Top 10 Heavies from best to worst

[-CANE-]

Did anyone see the program on ESPN called Ringside top 10 greatest heavies with Bert Sugar. It was in 3 parts and Sugar was giving his top 10 and reasons for this they also showed lots of old fight clips. Each program was an hour and a half.

His top 10 was as follows.

1> Joe Louis
2> Muhammed Ali
3> Jack Dempsey
4> Jack Johnson
5> Gene Tunney
6> Rocky Marciano
7> Ezzard Charles
8> George Foreman
9> Joe Frazier
10>Larry Holmes

Don't get me wrong, he knows his stuff obviously, but seems to me he is completely BIASED towards the old time fighters. He said Hoyfield would be number 11, Tyson either 14 or 15 and Lewis at number 19 or 20.

He made so many contradictions as well. He said his list was based not on who could beat who but on who was great in their era and achievments.

What's everyone's thoughts on Bert and his way of thinking?

[StarshipTrooper]

Did anyone see the program on ESPN called Ringside top 10 greatest heavies with Bert Sugar. It was in 3 parts and Sugar was giving his top 10 and reasons for this they also showed lots of old fight clips. Each program was an hour and a half.

His top 10 was as follows.

1> Joe Louis
2> Muhammed Ali
3> Jack Dempsey
4> Jack Johnson
5> Gene Tunney
6> Rocky Marciano
7> Ezzard Charles
8> George Foreman
9> Joe Frazier
10>Larry Holmes

Don't get me wrong, he knows his stuff obviously, but seems to me he is completely BIASED towards the old time fighters. He said Hoyfield would be number 11, Tyson either 14 or 15 and Lewis at number 19 or 20.

He made so many contradictions as well. He said his list was based not on who could beat who but on who was great in their era and achievments.

What's everyone's thoughts on Bert and his way of thinking?

Well for starters Tunney wasn't really a Heavyweight: He had maybe 5 fights at Heavyweight and 60+ at Light-Heavyweight where he properly should be ranked. Charles is a little more complicated because he had as many Heavyweight fights as he had Light-Heavyweight fights. He was at his best at Light-Heavy though (arguably the greatest Light-Heavy ever) and past his prime at Heavyweight so it makes sense to me to rank him at Light-Heavy. The rest of Sugar's picks certainly belong on the list while the order could be a subject of debate. The two freed up picks I guess really just depend on your personal preferences.

Poet

[-CANE-]

Well for starters Tunney wasn't really a Heavyweight: He had maybe 5 fights at Heavyweight and 60+ at Light-Heavyweight where he properly should be ranked. Charles is a little more complicated because he had as many Heavyweight fights as he had Light-Heavyweight fights. He was at his best at Light-Heavy though (arguably the greatest Light-Heavy ever) and past his prime at Heavyweight so it makes sense to me to rank him at Light-Heavy. The rest of Sugar's picks certainly belong on the list while the order could be a subject of debate. The two freed up picks I guess really just depend on your personal preferences.

Poet

I agree the rest should be on the list and I would have them in a different order. Sugar contradicts himself though.

He argues Tyson never beat a great losing to Holyfield and Lewis which is why he don't make it. Well correct me if I'm wrong neither did Dempsey losing to Tunney twice. Tyson made more defenses than Dempsey as well.

Then he say's Lewis is only 19 or 20 because even though he beat the other 2 greats they were past it. Well Lewis was about the same age as them it wasn't as if he was 10 years younger is it. Lewis was the greatest's of his era he cleaned up and beat everyone and avanged his defeats, and fought quality opposition as well. And was a 3 time champ, so how was Foreman,Frazier,Tunney,Dempsey etc greater than that in their era.

I'm not slagging off the old timers they were phenominal fighters of their era, but Bert Sugar is completely biased towards them and does contradict himself on numerous occasions. If I remember didn't he refuse to rate Ali until years later. I'm wondering if in 20 years he is still alive will his list have changed and would he rate Tyson,Holyfield and Lewis a lot higher.

[The Iron Man]

His in love with the old time fighters, thats when he grew up and was working. Its a personal list and not on facts, he trys to justify it but as you said contradicts him self.

[BKM-]

You know what it also is, Bert Sugar was in those eras he's rating. He knew all the fighters of those times, just like how you guys today know a bum, a decent fighter, a contender and a belt holder in the devision.

