My list of the top five heavyweight boxers of all time

[sevensages]

I made a list of the top 5 heavyweight boxers of all time, and I made a list of five honorable mentions. If you have any interest in this topic, I would like to read your feedback, even if you disagree with everything I wrote in my list.

In my list, I am ranking the top heavyweights of all time in terms of their entire careers, not who were the best heavyweights on the best days of their careers. So in my list, I value consistency over being spectacular for a short time period. More specifically, I value consistency against top ranked opponents. I am far more forgiving of a heavyweight boxer's losing boxing matches after their primes than I am of a boxer losing matches in his prime because all boxers' skills diminish when they get old.

All heavyweight champions of the world have lost at least one boxing match when they got old except Rocky Marciano. I will define a boxer's prime as under 30 years old (not 30 and younger). I know that this is arbitrary, but I had to pick some number as the cutoff for a boxer's prime. I picked 30 because I like round numbers. Perhaps 31 or 32 would be more accurate. But no older than 32 would be accurate. Of the many dozens (or perhaps hundreds) heavyweight champions of the world throughout history, how many have been 33 or older? Very few. Maybe 5 or 6.

Here is my list:

The Greatest Heavyweight Boxers of All Time

1# Joe Louis
Official record: 66-03
Losses in prime: One

In my opinion, Joe Louis is the GOAT. IMO, the only significant stain on Joe Louis' career was his loss against Max Schmeling in 1936 when Joe Louis was 22 years old. But no heavyweight boxer in all of history has had as much consistency against top ranked competition as Joe Louis. Joe Louis was world champion for 11 years. Joe Louis had 26 successful titles defenses over those 11 years, which is the most successful title defenses of any heavyweight champion in history. Almost all of those 26 successful title defenses that Joe Louis had were against top ten contenders. And Joe Louis fought in an era in which boxing was a lot more popular than now. There was a much deeper pool of talent in Joe Louis' day than in the 21st century.

2# Muhammad Ali
Official record: 56-05
Losses in prime: One

Muhammad Ali also had a lot of consistency against top ranked competition. Highlights of Muhammad Ali's career are beating Sonny Liston twice, Floyd Patterson, Oscar Bonavena, George Chuvalo, beating Joe Frazier two out of three times, and beating prime George Foreman, Jerry Quarry, and Earnie Shavers. The only major stain on Muhammad Ali's record is his loss to Joe Frazier in Muhammad Ali's prime. If not for Muhammad Ali's loss to Joe Frazier, I would write that Muhammad Ali was the GOAT, not Joe Louis.

3# Tyson Fury
Official record: 34-01-01
My record for Tyson Fury: 33-02-01 I think that the judges should have ruled that Francis Ngannou won his match against Tyson Fury.
Losses in prime: Zero

In my book, Tyson Fury never lost a match until his match with Francis Ngannou when Fury was 35 years old. Tyson Fury was unbeatable in his prime. Highlights of Tyson Fury's career include Tyson Fury defeating Derek Chisora thrice (once in Chisora's prime and a second and third time against an aging Chisora), an aging Kevin Johnson, an aging Steve Cunningham, an aging Wladimir Klitchko, and Fury defeated Deontay Wilder twice, but also had a draw with Deontay Wilder. Tyson Fury's first official loss was against Oleksander Usyk when Fury was 35 years old.


4# Rocky Marciano
Official record: 49-0
Losses in prime: zero

Before I started conducting research for this list, I knew that Rocky Marciano was a shoe-in for this list. Rocky Marciano is the only heavyweight champion that I am aware of that never list a boxing match as a professional. Highlights of Rocky Marciano's career are defeating an aging (37 year old ) Joe Louis, an aging Ezzard Charles, an aging Archie Moore, and an aging Jersey Joe Walcott twice. Since Rocky Marciano was undefeated for his entire career, why did I put Marciano below Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, and Tyson Fury? Rocky Marciano mostly just boxed a bunch of tomato cans and aging has-beens in his career. Marciano only defended his title about 5 times before he retired.

