rating atg HW's in order is basically impossible.

[AngryGoon38]

it is all in all way too subjective.styles make fights to such an extreme in the HW division,and no other weight division exemplifies this factor like the HW division.

for example,someone may say a top 20 and typically the average relatively knowledgable fan or critic might say usually something like....

1.M. Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.George Foreman
4.Jack Johnson
5.Larry Holmes
6.Joe frazier
7.Lennox Lewis
8.Evander Holyfield
9.Sonny liston
10.Mike Tyson
11.Riddick Bowe
12.Ken Norton
13.Ike Ibeabuchi
14.Floyd Patterson
15.Jim Jefferies
16.Jack Dempsey
17.Rocky Marciano
18.Wladimir Klitschko
19.Gene Tunney
20.Max Schmelling

but of course,being that styles can easily play a huge factor in ultimately determining the actual deciding outcome,you could not write off any of the 10th-15th ranked atg's possibly beating any of the top 5 of a typical average common list of the top 20.if the scenario was always prime vs prime there really is no definite determiner of who exactly would beat who and where styles make fights would really be highly emphasized to enable a 15th-20th beating someone ranked in the top 5 because they simply have that one particular atg boxer's number.

the point of my thread here is that in the HW division,rating whos who in such and such exact order is just way too subjective when you're trying to exactly evaluate and carefully analyze all deciding factors and could be scenarios in the HW division.

[dempseyfire]

I agree in terms of who could beat who there is a lot of wiggle room as styles make fights.

HOWEVER.

Wlad Klitschko and Ike Ibeabuchi need to be booted off your list, ASAP.

[AngryGoon38]

dempseyfire...the whole point of this thread is that "i do not necessarily agree with the example typical (fans eye) and/or (critics eye) view i listed."

my own point is that it is "Always Very subjective" when you are trying to attempt to accurately and exactly rank atg Hw's in a supposed proper and correct order.

nothing exemplifies styles making fights like the Hw division.

personally,i cannot give my own honestly thought out atg top 20 Hw list because it is a division with way too many variances involved.it is basically impossible to give a truly accurate top 20 atg Hw list in the exact proper order because there is no such thing as an exactly correct top 20 list,especially when you are dealing with Hw's.Way too many stylistic based intricacies involved.

[Ezzard]

I type them into the site now and then but truthfully know it's almost impossible. IMO doing tiers of fighters is better.

So having say 5 tiers of greats or something like that. I have Foreman, Frazier, Liston, Jeffries, Dempsey, Lewis, etc... in tier 2 but deciding who is definitively above who is really impossible...

[Ambling Alp]

Well of course it's a matter of opinion. It always is when you rate people. However, you can do a lot of research and try as best as you can to be as unbiased (toward fighters of different eras, styles, etc.) as possible and come up with a well informed opinion.

The "Tier" Idea that Ezzard suggests probably is better. Of course there are always going to be borderline cases, but nevertheless it's a good way of looking at things.

For me:
1st Tier
Ali
Louis

2nd Tier
Jeffries
Johnson
Dempsey
Tunney
Marciano
Liston
Frazier
Foreman
Holmes
Tyson
Holyfield
Lewis

3rd Tier
Corbett
Fitzsimmons
Langford
McVey
Jeannette
Wills
Schmeling
Sharkey
Baer
Charles
Walcott
Patterson
Norton
Bowe

Tier 4 would be guys like Burns,Johannson,some top contenders in strong eras, the alphabet soup champs of the 1980's.

For me Ali and Louis have to be #1 and #2, so they have to be the Top Tier. #3-14 are all fairly close, so they belong in Tier 2.

[Ezzard]

I think that's a good job, Alp...

My difficulties are with Tyson. Is he tier 2 or 3? It's tricky. Same question with Langford, Wills and Schmeling. Those are broderline cases for me.

My top tier also includes Johnson and Holmes.