What i'm trying to say is this: You rate the fighters judging on greatness and accomplishments. And right now, when you're looking at their accomplishments on lets say a website like Boxrec, it might not seem impressive to you, but a man like Bert Sugar knew, judged and felt those accomplishments. You can read up a detail about a certain fight, Bert will give you 10 more. So I completely understand his reasons, and agree with a lot of his them, but sure he has some favoritism and a little bit of bias, but then again, he rates Muhammad Ali 2nd. And from what i've understood, he wasn't exactly a big fan of his.
So you must keep a lot of these things in mind. It's an interesting list, and i'm pleased to see Marciano and Frazier in it, and Louis as number 1.

[-CANE-]

You know what it also is, Bert Sugar was in those eras he's rating. He knew all the fighters of those times, just like how you guys today know a bum, a decent fighter, a contender and a belt holder in the devision.

What i'm trying to say is this: You rate the fighters judging on greatness and accomplishments. And right now, when you're looking at their accomplishments on lets say a website like Boxrec, it might not seem impressive to you, but a man like Bert Sugar knew, judged and felt those accomplishments. You can read up a detail about a certain fight, Bert will give you 10 more. So I completely understand his reasons, and agree with a lot of his them, but sure he has some favoritism and a little bit of bias, but then again, he rates Muhammad Ali 2nd. And from what i've understood, he wasn't exactly a big fan of his.
So you must keep a lot of these things in mind. It's an interesting list, and i'm pleased to see Marciano and Frazier in it, and Louis as number 1.

I see what your saying and the majority of his list is good, but it's the contradictions I can't stand. He's talking about who was great in their era and bases his list on that. So how was Jack Demspey greater than Larry Holmes in their respective era's. Sure Dempsey was dominant for a short while but he lost twice against Tunney and according to Sugar only won one round of the 20 they fought, that's hardly dominating is it. Holmes dominated for a lot longer making a lot more defenses as well. Granted he wasn't as devastating or as exciting as Dempsey but he was greater in his respective era. Same can be said of Ezzard Charles who was a brilliant boxer especially at light-heavyweight, but not as good at heavyweight and certainly never dominated his era no where near as much as Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson.

Sugar certainly knows his boxing I'm not denying that, but he has a hard time acknowledging the dominance and greatness of the more recent fighters. He seems to have one rule for old timers and another for modern fighters.

He say's that Lewis's victories against Tyson and Holyfield don't count as they were old and past their prime yet praises Charles and Marciano for beating an old Joe Louis. One rule for old timers and another for the modern fighters. Lewis was roughly the same age against Tyson and Holyfield so it's a bit harsh saying they were past it. I'm not saying they were at there best but Lennox was just as old and wasn't at his best either, he was just better than them later on in his career partly due to his style and partly to the talent of the man. I'd have to say if all the heavyweights had met in a unification tournament well into their thirties Lennox Lewis would have to be one of the favourites to come out on top of the pile.

[LondonRingRules]

So how was Jack Demspey greater than Larry Holmes in their respective era's. Sure Dempsey was dominant for a short while but he lost twice against Tunney and according to Sugar only won one round of the 20 they fought, that's hardly dominating is it.

** I didn't give Larry but one round of the first Spinks fight and I really don't want to watch the 2nd since Larry is so delusional about his career and looked so pitiful, which was confirmed by the Tyson bout.

Facts are that Dempsey was beating most of the best in a very convincing fashion. Holmes didn't really face most of the best of his era, both in the beginning and the end of his first career. Dempsey, Walcott, hell, Fitz could have padded their title reigns with Frank, Xanon, ect, not to mention Leon and Marvis, fighters so poor their first names could wring pity out of a rock.

Jack's reign was 7yrs 81days, and Holmes was 7 yrs 104 days, no big advantage. Seeing how Jack clearly dominated the 2 yrs prior to becoming champ, whereas Holmes was just an unknown older prospect trying to transition to contender. Holmes needed Cooney to make his first big fight. Jack was THE BIG FIGHT. Might as well be comparing Winston Churchill to your local councilman.