5# Larry Holmes
Official record: 69-06
Losses in prime: Zero

There are two facts that caused me to include Larry Holmes in the top five list: 1# Larry Holmes had 20 successful title defenses as world champion, which is ahead of every heavyweight world champion in history except Joe Louis and Wladimir Klitchsko. 2# Larry Holmes was unbeatable in his prime.

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

In no particular order (except for being ranked below the heavyweight boxers on my top 5 list), here is my list of five honorable mentions:

Wladimir Klitchsko
Official record: 64-05
Losses in prime: Three

Klitschko made my honorable mention list (as opposed to not being listed at all in this post) because he was world champion for 12 years (in two different reigns), and he had the most successful title defenses of any heavyweight world champion history except Joe Louis. The reason that Klitschko did not make my top five list is that he lost three times in his prime, which is enough losses for me to give him a pass on the top five list.

George Foreman
Official record: 76-05
Losses in prime: two

George Foreman defeated a lot of great heavyweight boxers, most notably defeating Joe Frazier twice. George Foreman is also notable for being the oldest heavyweight to win the world championship. George Foreman won the heavyweight championship in 1994 at age 45. I gave him a pass from the top ten list because of his two losses in his prime.

Mike Tyson
Official record: 50-06
Losses in prime: One

Mike Tyson was more spectacular for a couple of years than any other heavyweight boxer in history that i am aware of. But Mike Tyson did not have a lot of consistency. Mike Tyson lost in his prime to Buster Douglas. Buster Douglas was a journeyman boxer who nobody had ever heard of before his match against Mike Tyson. At least when Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis lost matches in their primes, it was against top ranked opponents. Then Mike Tyson had two more losses against Evander Holifield when he was just slightly past his prime at age 30. Losing at age 30 is almost as bad as losing in one's prime , in my opinion. So I had to give Mike Tyson a pass from the top ten list.

Jack Dempsey
Official record: 68-06
Losses in prime: 3

Dempsey was world champion for seven years, which is one of the longest title reigns of a heavyweight champion in history. But Dempsey didn't make my top five because he lost three matches in his prime.

Lennox Lewis
Official record: 41-02
Losses in prime: One

Lennox Lewis was fairly consistent. But I don't think that he was as good as anyone in my top five list.

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

I invite everyone to give me feedback on my list. If you disagree with my choices, please tell me who you would put on the list instead.

 

[hutchphd]

You have not included Jack Johnson???????

 

[sevensages]

You have not included Jack Johnson???????

Jack Johnson competed in boxing from around about 1900-1910. Jack Johnson defeated 5'7" Tommy Burns to become world champion. Why was a 5'7" man able to become world champion back then? There was far less competition back then. So that makes Jack Johnson's career far less impressive. Furthermore, Jack Johnson was defeated five times IN HIS PRIME (with eleven total losses). All the boxers on my top 5 list and all of my honorable mentions were a lot more consistently good than Jack Johnson. The ten boxers I mentioned were all either unbeatable or almost unbeatable in their primes. It seems clear to me that Jack Johnson was inferior to the ten boxers I mentioned.

 

[sevensages]

You have not included Jack Johnson???????

Would you rank Jack Johnson on a list of the top 5 heavyweights of all time? If so, where would you rank him? Who would you remove from my top 5 list to place Jack Johnson on the list?

Or if you would put Jack Johnson on the honorable mention list, which one of the five boxers on my Honorable Mentions list would you remove to put Jack Johnson on the list?

There were no other boxers I had to seriously consider for my top 5 list. And the only other heavyweight boxers I seriously considered for the Honorable Mentions list were Evander Holifield and Joe Frazier.

 

[Baluncore]

I invite everyone to give me feedback on my list. If you disagree with my choices, please tell me who you would put on the list instead.