[AngryGoon38]

good replies but the thing is....

i can easily see Holmes,Lewis,Johnson or Louis possibly beating any version of Ali at least twice in a 3 bout trilogy.
i can see Louis or even Lewis being perfectly capable of Ko'ing or Tko'ing Prime Ali at least once out of 3 as well.
i think Ali would win 2 out of 3 from Joe but would likely get brutally Ko'd in one of the bouts.i think Lewis would likely beat Ali 2 out of 3 and even Tko him in one of the bouts.

i would'nt even see a few of them beating Ali 2 out of 3 or Louis flattening him out as an upset or amazing either.

all 5 could beat one another in random mixed matchup scenarios.

styles would make the fights.styles and other factors like heart,strategy,luck,and preparation.

Lewis may beat Ali,but then get beat by Louis why then gets beat by Ali,who then gets beat by Holmes,who gets beat by Johnson,who gets beat by Lewis,who gets beat by Louis again,who gets beat by Ali again,who gets beat by Holmes again,who gets beat by Johnson,who gets beat by Louis,who gets beat by Lewis,who gets beat by Holmes,who gets beat by Ali in a third clash,who gets beat by Johnson,who gets beat by Louis,who gets beat by Lewis in a third clash,who gets beat by Holmes,and so on and so on.

They're all capable of beating one another and a couple of em would likely have 1 or 2 of the top 5's number.

Once again,i can especially easily see Holmes,Lewis or Johnson having Ali's number and it would'nt be a huge deal.

But the fact of the matter would remain that rating any one of these top 5'ers as "Thee Best" is Just simply Too subjective and all a matter of styles,preparation,and luck ultimately creating the outcome of each given match.

[Ambling Alp]

I agree that styles are very important. However, part of what made Ali great was that he could handle various styles.
There is no way that Lewis would beat a prime Ali 2 out of 3. 1964-1967 Ali beats Lewis 3 out of 3, and 1970-1975 Ali wins atleast two out of three. Lewis has nothing that Ali hasn't dealt with before.

Of course not every fighter from a higher Tier would beat a fighter one level below every single time. However, if you took say every fighter from the 2nd Tier and had them fight every fighter from the 3rd Tier 3 times, the 2nd Tier would win a strong majority of the fights. Likewise the 3rd tier guys would usually beat the 4th Tier guys.
And of course the 2nd tier guys on average lost less often to a 4th Tier or lower fighter than a 3rd Tier fighter did.

I don't think Holmes, Johnson, and Lewis belong with Ali and Louis. There is no doubt in my mind that Ali and Louis were better. I have a lot of doubt if Holmes,Johnson,Lewis were better than Foreman,Frazier,Marciano,Dempsey etc.
There really is no consensus #3 heavyweight of all time. Many people don't think Holmes, Johnson, and Lewis are top 5. There is a definite gap after # 2, and I would argue after about #14.

[Diamond WEAPON]

I agree that styles are very important. However, part of what made Ali great was that he could handle various styles.
There is no way that Lewis would beat a prime Ali 2 out of 3. 1964-1967 Ali beats Lewis 3 out of 3, and 1970-1975 Ali wins atleast two out of three. Lewis has nothing that Ali hasn't dealt with before.

Of course not every fighter from a higher Tier would beat a fighter one level below every single time. However, if you took say every fighter from the 2nd Tier and had them fight every fighter from the 3rd Tier 3 times, the 2nd Tier would win a strong majority of the fights. Likewise the 3rd tier guys would usually beat the 4th Tier guys.
And of course the 2nd tier guys on average lost less often to a 4th Tier or lower fighter than a 3rd Tier fighter did.

I don't think Holmes, Johnson, and Lewis belong with Ali and Louis. There is no doubt in my mind that Ali and Louis were better. I have a lot of doubt if Holmes,Johnson,Lewis were better than Foreman,Frazier,Marciano,Dempsey etc.
There really is no consensus #3 heavyweight of all time. Many people don't think Holmes, Johnson, and Lewis are top 5. There is a definite gap after # 2, and I would argue after about #14.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it on a head-2-head scale, just because certain fighters may be ranked higher than others because of their historical achievements doesn't mean they would automatically beat their lesser-acclaimed fighters all the time because the lower ranked fighters historically may have simply had short primes, may have had bad styles for the higher ranked guy, or may have simply been less accomplished because of the opponents they fought in their own era who matched up well over them.

