Who's the greatest heavyweight boxer?

[HI SCOTT NEWMAN]

Ali for me, with Lennox not far behind

 

[Sapp]

Liston was the most talented.

I have to give "greatness" to Ali.

 

[djacobox372]

I think there's a solid argument that Larry Holmes at his best is the most flawless HW of all time.

 

[Rob-G]

1 Joe Louis
2 Muhammad Ali
3 George Foreman

I think prime 70's George Foreman destroys Lennox Lewis

 

[Alcibiades007]

Foreman said Lenox is the GOAT. Random fact.

 

[djacobox372]

Foreman said Lenox is the GOAT. Random fact.

Foreman has a bias for big, slow heavyweights with power.

Ali, Louis and Holmes would box circles around Lennox. Heck even Tyson Fury would beat him.

 

[PolarBearPaulVarelans]

I think there's a solid argument that Larry Holmes at his best is the most flawless HW of all time.

Yep. As a former amateur boxer, I went with Larry Holmes, although I have no problem going with Ali instead.

Honestly though, as I've boxed myself and learned more about the sport, I realize how silly these topics are without a clear criteria.

Take Joe Louis for instance. A 6' 2" 195-200 pound fighter in his prime who was badly hurt by pillow-fisted 174 pound Billy Conn and knocked down or hurt by plenty of other inferior fighters.

Buddy Baer, who at 6' 6" and 238 pounds was the biggest fighter of that era, knocked Joe Louis through the ropes in the first round of their fight. Keep in mind Baer was nowhere near as muscular as later fighters, and relatively slow, lumbering, and unskilled.

Does anyone seriously think Joe Louis would have a prayer against any decently sized heavyweight today? The Klitschko brothers would beat him like a piñata, but so would any number of fighters in the world top 40.

Ditto for Rocky Marciano, who was 5' 11" and 185-190 pounds.

Or take my favorite fighter ever, and pick in this topic, Larry Holmes. 6'3" 213 pounds in his prime.

I love Holmes, but I remember how hard of a fight he had against Gerry Cooney, who was 6' 6" and 225 pounds, as well as what Larry said about the fight in a later interview.

"The guy had a decent, not a great, but a decent jab, and he had good power and a left hook. And when you're much taller, with a reach advantage...that's really all you need."

That height, reach, and weight advantage was ALMOST enough to wipe out the huge advantage Holmes had in terms of skill.

Do I honestly think that Holmes, in his prime, would necessarily beat either Klitschko brother, despite being a far better boxer? No, I don't.

At the same time, I think we all agree and recognize that Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, and Larry Holmes are way greater than either Klitschko brother. Thus, the criteria can't be a simple "who beats who", as it's unfair to older champions.

So what is the criteria? Dominance during one's time period? Overall skills? Beating other great fighters?

Based on the answers to these questions, you get a completely different list.

 

[FighterTwister]

I forgot to mention I really enjoyed watching Roy Jones Jr

His worth naming in this awesome thread!

 

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

Yep. As a former amateur boxer, I went with Larry Holmes, although I have no problem going with Ali instead.

Honestly though, as I've boxed myself and learned more about the sport, I realize how silly these topics are without a clear criteria.

Take Joe Louis for instance. A 6' 2" 195-200 pound fighter in his prime who was badly hurt by pillow-fisted 174 pound Billy Conn and knocked down or hurt by plenty of other inferior fighters.

Buddy Baer, who at 6' 6" and 238 pounds was the biggest fighter of that era, knocked Joe Louis through the ropes in the first round of their fight. Keep in mind Baer was nowhere near as muscular as later fighters, and relatively slow, lumbering, and unskilled.

Does anyone seriously think Joe Louis would have a prayer against any decently sized heavyweight today? The Klitschko brothers would beat him like a piñata, but so would any number of fighters in the world top 40.

Ditto for Rocky Marciano, who was 5' 11" and 185-190 pounds.

Or take my favorite fighter ever, and pick in this topic, Larry Holmes. 6'3" 213 pounds in his prime.

I love Holmes, but I remember how hard of a fight he had against Gerry Cooney, who was 6' 6" and 225 pounds, as well as what Larry said about the fight in a later interview.

"The guy had a decent, not a great, but a decent jab, and he had good power and a left hook. And when you're much taller, with a reach advantage...that's really all you need."

That height, reach, and weight advantage was ALMOST enough to wipe out the huge advantage Holmes had in terms of skill.

Do I honestly think that Holmes, in his prime, would necessarily beat either Klitschko brother, despite being a far better boxer? No, I don't.

At the same time, I think we all agree and recognize that Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, and Larry Holmes are way greater than either Klitschko brother. Thus, the criteria can't be a simple "who beats who", as it's unfair to older champions.

So what is the criteria? Dominance during one's time period? Overall skills? Beating other great fighters?

Based on the answers to these questions, you get a completely different list.

First of all very well written post.

I think the criteria should be who was on their resume. We know Lennox Lewis would destroy Joe Louis. So I think resume is the most important, who were the great fighters they fought and won.

 

[PolarBearPaulVarelans]

First of all very well written post.

I think the criteria should be who was on their resume. We know Lennox Lewis would destroy Joe Louis. So I think resume is the most important, who were the great fighters they fought and won.