I question your choice of second place.
There was never a fight between Muhammad Ali and Cassius Clay. It would have been a close-run encounter, well worth watching.

 

[sevensages]

I question your choice of second place.
There was never a fight between Muhammad Ali and Cassius Clay. It would have been a close-run encounter, well worth watching.

Are you trolling? Muhammad Ali was Cassius Clay.

 

[phinds]

Do you SERIOUSLY think he didn't know that?

 

[sevensages]

Do you SERIOUSLY think he didn't know that?

I don't know. I asked him if he was trolling.

 

[sevensages]

The Ring magazine did a poll of their writers to make a list of the greatest heavyweight boxers of all time.

This is The Ring magazine's top five heavyweights of all time:

1# Muhammad Ali
2# Joe Louis
3# Jack Johnson
4# Rocky Marciano
5# Larry Holmes

I didn't see The Ring magazine's list until this morning (after I created this thread). But there is a lot of similarity in my list and The Ring's list.

Interestingly, The Ring ranks Jack Johnson as #3. I doubt that I would even rank Jack Johnson in the top 20. I don't understand. Jack Johnson fought in a weak era, and Johnson still lost five matches in his prime. What the heck do people see in Jack Johnson?

I know Jack Johnson's career was during the nadir in race relations in American history, and Johnson was famous for taunting white people by having a white girlfriend. That gets a lot of publicity. But he was not that great of a boxer. I am baffled as to how anyone could think Jack Johnson could possibly have been better than Marciano or Larry Holmes.

 

[woopydalan]

How are you going to rank Tyson Fury over Oleksandr Usyk? Usyk just beat him despite having a 40 pound disadvantage, height disadvantage, reach disadvantage. Heck, Usyk is older than Fury. Usyk is the best heavyweight of this era. He has beaten DuBois who just manhandled AJ last weekend, AJ twice, and Fury. And he is coming from a cruiserweight. Not even a natural heavyweight. Undisputed champion in both cruiserweight and heavyweight division.

Mike Tyson was a great fighter for a relatively short period. Anytime he went up in competition, he fell short. He looked spectacular against lesser competition, but when he went up against Holyfield he lost twice and also to Lennox Lewis. I think he is an overrated boxer but had a larger-than-life personality which is why he became so famous.

 

[sevensages]

How are you going to rank Tyson Fury over Oleksandr Usyk? Usyk just beat him despite having a 40 pound disadvantage, height disadvantage, reach disadvantage.

I rank Fury over Usyk for the same reason that I rank Joe Louis over Max Schmeling even though Schmeling beat Joe Louis in Joe Louis' prime. Joe Louis had a far more successful career than Schmeling. Tyson Fury has had a far more successful career than Usyk. Fury was lineal champion for about five years. If Usyk can hold the lineal championship for the next five years and stay undefeated, I will move Usyk to third place and move Fury to fourth place and move Rocky Marciano to fifth place and give Larry Holmes Mike Tyson's spot in Honorable Mention.

Heck, Usyk is older than Fury. Usyk is the best heavyweight of this era. He has beaten DuBois who just manhandled AJ last weekend, AJ twice, and Fury. And he is coming from a cruiserweight. Not even a natural heavyweight. Undisputed champion in both cruiserweight and heavyweight division.

Mike Tyson was a great fighter for a relatively short period. Anytime he went up in competition, he fell short. He looked spectacular against lesser competition, but when he went up against Holyfield he lost twice and also to Lennox Lewis. I think he is an overrated boxer but had a larger-than-life personality which is why he became so famous.

 

[russ_watters]

Interesting topic for PF....

IMO, boxing is an anachronism and the ranking of the OP is reflective of the problem: very thin competition. Other sports don't have individual competitors winning every competition for many years, and would never call a 7th ranked competitor (Buster Douglas) a "journeyman". And that makes it harder to rank the greatest of all time because the greats rarely competed against each other and had near-meaningless near-perfect records.

 

[sevensages]

Interesting topic for PF....