[Syntax Error]

I agree AngryGoon38, rating them is nigh on impossible with the HW's.

One example that's always played on my mind is Tyson -v- Marciano for example.

I simply cannot fathom 180lb Marciano being able to stand up to the even more ferocious & quicker 220lb Tyson, but I would never for the life of me rate Tyson ahead of Marciano in any ATG HW list.

There are a few other examples of this I could cite, but I think people will get what I'm talking, even if some may think I'm completely mad!!! :P

[jezzamundo]

Good thread - I think the placing of heavyweights into tiers makes a lot of sense. I however, have always ranked them by career accomplishments rather than how they would fare head to head. I also agree with the comment about Ali and Louis being the clear top 2, and then a group of 11-12 after them. A couple of years ago I got a big list of top 20s from posters on this site and compiled them to see where they ended up. This was the final list:

1. Ali (1) Voted over Louis by 13-4
2. Louis (2) Voted over Holmes by 15-2
3. Holmes (4) Votes over Johnson by 9-8
4. Johnson (5) Voted over Foreman by 11-6
5. Foreman (7) Voted over Marciano by 11-6
6. Marciano (7) Voted over Dempsey by 11-6
7. Dempsey ( 8 ) Voted over Frazier by 9-8
8. Frazier ( 8 ) Voted over Lewis by 12-5
9. Lewis (10) Voted over Liston by 10-7
10. Liston (11) Voted over Holyfield by 11-6
11. Holyfield (12) Voted over Tyson by 13-4
12. Tyson (12) Voted over Jeffries by 13-3
13. Jeffries Voted even with Charles and Tunney, ahead by mean vote
14. Charles Voted even with Jeffries and Tunney, ahead by mean vote
15. Tunney Voted even with Charles and Jeffries
16. Langford Voted ahead of Walcott by 9-5
17. Walcott Voted ahead of Patterson by 8-4
18. Patterson Voted ahead of Wills by ?
19. Wills Voted ahead of Schmeling by 7-6
20. Schmeling Voted ahead of Norton by 10-3
(numbers in brackets are that fighter's mean average ranking)

[Cojimar 1945]

It seems as though there may be some generational bias in rating heavyweights. I don't think most people openly rate John Ruiz and Nikolai Valuev in their top 10 but it seems as though some guys who were once rated very highly such as James Jeffries and Sam Langford are not rated very highly these days. The heavyweights of the 1970s seem to be highly rated by some but I would like to know if the old-timers rated them so highly.

[Robinson]

Can people explain to me who Jack Johnson defeated to be considered
so highly on these lists. Thanks again.

[Ambling Alp]

Johnson is hard to rate. If you just look at the names he beat; it's very impressive. He has wins over 8 Hall of Famers-Langford,McVey,Jeannette,Burns,Fitzsimmons, Jeffries,O'Brien,and Ketchel.

However that's decieiving. Fitzsimmons was ancient and injured when Johnson beat him; and Jeffries was old and extremely rusty. Neither were near as good as they once were.
Jeannette and McVey were very inexperienced and weren't the fighters that they would become.
Ketchel and O'Brien weren't heavyweights. Langford was still a middleweight when they fought.

So none of those wins really mean a lot. Most heavyweight champ would have beaten those guys in those circumstances. Maybe a little credit should be given to Johnson for not getting upset in any of those fights. (Most of the fighters in Level 3 occasionally lost to inferior fighters.)

Burns while of course very small, was a legitimate heavyweight champion and Johnson beat him easily. Johnson should get some credit for that. (Burns would probably have given the Level 3 fighters more trouble.)
Johnson also beat several good (but certainly not great) fighters like Frank Childs, Sandy Ferguson, and Denver Ed Martin before he won the title.

Had Johnson beat McVey,Jeannette,Langford while champion (when they were at their best) then he probably belongs with Louis & Ali at Level 1. However, he didn't so Level 2 seems about right.

[Ezzard]

Johnson is hard to rate. If you just look at the names he beat; it's very impressive. He has wins over 8 Hall of Famers-Langford,McVey,Jeannette,Burns,Fitzsimmons, Jeffries,O'Brien,and Ketchel.

