Bert Sugar's Top Ten Heavyweights
Pastor Marc
showcasing Bert Sugar's top ten heavyweights. These were his choices:
10. Larry Holmes
9. Joe Frazier
8. George Foreman
7. Ezzard Charles
6. Rocky Marciano
5. Gene Tunney
4. Jack Dempsey
3. Jack Johnson
2. Muhammad Ali
1. Joe Louis
Bert said he would put Holyfield in at number 11, Tyson at number 12, and
Lennox Lewis in at number 19 or 20.
I had two thoughts while watching this. First of all, I am very thankful
(tis the season) that ESPN has been airing programs like this. Praise the
Lord for their expanded boxing coverage. At a time when the hw division
seems dismal, they have been showcasing some of the truly great
heavyweights.
Secondly, I think Bert Sugar's list reflects his age. How could he put
Ezzard Charles in the top ten over Lennox Lewis or Evander Holyfield or Joe
Jeannette or Sam Langford or even Jim Jeffries? And what did Jack Dempsey
ever accomplish in his life to be rated as high as number 4? He kept the
title on ice for three years!
And Gene Tunney? Gene really was an excellent fighter. He had fast hands and
fast feet. But most of his ring career was at LIGHT-heavyweight.
Joe Frazier? He probably deserves to be in the top ten just for beating the
1971 Ali. But he also had ten title defenses, even though many of them were
against creampuffs.
And Larry Holmes should probably be higher up on the list, maybe in the top
5 or 6 all time heavyweight list.
PM
Charles Beauchamp
People define greatness differently. Dempsey putting the title on ice
actually was not off par for the course in his day. Also as an athelete of
consequence Jack Dempsey was probably the original boxing superstar
transcending the sport itself in the American Golden Age of Sports. Taking
a time machine and grabbing him from his heyday and bringing him into the
modern era to fight he would be a Cruiserweight but that isn't the point of
a discusson of greatness.
--
v/r Beau
Drugs turn you into hippies. And hippies suck, so drugs are bad.
Pastor Marc
"Charles Beauchamp" <C.E.Be...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:irKdnegucoJ5yhre...@comcast.com...
access to HBO's footage of Lewis' great moments?
PM
Charles Beauchamp
I think the bottom line with Lennox is that he got knocked silly by two good
not great heavyweights while he was in his prime. That is always going to
weigh heavily against his legacy.
David
"Charles Beauchamp" <C.E.Be...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
Pastor Marc
"David" <d.m...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:OQ_hf.75312$0l5.39761@dukeread06...
Lewis was ready to retire after the Tyson fight. The fight against Vitali
was a real treat because Lennox already had one foot out the door and didn't
really need this fight to secure his legacy (at least in his mind).
We should all thank God that Kirk Johnson had to bow out of his fight with
Lennox so that Vitali could step up to the plate on two weeks notice. That
fight was a lot of fun to watch. And in my view, the win did nothing to
diminish Lennox's legacy
Look at the names on Lewis' resume: Tyson, Holyfield, Mercer, Tua, Vitali
Klitschko, Bruno, Golota, Ruddock, Morrison, Tucker, Biggs, Briggs, Rahman,
Weaver. That's a pretty impressive resume. Lewis didn't fight Bowe, but that
wasn't his fault. He wanted to. Lewis didn't Foreman. But again, he wanted
to.
It can be reasonably maintained that at least half of Lewis' victims were
either past their peak or over the hill. But those criticisms can be leveled
against every heavyweight champion we've ever had.
Charles is right that Lewis' two one punch losses hurt his legacy. But the
good outweighs the bad, and Lennox avenged those two losses in the ring.
Remember, the other Louis (Joe) lost to Max Schmeling when Louis was near
his peak.
At the very least, Lewis should be in the top ten.
PM
jky...@yahoo.com
the fact that he was convicted of rape and his crimes that he did when
he was a teenager or what he did to I think Teddy Atlas's relative.