IMO, boxing is an anachronism and the ranking of the OP is reflective of the problem: very thin competition. Other sports don't have individual competitors winning every competition for many years, and would never call a 7th ranked competitor (Buster Douglas) a "journeyman". And that makes it harder to rank the greatest of all time because the greats rarely competed against each other and had near-meaningless near-perfect records.

Boxing usually doesn't have individual competitors winning every competition for many years either. The guys on my top 5 list were prima Donnas. If you research these boxers' records thoroughly, the records are more meaningful.

I thought Buster Douglas was ranked a lot lower than seventh, but you might be right.

do you agree with my list?

 

[russ_watters]

Boxing usually doesn't have individual competitors winning every competition for many years either. The guys on my top 5 list were prima Donnas.

I feel like you're trying to split a hair there. For other sports it isn't "usually" it's "never". As-in, basically never more than year at a time for prime/low frequency events. Tennis, for example, has 5 total "grand slams" in which a player (male or female) won all four major tournaments in the span of 1 year. Nobody has ever won all of the majors over 2 years, much less all tournaments over such a time. The best player in tennis history is probably Serena and she doesn't even have a calendar year grand slam.

If you research these boxers' records thoroughly, the records are more meaningful.

All of your top 5 boxers are over a 90% winning percentage, and "prime" as high as 100%. That's unheard of in other sports -- again, because the competition in other sports is much heavier.

do you agree with my list?

I think my opinion on the matter is clear enough...

 

[woopydalan]

I rank Fury over Usyk for the same reason that I rank Joe Louis over Max Schmeling even though Schmeling beat Joe Louis in Joe Louis' prime. Joe Louis had a far more successful career than Schmeling. Tyson Fury has had a far more successful career than Usyk. Fury was lineal champion for about five years. If Usyk can hold the lineal championship for the next five years and stay undefeated, I will move Usyk to third place and move Fury to fourth place and move Rocky Marciano to fifth place and give Larry Holmes Mike Tyson's spot in Honorable Mention.

How can you say that Fury has had a more successful career than Usyk in terms of competitive accomplishments? He became lineal champion by defeating a 40 year old over-the-hill Wladimir Klitschko, who Anthony Joshua subsequently knocked out in Wlad's next fight and retired. Then Fury held lineal champion for all those years fighting WHO? Derek Chisora? He had a trilogy against Deontay Wilder who was considered a boogeyman at the time, but in retrospect had a padded record beating lesser competition. Joseph Parker and Zhilei Zhang exposed Deontay Wilder and diminishes the value of the wins by Tyson Fury. Fury ducked fighting Usyk and Anthony Joshua for YEARS to hold his WBC title. He STILL hasn't fought Anthony Joshua even though that is one of the biggest money fights to be made. He probably will now take that fight since AJ is shot psychologically as was seen last weekend against DuBois.

The TLDR to me about Tyson Fury is that he has carefully maneuvered his career to make it look better than it actually is.

Usyk became undisputed champion in both the cruiserweight division and heavyweight division. That alone cements him as a Hall of Famer. He's fighting guys while having major physical disadvantages because he is a smaller heavyweight, yet still winning.

 

[woopydalan]

Interesting topic for PF....

IMO, boxing is an anachronism and the ranking of the OP is reflective of the problem: very thin competition. Other sports don't have individual competitors winning every competition for many years, and would never call a 7th ranked competitor (Buster Douglas) a "journeyman". And that makes it harder to rank the greatest of all time because the greats rarely competed against each other and had near-meaningless near-perfect records.

I think there are a few reasons why competition is so thin. First off, anyone who is outside the top 10 in a given weight division can't even support themselves financially through the sport. The majority of professional boxers have day jobs. It's a sport that only a handful can pay their bills solely through the sport and thus dedicate all their time to training. A lot of guys fighting on undercards for PPV fights are making $10,000.

