Greatest Heavyweights Of All Time

[TheOneIsHere2008]

1) Muhammad Ali

2) Jack Johnson

3) Joe Louis

4) Rocky Marciano

5) Jack Dempsey

6) George Foreman

7) Larry Holmes

8 ) Joe Frazier

9) Sonny Liston

10) Evander Holyfield

Come out granberry, come out, come out, wherever you are...

[Klee Gluckman]

To be honest I think Tyson is unlucky to be rated below Liston. There is an assumption that Liston would beat Tyson head to head, that maybe the case. But Liston only had two title defences where as Tyson had nine. Tyson is the youngest heavyweight champion of all time and defended the crown nine times which is more than Liston. Liston never beat anyone that Tyson would not have also beaten.

[Big Bad John]

Tyson didn't have nine World Championship defenses. He had two. Patterson and Cus D'amato wouldn't let Liston get a title shot for those years because they knew Liston would kill him.

[Poncey]

Tyson didn't have nine World Championship defenses. He had two. Patterson and Cus D'amato wouldn't let Liston get a title shot for those years because they knew Liston would kill him.

Agreed. Eventually Cus ran out of excuses. Plus the Liston that fought Clay wasn't prime. Liston was better than Tyson IMO, and was more intimidating because of the culture at the time. He drank, he got arrested, he allegedly beat Policeman and allegedly took drugs and to top it all off he was black. In the 50's and 60's that was heavy shit.

He packed towels under his shoulders to make himself look bigger and he had THAT stare.

[Ezzard]

I find it impossible to put them all in a definitve order and so instead try to put them in categories... All these categories represent great fighters...

So listed in no order within each category

One

Johnson
Louis
Ali
Holmes (though recently I've been looking at Larry and wondering if he quite makes this level, am i just being nostalgic because he was champ when i was a kid)

Two

Jeffries
Dempsey
Tunney
Marciano
Liston
Frazier
Foreman
Lewis
Holyfield

Three

Jackson
Langford
Jeanette
Corbett
Wills
Sharkey
Schmeling
Charles
Walcott
Paterson
Norton
Tyson
Bowe

[TheOneIsHere2008]

To be honest I think Tyson is unlucky to be rated below Liston. There is an assumption that Liston would beat Tyson head to head, that maybe the case. But Liston only had two title defences where as Tyson had nine. Tyson is the youngest heavyweight champion of all time and defended the crown nine times which is more than Liston. Liston never beat anyone that Tyson would not have also beaten.

Tyson is the hardest boxer to rate...He has that proverbial "puncher's chance" against any boxer including Ali, Louis, or Liston but so does George Foreman and Earnie Shavers...When you look at how he did against quality opponents in their prime his record is less than impressive and that's all we have to judge him by...

Did Tyson lose to Douglas, Holy, and Lenox because he was a head case or because they found vulnerabilities in his style ? And does it really matter?

Holy and Lenox basically ignored Tyson's pre fight antics...That seemed to be the winning ticket...

[Ambling Alp]

I find it impossible to put them all in a definitve order and so instead try to put them in categories... All these categories represent great fighters...

So listed in no order within each category

One

Johnson
Louis
Ali
Holmes (though recently I've been looking at Larry and wondering if he quite makes this level, am i just being nostalgic because he was champ when i was a kid)

Two

Jeffries
Dempsey
Tunney
Marciano
Liston
Frazier
Foreman
Lewis
Holyfield

Three

Jackson
Langford
Jeanette
Corbett
Wills
Sharkey
Schmeling
Charles
Walcott
Paterson
Norton
Tyson
Bowe

That's pretty close to what I would have. Of course no two people are going to have it exactly the same, so I would tweak it.

Group One would only be Ali and Louis. Move Holmes and Johnson to Group 2.
Move Tyson up to Group 2. He would be the worst in that Group, but he is better than anyone in Group 3.

Would probably add the following to Group 3-Fitzsimmons,McVey, and Baer.

Each level gets bigger. If you did a 4th Group, it would probably be bigger than the 3rd Group.

[Ezzard]

I find it impossible to put them all in a definitve order and so instead try to put them in categories... All these categories represent great fighters...

So listed in no order within each category

One

Johnson
Louis
Ali
Holmes (though recently I've been looking at Larry and wondering if he quite makes this level, am i just being nostalgic because he was champ when i was a kid)

Two

Jeffries
Dempsey
Tunney
Marciano
Liston
Frazier
Foreman
Lewis
Holyfield

Three

Jackson
Langford
Jeanette
Corbett
Wills
Sharkey
Schmeling
Charles
Walcott
Paterson
Norton
Tyson
Bowe

That's pretty close to what I would have. Of course no two people are going to have it exactly the same, so I would tweak it.