However that's decieiving. Fitzsimmons was ancient and injured when Johnson beat him; and Jeffries was old and extremely rusty. Neither were near as good as they once were.
Jeannette and McVey were very inexperienced and weren't the fighters that they would become.
Ketchel and O'Brien weren't heavyweights. Langford was still a middleweight when they fought.

So none of those wins really mean a lot. Most heavyweight champ would have beaten those guys in those circumstances. Maybe a little credit should be given to Johnson for not getting upset in any of those fights. (Most of the fighters in Level 3 occasionally lost to inferior fighters.)

Burns while of course very small, was a legitimate heavyweight champion and Johnson beat him easily. Johnson should get some credit for that. (Burns would probably have given the Level 3 fighters more trouble.)
Johnson also beat several good (but certainly not great) fighters like Frank Childs, Sandy Ferguson, and Denver Ed Martin before he won the title.

Had Johnson beat McVey,Jeannette,Langford while champion (when they were at their best) then he probably belongs with Louis & Ali at Level 1. However, he didn't so Level 2 seems about right.

Okay, here's a contentious line...

Living in an era of multiple title holders I look back at Johnson's era and wonder why the Black HW title isn't considered just as legitimate as what was essentially the white HW title.

Some sources have Johnson making something like 16-17 defences, something like that... he beat fighters like Jeanette multiple times, who I'd put at least as a tier 3 HW. Beat McVey a number of times too... People say these guys weren't at their best, and maybe so, but they were formidable fighters and some will tell you that their records are not complete...

He did hog the accepted title once he won it... Even so if you look at his two reigns, factor in the politics of his time, I think he's at that level. I also think he'd be a total nightmare for anyone to fight.

[Robinson]

Ezzard

I think that the Coloured title should be considered when talking
about 'titles', it is in essence a fragment of 'the' title, much the
same as any ABC belt.

[jezzamundo]

For some of the same reasons beforementioned, I have trouble ranking Johnson as highly as some others do. Here is my list:

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Foreman
5. Marciano
6. Frazier
7. Lewis
8. Johnson
9. Dempsey
10. Liston
11. Holyfield
12. Tyson
13. Jeffries
14. Charles
15. Patterson

[Ambling Alp]

That's a pretty reasonable list. (Though I would have Tunney ahead of Charles and Patterson.)

I have Johnson at #4, but #8 is still reasonable to me. When you ran that poll awhile back, you could see that there is a wide variety of opinon when people rated #3 to #12. I think they are all fairly close and I personally would add Tunney and Jeffries as well.

[AngryGoon38]

i dont have a list and this was the whole point of me making this thread.

ali is very commonly rated/voted as #1 but i dont think or feel definite of this.

it could very well be Joe Louis,Larry Holmes,or Jack Johnson.

Possibly even Lennox Lewis,Ibeabuchi,Bowe or the 1988 version of Mike Tyson for all i am truly aware of.

My case of Ibeabuchi being possibly capable of beating Ali or even Prime Tyson can be relatively gauged by how he both handled the tricky,vexing and elusive prime Chris Byrd and how he handled the Tank like Tyson Clone in David Tua.
For all we know,Prime Chris Byrd might have given Ali major fits.I mean,if the flat footed and slowish Bonevena could give Ali fits like he did,why not Chris Byrd or the others i've mentioned.

And Ibeabuchi is basically a Foreman clone with seemingly better skills.He was the first to figure out the vexing tricky style of byrd and take him right outta there.That was awesomely impressive.He showed great boxing fundementals and the ability to trap an elusive vexing boxer like byrd into the ropes and pound him right outta there,unlike Foreman,who had Ali right where he wanted em,against the ropes and could'nt get him out.

Whenever i see this bout(foreman/ali),i just cant help but feel strongly inclined to believe that he very likely perhaps WAS drugged as he claims.I mean,after all,Ali was literally a sitting duck and was not incorporating any kind of really legitimate boxing ability like the footwork he used to possess.Foreman doesnt look right in that fight.He looks very lumbery and very sluggish,hence giving definite and sufficient evidence that he was indeed,likely drugged before the bout.
I'm just saying that it really does seem likely and i definately see a 1988 version of Tyson taking the 74 version of ali right outta there once he'd get him against the ropes like that.