The sport has no organized leagues and it's basically the wild west of sports with every man for himself. They have to fund their own training. The fighters are the ones who have to pay for accomodations for their trainers and corner when they travel for a fight.

 

[woopydalan]

I feel like you're trying to split a hair there. For other sports it isn't "usually" it's "never". As-in, basically never more than year at a time for prime/low frequency events. Tennis, for example, has 5 total "grand slams" in which a player (male or female) won all four major tournaments in the span of 1 year. Nobody has ever won all of the majors over 2 years, much less all tournaments over such a time. The best player in tennis history is probably Serena and she doesn't even have a calendar year grand slam.

All of your top 5 boxers are over a 90% winning percentage, and "prime" as high as 100%. That's unheard of in other sports -- again, because the competition in other sports is much heavier.

I think my opinion on the matter is clear enough...

Well, it doesn't help that there is a very loose mandating body to force fights to happen. Imagine in tennis if Djokovic could handpick who all his opponents are since he's garnering the most attention. That's essentially what happens in boxing. Canelo Alvarez is the biggest PPV draw in the sport and makes a ton of money every fight, yet he carefully curates who his opponents are and won't fight against the top contenders in his weight class. He just fought against a B tier opponent a couple weekends ago in Edgar Berlanga when the top contender is David Benavidez who Canelo has avoided fighting for YEARS. Because in boxing, the top PPV stars have more negotiating power than the governing bodies (WBC, WBO, WBA, IBF) since the sport is so loosely organized. It basically breeds a large inequality where a select few fighters make most of the money and hold the most power in maneuvering their careers, whereas the rest of the fighters are scrapping for the bread crumbs.

That also explains why fighters have 90%+ winning percentages. The top competitors don't even fight each other. They pad the first 20 fights of their professional careers against guys who are part-time boxers, and then the last 10 fights are carefully curated to make sure you have every possible advantage against your opponent --- be it having negotiating power in ring size, glove selection, venue, judges, referees, and just fighting against guys who are not in the prime of their career. Top fighters will often wait for their opponent to age out (Floyd Mayweather did this to Manny Pacquiao), or if the fighter is towards the end of their career, they will fight an up-and-coming prospect who doesn't have the experience yet (see Floyd Mayweather vs Canelo Alvarez). What other sport do the athletes get to CHOOSE who the referee and judges are? I mean come on. Floyd Mayweather (record 50-0) was the master at this. His last fight and largest PPV in the history of the sport was against Conor McGregor who was making his professional DEBUT and is an MMA fighter, not even the same sport.

 

[woopydalan]

Here is my list:

The Greatest Heavyweight Boxers of All Time

2# Muhammad Ali
Official record: 56-05
Losses in prime: One

Muhammad Ali also had a lot of consistency against top ranked competition. Highlights of Muhammad Ali's career are beating Sonny Liston twice, Floyd Patterson, Oscar Bonavena, George Chuvalo, beating Joe Frazier two out of three times, and beating prime George Foreman, Jerry Quarry, and Earnie Shavers. The only major stain on Muhammad Ali's record is his loss to Joe Frazier in Muhammad Ali's prime. If not for Muhammad Ali's loss to Joe Frazier, I would write that Muhammad Ali was the GOAT, not Joe Louis.

I think it also needs to be mentioned that Ali lost to Ken Norton in their first fight, and many would argue he lost the second fight as well. Also losing to Leon Spinks is a major stain given Spink's record was 26-17 and it was his 8th professional fight when he went up against Ali.

 

[sevensages]

I think it also needs to be mentioned that Ali lost to Ken Norton in their first fight, and many would argue he lost the second fight as well. Also losing to Leon Spinks is a major stain given Spink's record was 26-17 and it was his 8th professional fight when he went up against Ali.

You have to admit that Muhammad Ali never ducked anyone though. Leon Spinks beat Muhammad Ali when Muhammad Ali was old and long past his prime. Prime vs Prime Leon Spinks would have zero chance against Ali.

