' ridiculous.
So do your self a favour, stop this 'every other fighter who isnt wlad is a cruiserweight' rubbish and talk some common sense.
This generation has bought about a handfull of freakish fighters, but the greats of past gone by have also fought and beat big heavy freaks of there time off the top of my had primo camera, george forman him self had a longer reach than both wlad and vital. gerry cooney and a few others.
Most of todays fighters are the same hieght as yesteryears except a few, they have just filled out more thata all. there slill level is very poor indeed.
Asi have said previously, when i first came to this site it was refreshing to see some statistics and that type of breakdown, untill i quickly realised what was really going on.
cut out the biased crap and make a proper site about different boxers from different divisions with no biased involved.
Dude you are so far off the mark in so many sentences it's hard to know even where to start lol. Have you even boxed before? Do you even watch boxing? EVERYTHING is better now. Not to take anything away from the past but it is obviously how it is. You only have to look.
Where can I find your heavyweight top list assh*le
His toplist is shorter. It is all about Wladimir Klitschko than little worse Lennox and than little worse Vitali.
Champ wise it would obviously have Wladimir, Vitali, Lennox, Tyson and several other modern heavies with good real heavyweight records against quality opposition. How else could you really make a toplist with any factual basis with other fighters at the top? You can't. Muhammad might scrape through if he's lucky lol.
LOL You wouldn't think this article could cause much controversy, it's pretty much myth buster stuff all the way through, but some people just can't swallow even when the truth is carved up in to little pieces for them lol
Tommo, today's fighters are not better. They're fatter, less stamina, less speed, lack
of. offense.
Size does not equal power. Nor does it equal chin.
Ali fought opponents with better records than kbros have.
Walcott was crafty with solid power.
Ali was not cw he was 210 fast, with excellent stamina.
Marciano was a natural 200+. Defeated 4 HOOFers.
Textbook = Fundmently Sound.
I'll address your points individually.
1. Today's fighters are much better, there were as many fat boxers then as now, there are also athletic boxers today too that are much more athletic than any boxer of the past. They have much higher VO2max on average and ring experience and given the same weight are much faster overall. The exceptions are usually because the modern HW's you are comparing to are much heavier and more muscular which of course affects stamina and speed but offers OBVIOUS benefits, hence weight ranges you idiot! Lack of offense? Seriously? You think HW's today are not offensive? That's too stupid to warrant reply.
2. There are many factors that influence power and chin. Size definitely plays a central role in both, irrespectable of technique, explosiveness, timing etc and intrinsic durability, something bigger is both more powerful and durable. That's not even boxing, that's simple physics.
3. Ali barely fought any decent opponents at all as we would regard them today and his opponent's records are statistically much worse than K bro's opponents who were either past, current or future champs and either unbeaten or mostly unbeaten and had compiled their own records against opponents who had much better records and were much heavier than Ali's opponents as well!
4. Walcott was crafty, that's true, but he was no Chris Byrd, Eddie Chambers or David Haye. But Walcott was a total featherfist and in terms of a 200+ HW division as today, could not crack an egg at all, Byrd hits much harder. Walcott was also a borderline bum.
5. Ali was what we would today call a "former CW" who fattened up to a HW from CW.The problem with Ali is that today, the boxers who are in the realm of 210lbs that compete at HW are all very special in terms of skills and apart from Haye all struggle to compete. Ali had none of these all around skills and his runner style is completely unacceptable at that weight today. If Ali wanted to compete today, he would have to train harder and artificially dehydrate down to below the 200 limit and then beef back up to 210 over the next few days and fight as Cruiser. Today's cruisers actually DO fight at about 210lbs by fight time! Again, you idiot.
6. MArciano was 185lbs average, and Marciano never once weighed even close to 200lbs in any fight. And what does HOF have to do with anything? HOF means nothing objective at all! MOST HOF boxers, since that is an accolade bestowed historically, would be rounded up and KO1ed by someone like Deontay Wilder no doubt. So much for your HOF!
None of your statements were worth a single drop of piss in the desert! That's a fact!
Shavers, Marciano, Foreman, Liston, Louis, Dempsey, Tyson, Bear, Cooney, Frazier, Morrison, Tua, etc…all 20 power punchers.
Btw…Rocky fought 12 200+ opponents kayoing all.
Conn fought plenty 200+.
Marciano, Dempsey, Louis, Moore, Greb, Walker, etc….peformed better aganist
larger opponents.
Dempsey's entire career was smoke and mirrors, he never beat any decent+big opponent and ducked many fighters.
Louis appeared to beat the 3 big guys he fought, but Louis outweighed most of his opponents, certainly the ones with any appreciable skills, the 3 big guys he beat were total oafs compared with Louis' skillset.
The 200+ opponents of MArciano again, were total bums.
Moore fought terrible opposition.
Greb, Walker, like the above fighters, none of them are comparable to a modern HW at all! Statistics clearly show that over a representative sample, ALL boxers are affected by weight differentials, hence divisions, hence the incidence of heavy beating small more often.
Conn began to box as a lightweight, suffered many defeats as he went up in weight including 6 losses at WW! And never really made it past the light HW. There is today no boxer in the HW division that would ever have a background like this. The fact that Conn was a HW top contender back then is testament to how pathetically weak and poor quality the Louis era really was! He was a little bum, nothing more.
Where is your response Chris?
You have totally exposed yourself as a complete fool!
You posted this sh*t that is obviously falsified by even the most cursory examination.
Compared with most all modern boxers, any pre80's boxer, champion or ATG/HOF can barely even BOX! There skills are rudimentary.
The athletic boxers today are FAR more athletic than any previous, it's CRAZY to argue that!
And of course todays heavies are so much bigger and stronger they aren't even in the same league to begin with.
Most good hard punching HW's today would knock every single pre80's ATG's straight out, most likely in the first round, some of the weaker ones like Frazier etc, with the first connected hard punch.
And guys like Chambers and Byrd who don't hit hard today, would have been considered hard punchers back then and otherwise would have been faster and more skilled than any boxer pre80's you could possibly compare to!
You have brought into one of the biggest propaganda lies is all of sports history my friend. Rubbishing the present and promoting the past in an effort to save face by the powers that be in an attempt to protect their boxing heritage.
For 150 years America owned boxing, until a couple of white, former Soviet fighters uprooted the flag of HW boxing and transported it to the otherside of the world where it remains planted.
The ONLY reason you bought into it is because you are a black American.
ALL of these fighters you mentioned look like sh*t, fight other guys who look like sh*t, so they MUST have been sh*t! LOL
The truth is you HAVE good boxers and even good BLACK boxers too!
Deontay Wilder, Chris Arreola, Bermane Stiverne, Bryant Jennings, Mike Perez, Carlos Takam, Tony Thompson would have steamrolled all of your favourites themselves and provide FAR tougher competition to the simply far better European and other world competition today.
Klitschko himself coming up in the former Soviet Union with a regimented program from very early on simply comes from a far stronger and more disciplined society and you struggle to compete anymore!