But if you somehow only look at Mike Tyson's boxing ability
(although that is not possible) naming Mike Tyson #12? He's one of the
strongest boxers I've ever seen for around 5 years. I don't
understand how they could name him only #12 #14 or #15. If he hadn't
committed those crimes, I wonder how could he could have been. But
basically after he left his original trainers and team and then was in
jail for 3 years, he lost alot. So who knows what he could have done.
But to name him only #12 or #14 after the impact he had in boxing and
the fact that they show him alot on ESPN Classic, I don't understand
that.
I agree for the crimes he's committed, that can't be overlooked.
I'm just saying in terms of pure boxing ability and impact what do you
think?
What do you think?
Wbs...@aol.com
Wbs...@aol.com
jky...@yahoo.com
focus in on his boxing skills, and be only objective on this (it can't
be done) but if this were done, Mike could possibly beat almost anyone
if he hadn't have committed those crimes, which lead him to leaving his
original team and trainers and then losing alot of his skills after 3
years in jail.
WBs, no matter what you say, Mike Tyson was one of the strongest
and most incredible boxers I've ever seen although his crimes he
committed can't be overlooked. For you to say almost anyone on the
list could have beaten him and for you to not even acknowledge his
skills, I think you probably are doing this because of his crimes he
committed. Also, you're looking at his entire career , but I'm talking
about his career before he left his team and if he didn't commit those
crimes, which cannot be overlooked. He was incredible, but again his
crimes prevents and hurts him.
pmfan57
Just imagine the destruction Big George would have wreaked upon Tyson.
Tyson would have been launched into the second row. He did not have a
style that would have held him in good stead against a prime Foreman,
or even an old Foreman.
As to Lewis, most of the great fighters on that list would have had a
good shot to land that big punch that McCall landed, since they were
all far superior fighters to McCall. However, Lewis would have been
competitive with most (and probably could have decisioned some) on the
list if he could avoid the big bomb. I think Holmes would have lined
him up and caught him. But we'll never know.
In my view Lewis would have decisioned Johnson, unless Johnson trained
with a modern trainer before their fight. As I see the films, Johnson
was the culmination of 19th century boxing ("old time fighters").
Modern heavyweight history starts with Dempsey's destruction of
Willard, which is frightening to watch. (But there's no guarantee, I
suppose, that an older style fighter couldn't manage to beat a more
modern fighter).
Nat Fleischer said Johnson was the best and Jeffries was second, and he
saw everyone up to Ali. I used to read his stuff in the old Ring
magazines. I don't remember if he actually saw Johnson fight or not.
Joe
Blair Kavanagh
I think Tyson, in his prime, could have beaten anybody on that list!
Blair
isaiah...@hotmail.com
> All day yesterday and today, ESPN Classic is running a 6th marathon
> showcasing Bert Sugar's top ten heavyweights. These were his choices:
>
> 10. Larry Holmes
> 9. Joe Frazier
> 8. George Foreman
> 7. Ezzard Charles
> 6. Rocky Marciano
> 5. Gene Tunney
> 4. Jack Dempsey
> 3. Jack Johnson
> 2. Muhammad Ali
> 1. Joe Louis
>
> Bert said he would put Holyfield in at number 11, Tyson at number 12, and
> Lennox Lewis in at number 19 or 20.
>
> I had two thoughts while watching this. First of all, I am very thankful
> (tis the season) that ESPN has been airing programs like this. Praise the
> Lord for their expanded boxing coverage. At a time when the hw division
> seems dismal, they have been showcasing some of the truly great
> heavyweights.
>
> Secondly, I think Bert Sugar's list reflects his age.
Yes, he's obviously senile. It's hard to believe that anyone who has
seen a fight or knows anything about boxing history can put Charles and
Tunney that high and Lewis and Tyson that low.
<snip>
-Isaiah
isaiah...@hotmail.com
> Wbs...@aol.com wrote:
> > I think anybody on that list, in their prime, could have beaten Tyson.