 

[sevensages]

How can you say that Fury has had a more successful career than Usyk in terms of competitive accomplishments? He became lineal champion by defeating a 40 year old over-the-hill Wladimir Klitschko, who Anthony Joshua subsequently knocked out in Wlad's next fight and retired. Then Fury held lineal champion for all those years fighting WHO? Derek Chisora? He had a trilogy against Deontay Wilder who was considered a boogeyman at the time, but in retrospect had a padded record beating lesser competition. Joseph Parker and Zhilei Zhang exposed Deontay Wilder and diminishes the value of the wins by Tyson Fury. Fury ducked fighting Usyk and Anthony Joshua for YEARS to hold his WBC title. He STILL hasn't fought Anthony Joshua even though that is one of the biggest money fights to be made. He probably will now take that fight since AJ is shot psychologically as was seen last weekend against DuBois.

The TLDR to me about Tyson Fury is that he has carefully maneuvered his career to make it look better than it actually is.

Usyk became undisputed champion in both the cruiserweight division and heavyweight division. That alone cements him as a Hall of Famer. He's fighting guys while having major physical disadvantages because he is a smaller heavyweight, yet still winning.

Maybe you are right that Usyk has had a more successful career than Fury. I don't know. You seem to be more knowledgeable about Tyson Fury's career than I am.

What is your list of the top five heavyweights of all time?

 

[sevensages]

Interesting topic for PF....

IMO, boxing is an anachronism and the ranking of the OP is reflective of the problem: very thin competition. Other sports don't have individual competitors winning every competition for many years, and would never call a 7th ranked competitor (Buster Douglas) a "journeyman". And that makes it harder to rank the greatest of all time because the greats rarely competed against each other and had near-meaningless near-perfect records.

I don't see why you think that thin competition adds up to boxing being an anachronism. Boxing is not an anachronism. Although boxing is not as popular today as it was in the 1930s and 1940s, boxing is still somewhat popular. Boxing is a sport that will exist forever because "who can whup who" in a fistfight is such an elemental thing.

 

[Baluncore]

Boxing is a sport that will exist forever because "who can whup who" in a fistfight is such an elemental thing.

Why fight with your fists when there are lawyers available?

 

[sevensages]

I think it also needs to be mentioned that Ali lost to Ken Norton in their first fight, and many would argue he lost the second fight as well. Also losing to Leon Spinks is a major stain given Spink's record was 26-17 and it was his 8th professional fight when he went up against Ali.

Do you agree with me that Joe Louis is the GOAT?

 

[russ_watters]

I think there are a few reasons why competition is so thin. First off, anyone who is outside the top 10 in a given weight division can't even support themselves financially through the sport. The majority of professional boxers have day jobs. It's a sport that only a handful can pay their bills solely through the sport and thus dedicate all their time to training. A lot of guys fighting on undercards for PPV fights are making $10,000.

The sport has no organized leagues and it's basically the wild west of sports with every man for himself. They have to fund their own training. The fighters are the ones who have to pay for accomodations for their trainers and corner when they travel for a fight....

Well, it doesn't help that there is a very loose mandating body to force fights to happen. Imagine in tennis if Djokovic could handpick who all his opponents....since the sport is so loosely organized....

That also explains why fighters have 90%+ winning percentages. The top competitors don't even fight each other. They pad the first 20 fights of their professional careers against guys who are part-time boxers, and then the last 10 fights are carefully curated to make sure you have every possible advantage against your opponent... What other sport do the athletes get to CHOOSE who the referee and judges are? I mean come on. Floyd Mayweather (record 50-0) was the master at this. His last fight and largest PPV in the history of the sport was against Conor McGregor who was making his professional DEBUT and is an MMA fighter, not even the same sport.

I agree with everything you said in those two posts and only culled them to highlight what I think are the main points. Everything there is highly problematic for competitiveness of the sport. But in my view all of these are symptoms of the lack of competitiveness, not the cause (which is not enough competitors for any reason).

