Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[The Iron Man]

11 of tysons fights that he won went past the 6th round which isnt a bad record seen as he only went that for 14 times, so 6 rounds and after he is 11-4-0(5kos). Of those 11 wins 5 comming by the way of Knock Out and 1 RTD due to taking a beating. The rest ALL UD. To me this doesnt show some1 slowing down. In fact against douglas tyson knocked him down in the 8th. And he staggerd Holyfield in the 6th.

Its Funny to See frazier also only went to 6 and Behond 14 times. Winning 11 aswell! But Only 4 by knock out and one by RTD due to taking a beating like tysons victory. 4 UD decision and 1 split dicision. He had one draw and 2 losses. Bringing his record to 11-2-1 (4kos).

Fraziers record is slightly better in terms of losses, but tyson has more KOs in the late rounds, which shows he is just as agressive. He goes down fighting.

[Brassangel]

Interesting stats, Iron Man. It really brings a commonly misunderstood comparison to light.

Also, just because Tyson blew a lot of guys out in the first four rounds, doesn't mean that he wasn't capable of doing so later on (as the stats show), comparably so to Joe Frazier. Joe also spent the first three rounds of a contest warming up and figuring out his opponents, wheras Mike was ready to go from the opening bell. That's part of what made his punches difficult to defend against when he was at his best.

When Frazier knocked Ali down in the 15th, he didn't fail to finish him off simply because Ali took over, but he was winded himself. His punching style and level of aggression also didn't change, even when he smelled blood. Tyson would have pounced right into Ali's chest, throwing short, quick combination punches, denying the recovery necessary to reestablish control. Mike was simply a better finisher in those situations. That's not to say that Frazier didn't do a helluva good job getting to that point, however, as he had to work his tail off to earn that knockdown; whereas Tyson would have done it in an earlier round. Joe's knockdown is spectacular, if not legendary, because he gave away the early portion(s) of the fight. But he continued to grind it out, literally leaping for that left hook to put a cherry on a close victory. Mike would have probably done it in his typical, early bird gets the worm fashion.

As to Tyson saying that Ali was the best: he has also been quoted as saying that Dempsey was the greatest, and later on stating that Rocky Marciano is, and will always be the king. Ali had stated on two separate occassions that he thought Tyson could beat him, and then flip-flopped when his personal life flushed down the toilet. They spent a lot of time together outside of the ring given their ****** distractions, so they probably have a massive amount of respect for one another. It's just the humility that truly great champions display for each other; a lesson that Floyd Mayweather, Jr. could learn from.

SIDE NOTE: I just wanted to take this opportunity to say that this has been one of my absolute favorite threads in a long time. Lots of good statistics, wisdom, and intriguing opinions. It's good to refresh the "10 best heavies" every once and a while!

[hhascup]

11 of tysons fights that he won went past the 6th round which isnt a bad record seen as he only went that for 14 times, so 6 rounds and after he is 11-4-0(5kos). Of those 11 wins 5 comming by the way of Knock Out and 1 RTD due to taking a beating. The rest ALL UD. To me this doesnt show some1 slowing down. In fact against douglas tyson knocked him down in the 8th. And he staggerd Holyfield in the 6th.

Its Funny to See frazier also only went to 6 and Behond 14 times. Winning 11 aswell! But Only 4 by knock out and one by RTD due to taking a beating like tysons victory. 4 UD decision and 1 split dicision. He had one draw and 2 losses. Bringing his record to 11-2-1 (4kos).

Fraziers record is slightly better in terms of losses, but tyson has more KOs in the late rounds, which shows he is just as agressive. He goes down fighting.

All your doing is comparing apples and oranges here. All you have to do is look at the tapes, and I have them all, and you will see that Frazier was much more active then Tyson was during those later rounds. Just watch the tapes of both, then tell me that what you think.

I was a BIG Tyson supporter, BUT facts are facts and films don't lie.

Frazier was non-stop from the 1st round to the last, whereas Tyson was non-stop in the early rounds then slowed up as the rounds past by. The big thing was could anyone last those early rounds.

[Brassangel]

Frazier was pretty easy going in the early rounds of a lot of fights. Sometimes he even gave away those early rounds, like in all three fights with Ali. This allowed Ali to set the pace; he just simply got outworked later on.