>
> Just imagine the destruction Big George would have wreaked upon Tyson.
> Tyson would have been launched into the second row. He did not have a
> style that would have held him in good stead against a prime Foreman,
> or even an old Foreman.
Sure, guy.
> As to Lewis, most of the great fighters on that list would have had a
> good shot to land that big punch that McCall landed, since they were
> all far superior fighters to McCall.
No way was Tunney superior to McCall. And anyway, many of those guys
were not hard punchers and so would have to rely on an entirely
different approach against Lewis.
-Isaiah
Pastor Marc
<isaiah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133064275.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
lot like a young Ali. He was fast on his feet and fast with his hands. He
danced a lot and he kept his rivals continually off balance. He was a very
scientific fighter.
McCall? Not.
PM
Pastor Marc
<isaiah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133064095.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I agree with you about Charles being way too high. And Tunney is too high
also. But Tunney and Charles were two of the best light heavyweights ever,
with only Moore and Foster and Spinks and (cough) Jones in the same league.
PM
Loki
I think that Larry Holmes being so low proves your point.
Loki
With the holidays approaching, to support
our men and women overseas who may
not be getting packages from home, you can
get some ideas as to how to do so at:
http://www.anysoldier.com/index.cfm
It is a non profit, volunteer run organization.
I encourage everyone to check it out,
respond from the heart, and pass it
along to anyone you think may want
to remember our overseas military personnel,
especially at this time of year.
isaiah...@hotmail.com
> <isaiah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Yes, he's obviously senile. It's hard to believe that anyone who has
> > seen a fight or knows anything about boxing history can put Charles and
> > Tunney that high and Lewis and Tyson that low.
> I agree with you about Charles being way too high. And Tunney is too high
> also. But Tunney and Charles were two of the best light heavyweights ever,
> with only Moore and Foster and Spinks and (cough) Jones in the same league.
True, but I don't see anyone putting Spinks, Foster, Moore or Jones on
such lists. Really, Spinks' wins over Holmes were as impressive as
Tunney's wins over Dempsey. Holmes was much better than Dempsey and not
as far gone at the time of the fights. I would pick Spinks over Tunney
in a HW fight.
-Isaiah
isaiah...@hotmail.com
> <isaiah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > No way was Tunney superior to McCall. And anyway, many of those guys
> > were not hard punchers and so would have to rely on an entirely
> > different approach against Lewis.
> >
> >
> > -Isaiah
> >
> Tunney wasn't superior to McCall? Tunney was an awesome fighter! He fought a
> lot like a young Ali. He was fast on his feet and fast with his hands. He
> danced a lot and he kept his rivals continually off balance. He was a very
> scientific fighter.
>
> McCall? Not.
OK, but McCall was a true heavyweight and Tunney was not. At that
division, there is no question that McCall was the more formidable
fighter.
-Isaiah
Charles Beauchamp
I think you are full of hot air like a lot of Tyson supporters are. Tyson
didn't "lose it" in prison. He got his ass totally kicked by Buster Douglas
long before going to prison and the recipe never changed. He was a dominant
limited one trick pony who could be disected and was several times using
basically the same strategy in each case. If he didn't intimidate his
opponent breaking their will...he lost...every time. That was true when he
was a 16 year old amature and is as true today.
Charles Beauchamp
> I know you can't dismiss Mike's crimes he's committed, but if you
> could focus in on his boxing skills, and be only objective on this
> (it can't be done) but if this were done, Mike could possibly beat
> almost anyone if he hadn't have committed those crimes, which lead
> him to leaving his original team and trainers and then losing alot of
> his skills after 3 years in jail.
>
This simply never happened. Why do revisionists do this?
> WBs, no matter what you say, Mike Tyson was one of the strongest
> and most incredible boxers I've ever seen although his crimes he
> committed can't be overlooked. For you to say almost anyone on the
> list could have beaten him and for you to not even acknowledge his
> skills, I think you probably are doing this because of his crimes he
> committed.