I don't see why you think that thin competition adds up to boxing being an anachronism. Boxing is not an anachronism. Although boxing is not as popular today as it was in the 1930s and 1940s, boxing is still somewhat popular. Boxing is a sport that will exist forever because "who can whup who" in a fistfight is such an elemental thing.

I was a wrestler, and yeah, boxing(fighting) and wrestling along with running are probably the original and purest sports. But unlike the others, the goal of boxing is to injure your opponent's brain, and that's a really bad thing. I think that's much of the reason boxing has lost popularity and also much of the reason why most of the best athletes never went into boxing in the first place.

 

[Klystron]

While I have met three of the athletes on the OP's 'best' list, I only spent time and conversed with Larry Holmes.

While in Las Vegas for a title fight, Holmes would relax evenings playing medium-stakes seven-card stud poker at Caesar's Palace public poker room. Holmes played a shrewd positional game with little bluffing. He was friendly relaxed and easy to talk to between hands, never mentioning his status in sports, though the regulars recognized him.

Public persona? Perhaps. Playing poker over several days reveals underlying traits. The consensus among the regulars: "Larry Holmes is a good man." and a decent card player.

 

[sevensages]

While I have met three of the athletes on the OP's 'best' list, I only spent time and conversed with Larry Holmes.

While in Las Vegas for a title fight, Holmes would relax evenings playing medium-stakes seven-card stud poker at Caesar's Palace public poker room. Holmes played a shrewd positional game with little bluffing. He was friendly relaxed and easy to talk to between hands, never mentioning his status in sports, though the regulars recognized him.

Public persona? Perhaps. Playing poker over several days reveals underlying traits. The consensus among the regulars: "Larry Holmes is a good man." and a decent card player.

Interesting. Who are the other two boxers on my top 5 list that you met?

My dad saw Rocky Marciano perform live as a guest referee in Professional Wrestling in the 1960s.

What do you think about my top 5 list? Do you agree with my choices?

 

[morrobay]

I agree with everything you said in those two posts and only culled them to highlight what I think are the main points. Everything there is highly problematic for competitiveness of the sport. But in my view all of these are symptoms of the lack of competitiveness, not the cause (which is not enough competitors for any reason).

I was a wrestler, and yeah, boxing(fighting) and wrestling along with running are probably the original and purest sports. But unlike the others, the goal of boxing is to injure your opponent's brain, and that's a really bad thing. I think that's much of the reason boxing has lost popularity and also much of the reason why most of the best athletes never went into boxing in the first place.

Yes brain injury could divert the best athletes from going into heavyweight boxing. And this supports your comment regarding lack of competition in the heavyweight division. For example look at these big NBA players. Had some of these basketball players chosen to go into boxing they would be very competitive these days. I suppose money also a factor.

 

[woopydalan]

Do you agree with me that Joe Louis is the GOAT?

I don't know I don't have a strong enough understanding of the history of the sport to say. But I believe Tyson Fury would probably beat Ali given that heavyweights are way larger today than they were back in the day.

 

[woopydalan]

I agree with everything you said in those two posts and only culled them to highlight what I think are the main points. Everything there is highly problematic for competitiveness of the sport. But in my view all of these are symptoms of the lack of competitiveness, not the cause (which is not enough competitors for any reason).

I was a wrestler, and yeah, boxing(fighting) and wrestling along with running are probably the original and purest sports. But unlike the others, the goal of boxing is to injure your opponent's brain, and that's a really bad thing. I think that's much of the reason boxing has lost popularity and also much of the reason why most of the best athletes never went into boxing in the first place.

I think boxing lost popularity for a number of reasons. There's been a shift towards MMA. It's not like humans decided we don't like to watch people beat each other up. We certainly do. It's just moved to MMA. Also boxing is highly corrupt so the "money fighter" is much much more likely to get the nod if the fight goes to the scorecards. Lots and lots of robberies in the sport.