Even if a fighter made it to the later rounds with Mike, they usually lost the first 5 or 6, and he did enough to score well in the later rounds anyway. Mike would win the early parts of a fight and force the other fighter to come back. It's a reverse workrate, but Tyson's punch output (force, impact, speed, placement, etc.), was tremendous.

I do agree that Frazier was a harder worker for a fight's entirety, however. They are just different in their approach, which doesn't make one style better than the other.

[The Iron Man]

Your saying that your films are facts, but im showing stats im showing facts from what happend. Frazier was a very slow starter (another reason why i think tyson could beat him) it was almost his trademark to lose the first round. When ever i watch tapes of him the commentator always says "He always losses the first round". As for him being more busy in the later rounds, mayb its true mayb not i dnt have the punch stats, its all well and good moving around but ive shown that tysons KO rate is higher even in the later rounds, which again is a fact.

[-CANE-]

Frazier was pretty easy going in the early rounds of a lot of fights. Sometimes he even gave away those early rounds, like in all three fights with Ali. This allowed Ali to set the pace; he just simply got outworked later on.

Even if a fighter made it to the later rounds with Mike, they usually lost the first 5 or 6, and he did enough to score well in the later rounds anyway. Mike would win the early parts of a fight and force the other fighter to come back. It's a reverse workrate, but Tyson's punch output (force, impact, speed, placement, etc.), was tremendous.

I do agree that Frazier was a harder worker for a fight's entirety, however. They are just different in their approach, which doesn't make one style better than the other.

I'd have to agree with that assesment. Frazier was known to start slowly, something Foreman capitalized on in their first fight. He said that if he didn't get Frazier out of there early and Frazier got going then Frazier would have probably beat him. Tyson as you said Brass was the complete opposite, he did the majority of his work in the first 5 rounds and then began to slow down.

Iron Man you said Tyson's record was 11-4-0 5KOS after 6 rounds and that to you that doesn't show someone slowing down, but early on against Tillis,Green and Ribalta maybe not, but against better opposition not great opposition in Tucker and Smith he slowed down more than in the earlier fights and he was still in his prime then. And against great opposition in Lewis and Holyfield he slowed down considerably, now granted at this point he was not the fighter he was in his prime, I believe this was partly because he was no longer in his prime and couldn't substain the workrate but also the fact that he was fighting much better opponents that were able to take Tyson's punches, after all the last thing you lose or maybe never lose is power. Tyson could hit just as hard and fast when not in his prime, but now where near as often. Lewis and Holyfield both took some great punches from Tyson but had the ability to take them and fire back, Lewis could fire back just as hard maybe not as quick. They both also had far superior boxing ability and mental toughness than Ribalta,Green,Tillis,Tucker and Smith. So to get back to what I was trying to say, Tyson would slow down more against much better opposition because they were able to punish him back. Yes I agree that he was past his prime. Had he been in his prime he would have either knocked both Lewis and Holyfield out early within 5-6 rounds, or he would have slowed down and been beaten on points or stopped. I still think that prime Tyson probably would have got to Holyfield, because of Holyfield's determination to fight fire with fire and I couldn't see him lasting 5-6 rounds with Tyson and trading with him. But Lewis I see beating him even in his prime. Lewis was far too clever to be caught by Tyson early on. When they had their fight Tyson looked like the old Tyson for 1-2 rounds then couldn't substain it and got discouraged because Lewis was giving him back as good as he got. In his prime I think Tyson would have looked great for 5-6 rounds, and while standing a good chance of KOing Lewis I don't think it would have happened. I see Tyson taking the first 5 rounds then as Lewis starts to come into it and Tyson starts to slow the 6th round even, then Lewis starts to dominate. Tyson would still be dangerous and Lewis would have to be on his guard which I think he would be, not like against Rahman or McCall. Lewis would outbox Tyson from the 7th onwards, landing more jabs which would take their toll. Coming into the 9th or 10th Lewis would start to take a little more risk by throwing more uppercuts and big right hands. If Lewis doesn't stop Tyson in the 11th round then they are even going into the last round. I see Lewis stopping Tyson in the last 2 rounds or winning a very very close decision. We were denied a great fight between these 2 fine heavyweights. They should have fought much earlier and could of had a trilogy with I think Lewis winning it 2-1. If only Bowe had fought Lewis we may have seen these.