I tend to agree, but that gets tricky, too. For instance, using the great Joe Louis as our example, beating Primo Carnera in 1935 was a huge deal, former world champion and all that. However, Carnera's big advantage over fighters of his era was his massive size (6' 6" and 250-260 pounds), and while he was more skilled than given credit for, he had a lot of technical deficiencies any decent fighter of modern times or even the 70's would exploit badly. So does Louis get more or less credit for that victory than Lennox Lewis does for clubbing a lummox of his own era, Michael Grant?

Carnera clearly accomplished way more in boxing than Grant did, and is "greater", but is also a worst fighter, even in terms of skills.

And if one insists that it's just relative to era, then you overrate the very early years, when boxing technique was relatively poor, and it wasn't anywhere near a global sport.

For instance, I respect them as pioneers, but neither Jim Corbett nor James Jeffries should be in a list of top 10 greatest heavyweights because of how primitive heavyweight boxing was then, and while he was a big improvement, neither should Jack Johnson.

 

[Boxer]

I voted Lennox Lewis.

He's the one who has a chance of beating everyone on that list if he hasn't already.

Best 5 HW's are .............

Lewis
Ali
Mike Tyson
Larry Holmes
George Foreman

Tysons issue was as soon as his training wasn't elite and he got older, heavier and slowed down his explosive skills that he needed faltered, he was the ultimate one minute wonder but was so deadly in his prime he has to make the list.
Apart from that the rest were top draw, Lewis has a bit of everything, power, range and quick enough for a HW in his more trim years, his closest match is Holmes imo, Foreman can KO anyone so he also makes the list.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

Impossible to say, based on resumes it's Ali(quality of wins) or Marciano(never losing) but I think Ali gets beat by Lewis, both Kiltchkos and other guys of similar size and skill and Marciano would lose to more HWs cause he was too small and HWs of his time were much smaller.

If it's based on who I think would beat the most of the other guys on this list it would be the Klitchkos and Lewis.

It's probably an unpopular opinion but I thought Vitali was better than Lewis and his brother.

 

[aries]

Impossible to say, based on resumes it's Ali(quality of wins) or Marciano(never losing) but I think Ali gets beat by Lewis, both Kiltchkos and other guys of similar size and skill and Marciano would lose to more HWs cause he was too small and HWs of his time were much smaller.

If it's based on who I think would beat the most of the other guys on this list it would be the Klitchkos and Lewis.

It's probably an unpopular opinion but I thought Vitali was better than Lewis and his brother.

Then how do you explain Vitali going life and death with Lewis who was past his prime? A fight he lost.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

Then how do you explain Vitali going life and death with Lewis who was past his prime? A fight he lost.

The fight was stopped due to a bad cut from a grazing shot. Vitali was clearly winning. I also don't think Lewis declined much, kind of like how Wlad didn't.

He lost that fight due to a grazing shot that badly cut him, it's kind of strange you didn't mention that.

 

[Boxiana]

He did came back stronger than ever after those losses, reigned for over 10 years and boxed everyone that was thrown at him, among them opponents like David Haye who in 2011...

I was there on that cold, wet night in Hamburg and cheering for Haye. He didnt trouble Wlad at all, and they could have done it 10 times with the same result IMO.

Beating Haye (who was never a HW anyway) is not a contributor to HW greatness.

 

[Boxiana]

I read "Greatness" as transcending the sport = Ali

 

[aries]

The fight was stopped due to a bad cut from a grazing shot. Vitali was clearly winning. I also don't think Lewis declined much, kind of like how Wlad didn't.

He lost that fight due to a grazing shot that badly cut him, it's kind of strange you didn't mention that.

It was well known that Lewis was not training seriously at that point and he came in out of shape for the fight. Lennox was starting to take over that fight when it got stopped and the punch that landed on Vitali to open the cut wasn't a 'grazing' shot it was a full bodied right hand that snapped Vitalis head back. Grazing lol get out of here with that bullshit.

 

[treelo]

The fight was stopped due to a bad cut from a grazing shot. Vitali was clearly winning. I also don't think Lewis declined much, kind of like how Wlad didn't.

He lost that fight due to a grazing shot that badly cut him, it's kind of strange you didn't mention that.

It almost sounds like you are making out that Lewis hit him with one shot that caused all of the damage....

That is not caused by one grazing shot, dont be fucking ignorant of what was happening in the fight.

Oh, and Ali as far as resume goes, nobody gets near to beating as many highly regarded fighters as he did, no matter how people want to discredit them.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

It was well known that Lewis was not training seriously at that point and he came in out of shape for the fight. Lennox was starting to take over that fight and it was a punch that opened up the cut. That's boxing, you know where the goal is to inflict damage on your opponent by punching them.

Lewis wasn't taking over, he was relieved to get the win by a cut from a grazing shot and he wouldn't give Vitali a rematch for a reason. Apparently you don't know most cuts in boxing happen from grazing shots.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

It almost sounds like you are making out that Lewis hit him with one shot that caused all of the damage....

That is not caused by one grazing shot, dont be fucking ignorant of what was happening in the fight.

Oh, and Ali as far as resume goes, nobody gets near to beating as many highly regarded fighters as he did, no matter how people want to discredit them.

The cut above his eye happened from a couple of grazing shots and that is the cut that was the reason for the stoppage. Once you get cut that badly it gets worse quickly with any shot that lands.

Flush shots almost never cause cuts in boxing, they cause brusing. The edges of the gloves grazing people quickly is where the cuts come from.