Group One would only be Ali and Louis. Move Holmes and Johnson to Group 2.
Move Tyson up to Group 2. He would be the worst in that Group, but he is better than anyone in Group 3.

Would probably add the following to Group 3-Fitzsimmons,McVey, and Baer.

Each level gets bigger. If you did a 4th Group, it would probably be bigger than the 3rd Group.

McVey and Baer are glaring omissions. They should be in...

Tyson is either towards the top of 3 or at the bottom of 2. On another day I might have changed him.

[observer1]

Ali
Louis
Tyson
Johnson
Holmes

Simply "Prime for Prime" and based solely on talent. That is how i feel

[Big Bad John]

This is a list I've puttered around with for the past six or seven years:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Jack Johnson
5. Joe Frazier
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Jack Dempsey
12. Mike Tyson
13. Ezzard Charles
14. Jersey Joe Walcott
15. Max Schmelling
16. Jim Jeffries
17. Gene Tunney
18. Sam Langford
19. Riddick Bowe
20. Floyd Patterson
21. Ken Norton
22. Jack Sharkey
23. Max Baer
24. Joe Jeannette
25. Jerry Quarry
26. Earnie Shavers
27. Harry Wills
28. Michael Spinks
29. John L. Sullivan
30. Tim Witherspoon
31. George Godfrey
32. Archie Moore
33. Sam McVey
34. James Corbett
35. Ingemar Johanssen
36. Ron Lyle
37. James Braddock
38. Elmer Ray
39. Wladimir Klitschko
40. Harold Johnson
41. George Chuvalo
42. Jimmy Young
43. Oscar Bonavena
44. Cleveland Williams
45. Pinklon Thomas
46. Chris Byrd
47. Joe Bugner
48. Gerry Cooney
49. Buster Douglas
50. Hasim Rahman
51. Peter Jackson
52. Michael Moorer
53. Tommy Burns
54. Jimmy Ellis
55. Ernie Terrel
56. John Ruiz
57. Eddie Machen
58. Tom Sharkey
59. Harry Greb
60. Zora Foley
61. David Tua
62. Ike Ibeabuchi
63. Vitali Klitschko
64. Bob Fitzsimmons
65. Marvin Hart
66. Tony Tubbs
67. Billy Conn
68. Jimmy Bivins
69. Tony Tucker
70. Clarence Henry
71. Oliver McCall
72. Bonecrusher Smith
73. Greg Page
74. Tiger Jack Fox
75. Primo Carnera
76. Trevor Berbick
77. James Toney
78. Razor Ruddock
79. John Tate
80. Mike Weaver
81. Tommy Loughran
82. John Henry Lewis
83. Buddy Baer
84. Roy Jones
85. Jess Willard
86. Earnie Schaaf
87. Gunboat Smith
88. Fred Fulton
89. Billy Miske
90. Joe Choynski
91. Michael Dokes
92. Tommy Gibbons
93. Bearcat Wright
94. Joey Maxim
95. Kid Norfolk
96. Nino Valdes
97. Ray Mercer
98. Neil Clisby
99. Johnny Risko
100. Rex Layne

[dr_devious]

Great list. Not sure about Frazier over Foreman, and Marciano over Dempsey. On a trivial note, no Frank Bruno in the top 100?

[I Feel Fine]

Plus the Liston that fought Clay wasn't prime.

Neither was the Clay that fought Liston. Clay was only 22, and getting better with every fight.

My list changes every time I try to make one, but here's what I'm thinking at the moment:

1) Ali
2) Louis
3) Jeffries
4) Holmes
5) Johnson
6) Foreman
7) Lewis
8) Marciano
9) Frazier
10) Holyfield

[Big Bad John]

Plus the Liston that fought Clay wasn't prime.

Neither was the Clay that fought Liston. Clay was only 22, and getting better with every fight.

Did you even watch that fight?

[TheOneIsHere2008]

Plus the Liston that fought Clay wasn't prime.

Neither was the Clay that fought Liston. Clay was only 22, and getting better with every fight.

Did you even watch that fight?

A million times...

Why

Ali put on a clinic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOHiNUVPuHA

[I Feel Fine]

Plus the Liston that fought Clay wasn't prime.

Neither was the Clay that fought Liston. Clay was only 22, and getting better with every fight.

Did you even watch that fight?

What is that supposed to mean? Did you watch the rest of Ali's title reign? Ali was certainly great in the first Liston fight, but he was still young and getting better in every fight, hence the excuse that Liston wasn't at his best does not carry any water. Its like with Duran-Buchanan, just because Duran looked great doesn't mean that he didn't improve throughout his reign.

[Big Bad John]

No. Duran was not at his best against Buchanan. His defense was nearly nonexistent, and he later became an excellent boxer. Against Liston, Clay was already about as good as he'd get. While he made some minor improvements in his game, it's nothing even in the same league as the complete transformation Duran made between the Buchanan and DeJesus III fights.