Today though,they wont even let someone do a rope a dope like that.the fighter will get warned,penalized and even tko'd with those types of strategies incorporated for the purpose of letting the opponent punch himself out...you simply really arent allowed to do this sorta thing.it's funny and peculiar how they catered to ali like this and allowed him to do these illegalish tactics.anyone else would be warned,penalized and eventually tko'd for lack of defending oneself properly.ali was allowed to do this sort of thing though,especially in that particualr bout.

Frazier decisively beat ali in 71 and ali was still prime time imo.he looked it.the footwork and hand speed and jab were all there but frazier was also prime time and he applied continuous pressure and just looked awesome in general.
Frazier was never the same again after the 1st foreman bout and the 2nd and 3rd ali fights,he was not the same frazier anymore.

for all we know,the 68-72 version of frazier might be the greatest.or it could be the 73 version of foreman.
it could be the 88 version of tyson,it could be the 99 version of ibeabuchi,it could be the 96 version of Lennox Lewis,it could be the 64-67 version of ali but who really knows.liston probably isnt a top 5 and by fight 1,he was allready past it and strained his shoulder with ali and the 2nd bout was obviously a mafia fix.who else did ali beat between 64-67 that was a determining factor of him being the greatest?

i'm not saying that he definately wasnt the greatest at any given time in his carear,i'm just saying that alot of them had they're times and moments where you could actually say,"hmmm,he just might've been the greatest,at least on that particular night".

I mean,look at billy conn as well...for 12 rounds against louis in the 1941 bout,he looked like the greatest boxer outboxing a legendary hw atg,outboxing him for 12 rounds just like a 64-67 version of ali probably would've done so it's like,there you go,who's to say who's definately bar none,the greatest....and this is the whole point of my thread.
i have no list.its way too subjective to me.

[Ezzard]

I go with a mixture of assessment of ability and styles along with the evidence of what they did achieve. Maybe Ikeabuchi would have beaten Ali but the weight of evidence suggests otherwise.

I don't view Ali-Foreman in that way. Ali landed almost every shot he threw whilst George was nullified, rarely landing cleanly.

[Ezzard]

Liston is a very interesting figure.

I grew up reading a lot about him. He had a sort of renaissance amongst writers during the 1980s and when I was a kid everything I read in The Ring I took as the gospel itself.

My thoughts...

1) Liston was the best HW in the world for a long time before he actually won the title.

2) He had a great skill set, jab, power, chin, could fight back when hurt...

3) After losing to Clay/Ali he was still a force to be reckoned with in the division. I've read that nobody wnated to let him near the title again.

4) He'd actually fought very few rounds in the years leading up to the first Ali fight. He was rusty and his lifestyle outside of the ring was not condusive to staying sharp.

5) But for an ATG he was so easily handled by Ali, why was this? I mean shouldn't an ATG be able to make it more competitive?

- Liston overrated?
- Liston unfocused, not prepared and rusty?
- Ali's style and persona perfect for shutting out Liston?
- Another point, brought up by an anti-Ali poster, is that how comes Ali had all kinds of trouble with Jones and Cooper, and then all of a sudden easily crushes Liston? It is an interesting observation. maybe Ali just came of age... Who knows?

6) As raylaw says on another thread, Liston was still revered after his losses to Ali. He was still considered to be a very dangerous fighter.

I think the Ali-Liston fights are so hard to gauge.

[observer1]

i would not call Liston over-rated, he was certainly an ATG and deserves to up there IMO..

As for Marciano, indeed styles makes fights, but fact is, a 180lbs short boxer will struggle against some of these boxers, i would find it hard to keep him in the top 10..

[Ambling Alp]

As for rating fighters "being impossible":
The weight of evidence might be a good way to put it. You can take one or two fights from anyones career to make him look bad. And you can take one or two fights to make him look good. What you need to to do is consider every fight in which a fighter is close to his physical prime.

As for Ali, you don't have to look hard to realize why so many people have him at #1.