People forget that boxing was as popular as baseball back in the day.

Athletic people follow the money. That's why they play basketball or football or baseball. There is lots of money in boxing for a very tiny percentage of the fighters. If boxing had a more even spread of purses, more people would do it.

It's also worth noting that boxing has not lost global popularity, just specifically in the USA. It's still popular in other countries.

 

[Klystron]

Interesting. Who are the other two boxers on my top 5 list that you met?

My dad saw Rocky Marciano perform live as a guest referee in Professional Wrestling in the 1960s.

If memory serves, as a retiree Joe Louis worked as a greeter on the Las Vegas Strip. I said "Hello" and "Hey, Joe" in passing. This was before cell phone cameras. He told us the hardest part of the job was figuring out how to operate tourists' cameras for the ubiquitos photos (now selfies). He seemed to know everybody.

While deadheading* on TWA across Asia, I spent a few hours wait in a VIP lounge with Muhammed Ali and entourage. Bruce Lee had died unexpectedly in Hong Kong creating quite a buzz. Ali, the "Black Superman" was exceptionally popular in Asia.

* Deadheading means an airline employee or associate filling empty seats on an aircraft, paying taxes and fees but otherwise flying free. I was assigned to Don Muang Airport air traffic control center as a radar tech but was seated in first class, hence the VIP lounge during a holdover.

Your list of great heavyweights looks good although Tyson Fury is not a name I recognize. Past my time as boxing fan. The last pro boxing match I watched on TV, Ray-ray Mancini killed his overmatched opponent with a headshot. That was it for me and professional boxing. In fact, I rarely watch sports these days though I workout daily.

 

[Mondayman]

Head to head, today's boxers would have the advantage of better training, diet, and size. Tyson Fury is a good boxer, but I don't think his resume earns him a top 5 spot.

 

[sevensages]

I don't know I don't have a strong enough understanding of the history of the sport to say. But I believe Tyson Fury would probably beat Ali given that heavyweights are way larger today than they were back in the day.

First you wrote that Tyson Fury is overrated because he faced mediocre opponents, and you imply that Usyk is superior to Fury. Then you say that you think Tyson Fury would probably beat Muhammud Ali because heavyweights are way larger today than they were in Muhammad Ali's day. So I suppose you think that Usyk would probably beat Muhammad Ali as well; right?

You can just look at my top 5 list to see that I disagree with you. Muhammad Ali knocked out George Foreman in the 8th round of their bout in 1974. I think that 1974 George Foreman (25 years old and 6'4" and 220 pounds) was superior to anyone that Fury beat.

 

[sevensages]

Head to head, today's boxers would have the advantage of better training, diet, and size. Tyson Fury is a good boxer, but I don't think his resume earns him a top 5 spot.

Yes. But on the other hand, there was a deeper pool of talent during Joe Louis' prime in the 1930s and 1940s because there was more competition back then.

Who would you put on the top 5 list instead of Tyson Fury?

 

[morrobay]

First you wrote that Tyson Fury is overrated because he faced mediocre opponents, and you imply that Usyk is superior to Fury. Then you say that you think Tyson Fury would probably beat Muhammud Ali because heavyweights are way larger today than they were in Muhammad Ali's day. So I suppose you think that Usyk would probably beat Muhammad Ali as well; right?

That type of logic does not always apply in boxing since styles are a determinate: Just because Usyk beats Fury, And Fury beats Ali. Usyk does not necessarily beat Ali. There are examples of A beats B , B beats C . And C beats A

 

[sevensages]

That type of logic does not always apply in boxing since styles are a determinate: Just because Usyk beats Fury, And Fury beats Ali. Usyk does not necessarily beat Ali. There are examples of A beats B , B beats C . And C beats A

Joe Frazier beat Muhammad Ali in their first match. Then George Foreman beat Joe Frazier. So a lot of people expected George Foreman to beat Muhammad Ali, but Muhammad Ali beat George Foreman.