[I Feel Fine]

I was just using Duran as an example. But, I disagree, Ali did get better as the years went on.

[Big Bad John]

I was just using Duran as an example. But, I disagree, Ali did get better as the years went on.

Well, Ali did change over the years, but his physical peak was between 1964 and 1967. He was brilliant in the first Liston fight, he was at what he called his peak in the Williams fight, and he was phenomonal in the Terrell fight. He toyed with Terrell, but if he'd fought that way against Liston, he would've had a good shot at losing. If we're going to talk about his 1970s career, he was a much better fighter in some ways, but physically, he wasn't as sharp.

One comparison I like to make about Duran is that in his peak, he was both the ferocious killer of the Buchanan fight, and the sly boxer who lifted a middleweight title from Iran Barkley. Ali - like most fighters who transition - went through a period of being neither his young self or his old self, when he lost to Frazier and Norton. Max Schmeling went through a similar period. I hope you can follow what I'm saying, but if you look at Tyson's prime, it was three years of awesomeness; but if you look at Duran's prime, it was three years of awesomeness which constituted the overlapping of two great careers. Sorry for the digression.

[Poncey]

Plus the Liston that fought Clay wasn't prime.

Neither was the Clay that fought Liston. Clay was only 22, and getting better with every fight.

But a fighter who's rapidly approaching his prime is far better than a fighter who's past their prime.

[Ezzard]

BBJohn I admire your stab at a top 100... But Michael Spinks is way too high. The Klitschkos, Witherspoon, Sullivan, Tucker, Smith, etc... would all beat him. In fact most of the people below him would beat him.

Ruiz seems to be too high.

Jones only had 1 fight in the division? Seems like a leap of faith to me...

[I Feel Fine]

Plus the Liston that fought Clay wasn't prime.

Neither was the Clay that fought Liston. Clay was only 22, and getting better with every fight.

But a fighter who's rapidly approaching his prime is far better than a fighter who's past their prime.

Not necessarily. At least not the point where you shoudl be making excuses for Liston.

John... I think we agree. But I don't think that Ali would have toyed with Liston the way he did with Terrell, he clearly took Liston more seriously, at least the first time.

[Big Bad John]

Spinks did beat Larry Holmes. You talk about Roy Jones being ranked so high based on one win over a top-5 heavyweight? Well, that's one more than Vitali Klitschko had. Should Vitali be ranked based upon beating the Kirk Johnsons and Larry Donads of the world?

[Ezzard]

Spinks did beat Larry Holmes. You talk about Roy Jones being ranked so high based on one win over a top-5 heavyweight? Well, that's one more than Vitali Klitschko had. Should Vitali be ranked based upon beating the Kirk Johnsons and Larry Donads of the world?

It's more evidence than Jones. Some of the ratings will always be partly based on what can be seen over a number of fights. Jones though, 1 fight, that was all set up for him to win..? Higher than Ray Mercer who fought your number 10 to a tight decision? Higher than Dokes? Fulton? Willard?

[Ambling Alp]

I wouldn't list Roy Jones either. One fight isn't enough. He very well may have been better than some of the guys listed, but that's just speculation.
Overall, the list is pretty good. His Top 12 in particular is pretty good.

The only major problems that I saw:
I would then have Jeffries and Tunney ahead of Walcott,Charles, and Schmeling.
I don't understand how Corbett can be #34 and Fitzsimmons is only #64. They should be very close. (Fitz is even behind Tom Sharkey)
Quarry and Ellis should also be about even, but Quarry is #25 (a little high) and Ellis is #54 (a little low)
Shavers (26),Godfrey (31) and Moore (32) and Ruiz (56) are way too high. It's debatable if Ruiz should even be listed at all. Ernie Schaaf should be much higher than #86. Ray Mercer should be much higher as well.

Besides Jones, I wouldn't list James Toney,Tiger Jack Fox,Bearcat Wright, Joey Maxim and Neil Clisby.
I would put in Gus Ruhlin,Larry Gains,Roland La Starza, Renaldo Snipes,Coetzee,Bruno, and Leotis Martin.

Overall it's pretty good though. I don't think a lot of people realize how hard it gets once after you list the Top 40 or so. Many guys are very close. The difference between #41 and #60 is smaller than say #1 and #20. After you list the Top 100, there are several guys that just miss. (You could make a good arguement for Risko, Cooper,Doug Jones,Goddard, Carl Williams and others.)

[Big Bad John]

I call bullshit on you implying that Mercer and Schaaf should be ranked above John Ruiz. Ruiz beat Holyfield, Rahman, Oquendo, Johnson, Tucker and McCline, and he should've gotten the win over Valuev and maybe even Chagaev.