Buster Douglas' left jab and straight right hand landed dozens of times
before Mike Tyson decided to rape a beauty pageant contestant. You are an
idiot.
Also, you're looking at his entire career , but I'm
> talking about his career before he left his team and if he didn't
> commit those crimes, which cannot be overlooked. He was incredible,
> but again his crimes prevents and hurts him.
His team had nothing to do with the reality that the guy was a bully and
when you hit a bully back they usually wilt. Mike Tyson was a fried twinky
at his veey best.
Loki
This is something that I had never thought of, but there is one more
element to the mix. When Tunney fought as a heavyweight, he typically
weighed more than, or within a couple of pounds of his opponent. When
Spinks fought as a heavyweight, Mike Tyson was the only opponent he
faced in which he was not out weighed by 13-30 pounds.
The Sanity Cruzer
news:1133048687....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Tyson's peak was relatively short, especially when compared to the amount of
time he remained in boxing following his peak. Tyson lost to Douglas 15
years ago. So, he stayed around boxing 3 times longer than the amount of
time he was either an up-and-comer or a champion. That type of lingering by
a fighter has an effect on those with memory issues of lessening the
abilities of a fighter. Add to the mix that Tyson never really beat a great
fighter. Yeah, he blitzed Michael Spinks, but that alone doesn't cut it.
Pastor Marc
<isaiah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133071439....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Spink's first win over Holmes was impressive, but the second fight was one
of the worst robberies I've ever witnessed. Holmes won the first 5 rounds,
and probably won no less than 9 rounds overall.
Foster and Moore were not impressive at the heavyweight level, and RJ only
had one fight. This would be why no one would consider them on the all time
top hw list.
Spinks is a different story. He had more success at heavyweight than any
other LH. A win over a prime Tyson would have put Michael Spinks in the top
20 all time HW list, but since he got crushed like a bug, I would put Spinks
at no greater than the top 30 all time heavyweights.
PM
isaiah...@hotmail.com
> On 26 Nov 2005 22:03:59 -0800, isaiah...@hotmail.com wrote:
> This is something that I had never thought of, but there is one more
> element to the mix. When Tunney fought as a heavyweight, he typically
> weighed more than, or within a couple of pounds of his opponent. When
> Spinks fought as a heavyweight, Mike Tyson was the only opponent he
> faced in which he was not out weighed by 13-30 pounds.
Yeah, that's another thing. When I used to read people like Bob Compton
or that big Tunney fan (Keane?) say with such confidence that Tunney
would have beaten Lewis or Tyson, I would feel like they must be
speaking a different language. It's not a matter of questioning their
boxing knowledge because I think that even someone who knows absolutely
nothing at all about boxing would be able to tell that Tunney would
have no chance. I think the advantage for the moderns is so obvious
that no one who believes his own eyes can fail to see it.
-Isaiah
Pastor Marc
<isaiah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133154245....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
But if Gene Tunney had learn the craft of boxing the way it is taught today
and not the way it was taught back then, do you think that would have made a
difference? Incidentally, what strikes me about Tunney is that of all the
ancient fighters from more than 50 years ago, he had the style that most
resembles the boxing stylists of the modern era.
PM
isaiah...@hotmail.com
> <isaiah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1133154245....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Yeah, that's another thing. When I used to read people like Bob Compton
> > or that big Tunney fan (Keane?) say with such confidence that Tunney
> > would have beaten Lewis or Tyson, I would feel like they must be
> > speaking a different language. It's not a matter of questioning their
> > boxing knowledge because I think that even someone who knows absolutely
> > nothing at all about boxing would be able to tell that Tunney would
> > have no chance. I think the advantage for the moderns is so obvious
> > that no one who believes his own eyes can fail to see it.
