Bert Sugar Top 10 Heavyweights

[billeau2]

My top 15 as of today

Ali
Louis
Johnson
Holmes
Lewis
Foreman
Holyfield
Wlad
Frazier
Tyson
Liston
Bowe
Vitali
Marciano
Dempsey

Green K: Love the qualifier (bolded). I always feel that way when I do such a list.

[billeau2]

Can you even make a top ten for the heavyweights? This is my list for the next five minutes

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Dempsey (Tunney could be added, but better as the best light heavy).
4. Liston
5. Johnson
6. Mcveigh
7. Marciano
8. Foreman/Tyson either/or
9. Lewis/ Jimmy Young either/or
10. Holmes/Holyfield either/or

[slicksouthpaw16]

Can you even make a top ten for the heavyweights? This is my list for the next five minutes

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Dempsey (Tunney could be added, but better as the best light heavy).
4. Liston
5. Johnson
6. Mcveigh
7. Marciano
8. Foreman/Tyson either/or
9. Lewis/ Jimmy Young either/or
10. Holmes/Holyfield either/or

Jimmy Young, Sam McVea and no Wlad or Vitali? I understand these lists change as does mine, but I see no way Jimmy Young deserves to mentioned anywhere near the greatest heavyweights. Wlad reigned for years undisputedly and Vitali was dominant as long as he physically held up (even though I feel Lewis would have beaten him anyway). Also a champion. He only lost to one of the greatest heavyweights of all time in Lennox, and his other loss came due to a torn rotator cuff when he couldn't continue.

[slicksouthpaw16]

Side note, I have neither Wlad or Vitali in my top 10, but way higher than McVea and Young is no where near this list.

[DeeMoney]

Ive said it before, the thing about Sugar, as with these other historian/scribes, is that they make their money by allegedly being the smartest and most knowledgeable in the room. So if they go and give a list with all the accepted guys in the accepted spots (Louis, Ali, Dempsey, etc) they cant show off their knowledge; instead they blend in with the masses, which in turn makes them equal with the masses.

So what they do is highly rank someone who is relatively obscure or unique (note relatively) so as to pretentiously display a faux esoteric insight. The same thing hipsters do with music.

This allows them to hold their noses at the masses, who support the generally accepted answer, as not having the insight or wisdom they have.

Now i may be wring in this assumption, in it specifically applying to Bert Sugar, but ive seen it play out many places- so i imagine it has at least somewhat a role here

[Anthony342]

Ive said it before, the thing about Sugar, as with these other historian/scribes, is that they make their money by allegedly being the smartest and most knowledgeable in the room. So if they go and give a list with all the accepted guys in the accepted spots (Louis, Ali, Dempsey, etc) they cant show off their knowledge; instead they blend in with the masses, which in turn makes them equal with the masses.

So what they do is highly rank someone who is relatively obscure or unique (note relatively) so as to pretentiously display a faux esoteric insight. The same thing hipsters do with music.

This allows them to hold their noses at the masses, who support the generally accepted answer, as not having the insight or wisdom they have.

Now i may be wring in this assumption, in it specifically applying to Bert Sugar, but ive seen it play out many places- so i imagine it has at least somewhat a role here

Kinda makes them sound like sports hipsters then.

[Bundana]

Ive said it before, the thing about Sugar, as with these other historian/scribes, is that they make their money by allegedly being the smartest and most knowledgeable in the room. So if they go and give a list with all the accepted guys in the accepted spots (Louis, Ali, Dempsey, etc) they cant show off their knowledge; instead they blend in with the masses, which in turn makes them equal with the masses.

So what they do is highly rank someone who is relatively obscure or unique (note relatively) so as to pretentiously display a faux esoteric insight. The same thing hipsters do with music.

This allows them to hold their noses at the masses, who support the generally accepted answer, as not having the insight or wisdom they have.

Now i may be wring in this assumption, in it specifically applying to Bert Sugar, but ive seen it play out many places- so i imagine it has at least somewhat a role here

I think, there's a lot of truth to this - but I also believe, there can be widly different reasons, why some of these "strange" opinions manifest themselves.

In the case of Bert Sugar, I definitely think he wanted to sound, like he had superior knowledge, which would then (in some people's opinion, not least his own!) make him stand out like a real "historian".

In the case of Nat Fleischer, I believe he was an honest man, who really believed that the boxers from his youth, were the best ever. This resulted in some very strange All-Time rankings - but he was probably speaking from the heart.

Then we have more recent historians like IBRO member Tracy Callis. He doesn't go back neary as far as Fleischer, but has spent a lifetime researching old-timers from newspaper reports. From the information gathered this way he, also, has come up with some very "unconventional" All-Time lists. But, like Fleischer, I don't believe he has an agenda. He probably calls it, like he sees it - but seems to have brainwashed himself, by reading hundreds of contemporary reports about the greatness of late 19th century boxers!

But you're right... there are also many wannabe historians, who think they sound cool/knowledgeable by talking up the old-timers.

[DeeMoney]

I think, there's a lot of truth to this - but I also believe, there can be widly different reasons, why some of these "strange" opinions manifest themselves.

In the case of Bert Sugar, I definitely think he wanted to sound, like he had superior knowledge, which would then (in some people's opinion, not least his own!) make him stand out like a real "historian".

In the case of Nat Fleischer, I believe he was an honest man, who really believed that the boxers from his youth, were the best ever. This resulted in some very strange All-Time rankings - but he was probably speaking from the heart.

Then we have more recent historians like IBRO member Tracy Callis. He doesn't go back neary as far as Fleischer, but has spent a lifetime researching old-timers from newspaper reports. From the information gathered this way he, also, has come up with some very "unconventional" All-Time lists. But, like Fleischer, I don't believe he has an agenda. He probably calls it, like he sees it - but seems to have brainwashed himself, by reading hundreds of contemporary reports about the greatness of late 19th century boxers!

But you're right... there are also many wannabe historians, who think they sound cool/knowledgeable by talking up the old-timers.

I agree with that, & definitely see the Callis line of thought happening a lot too. Guys end up going native all the time; if you spend all your time studying fighters from a certain time, then they will be the ones you think the most of.

[Dr. Z]

From his top 100 list he has the Heavyweights in this order.

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/. Evander Holyfield

Great list which i agree with... here is my take on it

1/. Louis -- longest reign + most title defences
2/. Ali -- 3 time champ who fought best oppostion
3/. Dempsey -- ferocious fighting machine
4/. Johnson -- ruled for a decade, brilliant defensive master
5/. Tunney -- 1st ever scientific style fighter & undefeated
6/. Marciano -- 49-0
7/. Charles -- brilliant boxer/fighter who could do it all
8/. Foreman -- Hardest puncher ever & oldest ever champ
9/. Frazier -- brilliant pressure fighter who won FOTC
10/. Holyfield -- 4 times champion

So, not one of the top 7 were in their prime before 1960?

Sugar used to have Holmes 10th, his omission is one of the many things wrong with this list.

[billeau2]

Jimmy Young, Sam McVea and no Wlad or Vitali? I understand these lists change as does mine, but I see no way Jimmy Young deserves to mentioned anywhere near the greatest heavyweights. Wlad reigned for years undisputedly and Vitali was dominant as long as he physically held up (even though I feel Lewis would have beaten him anyway). Also a champion. He only lost to one of the greatest heavyweights of all time in Lennox, and his other loss came due to a torn rotator cuff when he couldn't continue.

The competition fought... Nether Klit beat any fellow great fighters. Young's win against Foreman s h its on any win either klit ever got.