As for Ibeabuchi, well who knows how good he would have been? Maybe he would have been great, maybe not. We can only judge him from what did happen. Ibeabuchi only had 2 fighters that are even worth mentioning. Both Byrd and Tua were good; but certainly not great. Other fighters beat them handily.
You certainly can't legitimately rate Ibeabuchi as a great from that.

Rating fighters takes a lot research. It involves watching film, reading books and articles, looking at the databases, record books, and listening to what other people have to say. It also involves being as non-biased as possible. Sometimes guys you like weren't as good as someone that you can't stand.
That being said, this isn't rocket science. You can make reasonable ratings.

[AngryGoon38]

ambling alp...frazier whooped ali though.they were prime vs prime.bonevena was more than holding his own with ali but used too much energy and his lack of stamina is what made the bout start swingin in ali's favor.ali just doesnt look like the greatest boxer of all time in that bout and he certainly doesnt against joe in bout 1 either.
frazier wasnt the same after the 73 foreman bout.and foreman just looks flat out sluggish and lathargic in the ali bout.he is clearly slower and looks droopy.he didnt have that same fire as he did against frazier and norton in 73.

liston's shoulder got yanked out against ali in bout 1 and before that,the fight was pretty much even.
listone was definately rusty going into that bout and he looked to be getting a bit past it as well.and ultimately,his shoulder was certainly a prevailing determining factor in the outcome as well.many will conclude that ali is the greatest because of the foreman fight but then conclude that he was simply past his prime when the norton bouts are mentioned.funny how this is.
and just because he capitolized on the basically illegal rope a dope stategy and forced foreman into it and it prevailed hook line and sinker style,people get all excited and say ali is definately the greatest because of this illegal based strategy enabling him to prevail against the odds and thus redeeming his rep somehow,even though he clearly lost both the norton bouts.
funny how this is.

other than liston,who did ali beat between 64-67 that is the definite indicative and deciding decision that ali is no.1...?

[AngryGoon38]

I seriously believe that Larry Holmes would've beat the 64 version of Liston.
He would've jabbed and moved around just enough and used his ring generalship and defensive skills.
his resiliance would've pulled him out of the potential of being ko'd as well.Liston didnt hit any harder than shavers and look how holmes immedietely recovered from the kd against shavers.holmes had tremendous resiliance.so did ali,i acknowledge this.
I would lean towards picking prime Holmes over prime Ali though.Holmes would've beat Ernie Terrel just as easy as Ali did.
And certainly,the ali of 71-74 would've lost to a 1984 32-33 year old Holmes.

I simply cannot confidently assure myself that the 64-67 ali was bar none the greatest and unbeatable.
Many can for some unknown reason though.Maybe because he looks so smooth and gracefull and has alot of swagger and confidence.Maybe because he also talked real cool or something,i really dont totally get why people automatically assume that no one could've beat ali during this stage of his carear...then again,i have heard just as many people in plentifull abundance confidently proclaim that the 1988 version of Mike Tyson who Ko'd a lethargic and unprepared Spinks was an unbeatable force that given night,and was the Greatest as well.

Joe Louis,Larry Holmes,Ali,Tyson?....Way too subjective to give a definite decision.

Its just kind of annoying when its either,"Oh definately Ali's the best",or,"Oh definately Tyson was the best".

But when someone is more open minded and really sees the subjectiveness to the whole thing and suggests that perhaps Holmes or Joe Louis could've beat either one,it just seems like a more realistic viewpoint and analysis.
Personally,i think Prime Louis would probably beat Prime Tyson but might get outboxed by prime Ali.I would lean towards Ali something like 60/40...With Prime Holmes vs Prime Ali,i'd have to lean towards prime Holmes at least by 60/40.
I can definately see a prime Tyson beating a prime Ali though.He had the speed and was devastating when he got the guy against the ropes.also had a vicious and very fast left hook.A punch that ali was always susceptible to,even in his prime.

I see Prime Holmes beating prime Tyson though.Prime Liston probably would've taken prime Tyson as well.
73 Foreman definately takes 88 Tyson...I could never rate Tyson as no.1 even though i hear alot of people say Tyson was unbeatable because he ko'd an unprepared,lethargic,and ill strategy minded Spinks that given 1988 night.