> But if Gene Tunney had learn the craft of boxing the way it is taught today
> and not the way it was taught back then, do you think that would have made a
> difference? Incidentally, what strikes me about Tunney is that of all the
> ancient fighters from more than 50 years ago, he had the style that most
> resembles the boxing stylists of the modern era.
Tunney's problem relative to recent top HWs is his lack of raw physical
ability. I think, as you get at, his skills hold up much better than
most of his contemporaries. He just wouldn't be able to hurt any top
modern (say, post 1960) heavyweight. It's just about impossible to
outbox someone without at least having the power to make them think.
Also, Tunney wouldn't be able to take even a single solid shot from any
hard-hitting heavy in that time period. On top of that, when you
compare him to Tyson or Lewis, he's giving away either speed (Tyson) or
a huge amount of size (Lewis).
Finally, even if you compare him to fighters of his own time, he just
ain't that impressive as a heavy. Dempsey had nothing left when Tunney
beat him, and what else did Tunney do? I think that fans and the media
from that time were much less aware of the effects of aging on fighters
than we are. For another example, look at Rocky vs. Louis. We tend to
write that off as a pathetic spectacle that was destined to be a
massacre, but Louis actually was favored, and that fight made
Marciano's rep more than any other (at least to that point).
Nowadays, there's a rush by fans of fighters to declare their guy to be
past his prime. That's because everything good he does after that
counts (and is, in fact, amplified), while everything bad he does is
ignored.
-Isaiah
jky...@yahoo.com
But I think alot of you here don't rate Mike Tyson high due to his
crimes that he has committed. I think you're trying to be politically
correct so you don't rate him high or say he wasn't that good because
of his crimes. Maybe that's the truth and you should do this. But I
think Mike Tyson fought some of the best fighters there were then, and
he dominated his era. But again, because of his crimes, he should not
be rated as high.
Pastor Marc
<isaiah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133165554....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Gene Tunney was a fast guy. I don't think he loses anything speedwise when
it comes to Tyson. Tunney had fast hands.
But you are right to question Tunney's accomplishments at the heavyweight
level. He just didn't fight there long enough.
But it is also overlooked that Tunney was at the tail end of his career when
he fought Dempsey. He was no longer at his absolute peak. And yet he looked
incredible in the Dempsey fights, especially the first one.
And the reason why Dempsey lost to Tunney isn't so much because he was past
his peak as much as it was he rusted out. When he fought Gene the first
time, he hadn't defended the title in three years. He was too bust living it
up in the roaring Twenties and being a celebrity. Plus, he didn't realize
just how good Gene was.
PM
Pastor Marc
<jky...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133182646.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I respectfully disagree. Pete Rose is banned from baseball, but no one ever
says that he wasn't a great player, or that he sin't the all time hits
leader.
And Bernard Hopkins is an ex-con. But most people would say that he is one
of the ten best middleweight champions we've ever had.
So I would have to say that your assertion is invalid.
PM
mwhaught
>
> Foster and Moore were not impressive at the heavyweight level, and RJ only
> had one fight. This would be why no one would consider them on the all time
> top hw list.
>
Archie Moore actually had several wins over rated HWs and only 4 losses
(IIRC) as a HW. The losses were to Marciano, Patterson an obscure HW
(can't recall name) and then Ali. Two champs (Well, Patterson became
champ with that win) and a future champ.
I'd say Moore did enough at HW to be considered one of the better title
challengers in the division's history. While that is not one of the
best HW fighters in history, that's a long way from "not impressive."
> Spinks is a different story. He had more success at heavyweight than any
> other LH. A win over a prime Tyson would have put Michael Spinks in the top
> 20 all time HW list, but since he got crushed like a bug, I would put Spinks
> at no greater than the top 30 all time heavyweights.
>
I'd say that Michael Spinks had more success at HW than any former LHW
champ. Ezzard Charles has to be the most successful former ranked LHW
who moved to HW. What did he have, seven or eight successful title
defenses as HW champ?
-mwh