I give Holmes a lot of credit for his 2nd career, but even here he think's he's on par with Foreman. Not, he padded his record with a senior's tour at the end including almost being KOed by Butterbean after foolishly calling him out and mocking his ability. Hell, at that age, Foreman was knocking around a big strong young buck who almost KOed Lewis in his next fight and recently held another portion of the title.

Well, these lists are completely subjective, beauty in the eye of the beholder. Still, can never understand how anyone can rank Ali above Louis, but happens more than I can stomach.

[hhascup]

I know Bert Sugar very well and I saw him at the Bill Gallo Roast in New York last week. He came to me and said, Henry I saw what you said about Walcott in the New York Times (we put up a Monument of Jersey Joe in Camden and I was the guest speaker), very good.

In 1991, Bert had Dempsey as #1, so I asked him why the change. He said because I listen, I listen to people like Ray Arcel and others.

Here's his list back then.

Bert Sugar, 1991

1.Jack Dempsey
2.Joe Louis
3.Muhammad Ali
4.Jack Johnson
5.Gene Tunney
6.Rocky Marciano
7.Joe Frazier
8.Larry Holmes
9.Sonny Liston
10.Mike Tyson

Here's some most up-dated lists by him:

BERT SUGAR'S TOP 10 FIGHTERS

1. Sugar Ray Robinson, welterweight-middleweight, 1940-65
2. Henry Armstrong, featherweight-lightweight-welterweight, 1931-45
3. Willie Pep, featherweight, 1940-59
4. Joe Louis, heavyweight, 1934-51
5. Harry Greb, middleweight, light heavyweight, 1913-26
6. Benny Leonard, lightweight, 1911-32
7. Muhammad Ali, heavyweight, 1960-81
8. Roberto Duran, lightweight, welterweight, junior middleweight, 1967-2001
9. Jack Dempsey, heavyweight, 1914-27
10. Jack Johnson, heavyweight, 1897-1928


Source: "Boxing's Greatest Fighters," 2006

Sugar's top 10 heavyweights

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Jack Johnson
5. Gene Tunney
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Ezzard Charles
8. George Foreman
9. Joe Frazier
10. Larry Holmes

Source: "Ringside: The Ten Greatest Heavyweights," ESPN Classic


Here's some others:

Herbert Goldman, 1987

1.Muhammad Ali
2.Sonny Liston
3.Larry Holmes
4.Jack Johnson
5.Jack Dempsey
6.Joe Louis
7.Rocky Marciano
8.Harry Wills
9.George Foreman
10.Joe Frazier
11.Mike Tyson

Herbert Goldman, 1997

1.Muhammad Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Sonny Liston
4.Mike Tyson
5.Larry Holmes
6.Jack Johnson
7.Jack Dempsey
8.George Foreman
9.Rocky Marciano
10.Joe Frazier

Steve Farhood, 1997

1.Muhammad Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Jack Johnson
4.Larry Holmes
5.Rocky Marciano
6.Jack Dempsey
7.Jim Jeffries
8.Evander Holyfield
9.Mike Tyson
10.George Foreman

Max Kellerman:
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Harry Greb
5. Sam Langford
6. Pernell Whitaker
7. Roberto Duran
8. Willie Pep
9. Benny Leonard
10. Ezzard Charles
10a. Jimmy Wilde


Tony Atlas:
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Benny Leonard
5. Sam Langford
6. Harry Greb
7. Mickey Walker
8. Roberto Duran
9. Gene Tunney
10. Carlos Monzon
10a. Joe Louis

Ring ****zine's list of the 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years

2002

[them_apples]

It's pretty ****** how naive people are when they think all the best boxers are from "there time".

hearns and hagler were both better than sugar ray, so is mayweather..sugar ray was just innovative for his time, all those guys those guys would crush him.

Larry Holmes below Ali? honestly give me a break get real

Pretty sick of this Old time bias.

[Jim Jeffries]

"In common opponents, Tyson beat Tony Tucker and Frank Bruno in a more impressive manor than Lewis did and both fighters were older when Lewis fought them."
Tyson was almost knocked out by Tony Tucker early and barely won a decision.
"I believe it's a fair statement to say that James Douglas, Oliver McCall, and Hasim Rahman are roughly the same class of fighter."
James Douglas is not anywhere near the class of Mcall or Rahman, remember he was a 42 to 1 underdog against Tyson.