[-CANE-]

Here's my list of the All-Time top 10 Heavies:

1) Jack Dempsey
2) Joe Louis
3) Muhammad Ali
4) Jack Johnson
5) Ezzard Charles
6) Jersey Joe Walcott
7) Harry Greb
8) Rocky Marciano
9) Young Mike Tyson
10) Joe Frazier

Sam Langford, Evander Holyfield, George Foreman and Jim Jefferies also deserve special mention.

Rankings don't really count for **** with this list cos all these guys have their own special place in Boxing History.

I can't see how you have Jack Dempsey at no.1. Granted for his time he was spectacular and was completely unique but no.1 is absurd. However you compile your top10 whether it be accomplishments, ability or whatever there is always someone better than him. If you go on what they achieved there are at least 9 other heavyweights whose achievments outway Dempseys. This is fact. If you go on ability as a boxer then again there are many that are better Gene Tunney proved that. Even if your just taking him as a ferocious all action fighter then there are still fighters that were better than Dempsey at this, Marciano,Liston who could box as well,Tyson and Frazier. No doubt for his time he was tremendous but in head to head matchups against other greats I would pick Jeffries,Johnson,Tunney,Louis,Marciano,Liston,Char les,Ali,Holmes,Tyson,Holyfield and Lewis all to beat him. Everyone has there own way and set of criteria for assembling a top10 list but whatever way you do it Dempsey cannot come out on top.

[Wiley Hyena]

I can't see how you have Jack Dempsey at no.1. Granted for his time he was spectacular and was completely unique but no.1 is absurd. However you compile your top10 whether it be accomplishments, ability or whatever there is always someone better than him. If you go on what they achieved there are at least 9 other heavyweights whose achievments outway Dempseys. This is fact. If you go on ability as a boxer then again there are many that are better Gene Tunney proved that. Even if your just taking him as a ferocious all action fighter then there are still fighters that were better than Dempsey at this, Marciano,Liston who could box as well,Tyson and Frazier. No doubt for his time he was tremendous but in head to head matchups against other greats I would pick Jeffries,Johnson,Tunney,Louis,Marciano,Liston,Char les,Ali,Holmes,Tyson,Holyfield and Lewis all to beat him. Everyone has there own way and set of criteria for assembling a top10 list but whatever way you do it Dempsey cannot come out on top.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion though. And, he's not the only person in the world to think Jack Dempsey was greatest. I was talking to an 85 year old friend of mine the other day and asked him who stood out. Without hesitation, he said "Jack Dempsey."

Now I don't agree that Dempsey was #1, but I have to respect that opinion. There's a lot worse one could do in picking #1 than Dempsey.

[StarshipTrooper]

Frazier was pretty easy going in the early rounds of a lot of fights. Sometimes he even gave away those early rounds, like in all three fights with Ali. This allowed Ali to set the pace; he just simply got outworked later on.

Even if a fighter made it to the later rounds with Mike, they usually lost the first 5 or 6, and he did enough to score well in the later rounds anyway. Mike would win the early parts of a fight and force the other fighter to come back. It's a reverse workrate, but Tyson's punch output (force, impact, speed, placement, etc.), was tremendous.

I do agree that Frazier was a harder worker for a fight's entirety, however. They are just different in their approach, which doesn't make one style better than the other.

Don Dunphy would say "Frazier always loses the first round." The was a lot of truth to that. Tyson was normally gassed after six not four rounds but if an opponent managed to make it that far it meant he was down six rounds to none and had to win all of the rest of the rounds just to draw. Even when gassed a fighter is usually able to throw SOME punches albeat at a dimished work rate and diminished effectiveness. So the chances of an opponent sweeping all the last rounds was unrealistic at best, upsurd at worst. Frazier on the other hand was never gassed in his life. He would maintain his workrate right up to the bell ending the 15th.

Poet

[-CANE-]

Everybody is entitled to an opinion though. And, he's not the only person in the world to think Jack Dempsey was greatest. I was talking to an 85 year old friend of mine the other day and asked him who stood out. Without hesitation, he said "Jack Dempsey."

Now I don't agree that Dempsey was #1, but I have to respect that opinion. There's a lot worse one could do in picking #1 than Dempsey.

I realise everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I didn't mean to sound condacending. I would have him as one of the all time greats, I was just trying to point out that which ever way you compile your list it would be hard to have him as no.1.