Bert Sugar's top 10 Greatest Heavyweights:

[Crease]

Bert Randolph Sugar ranks his top 10 Greatest Heavyweights of history: (dated 2007)

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

Other notable rankings of his:
11. Holyfield
14. Tyson
19. Lewis

Comments?

[Crease]

I know Sugar is a highly respected boxing historian, but what exactly did Gene Tunney do to be ranked in the top 5 of all time?
That in itself, is a bit of a joke.

And the Ezzard Charles? I agree he was a truly great fighter... But he wouldn't be in my top 10... I would rate Walcott (Arnold Cream) ahead of him.

As for Tyson... Because of his period of dominance, and his comeback to dfeat Bruno and regain the world title, I do think that he has done enough to be accepted in anyone's top 10.

The only other thing I wouls say is that I personally always rank Marciano and Foreman above Dempsey and Johnson.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Tunney is ridiculously high, Holmes is too low.

Edit: 19 for Lewis is also absurd.

[Crease]

19 for Lewis is also absurd.

Agreed, espcially when you look at where he has put Holyfield. Now, I am not a big fan os his Lewis and his style, but he should be ranked higher than that.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

19 for Lewis is also absurd.

Agreed, espcially when you look at where he has put Holyfield. Now, I am not a big fan os his Lewis and his style, but he should be ranked higher than that.

I agree with Holyfield over Lewis, barely. But they are both well inside my top 10. Sugar's lists are always heavily biased with old timers. But this one isn't too bad. Dempsey, Charles & Tunney would be replaced with Evander, Lennox & Liston for me. The other 7 in different order.

[Crease]

I think I may have said this before, but the likes of:
ALi, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, Johnson, Frazier, Foreman and Tyson
Have all done enough in their careers to be in EVERYONE's top 10.

Only my opinion though.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I think I may have said this before, but the likes of:
ALi, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, Johnson, Frazier, Foreman and Tyson
Have all done enough in their careers to be in EVERYONE's top 10.

Only my opinion though.

I don't think Tyson belongs in that company. But I don't have a problem with him at 9 or 10. I don't see any scenario where he rates above Holyfield who you didn't list. Less accomplished and he was his bitch in the ring.

[Ezzard]

Yep, Holy over Tyson 7 days a week for me...

Lennox is not liked because guys like Bert feel that as champion he should have been more aggressive, more exciting... They downgrade him for that.

When I first followed boxing Tunney was almost always in the top 5. He was a great innovator of HW tactics. His footwork was exemplary and he put on displays that were well ahead of their time (or so it was always thought). He bounced around the ring similar to Ali.

Foreman is an odd one for me. Back in 1983 nobody had him in their top 10. His second career is based on one punch and the fact he proved himself to be durable after all.

[dr_devious]

Sugars list is extremely biased towards old-time heavyweights, its pretty ludicrous really.

[baulks]

Ridiculous listing. Holmes is top 2, Holyfield top 5. Ludicrous!

[jezzamundo]

Dempsey, Tunney and Charles are too high

Foreman, Holmes and especially Lewis are too low.

I think I may have said this before, but the likes of:
ALi, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, Johnson, Frazier, Foreman and Tyson
Have all done enough in their careers to be in EVERYONE's top 10.

Only my opinion though.

Remove Tyson from that list and I agree entirely.

[jrc26]

Obviously very subjective list to make, but I would sure love to hear his reasoning behind Holyfield and Tyson being before Lewis. If you were counting Holyfield's Cruiser accomplishments then I could see, but when a guy beats you twice (arguably), I am not sure how you get 8 spots ahead of the guy.

I'm guessing this is based on accomplishments and not head to head opinion of who would win, because I believe Holmes would handle quite a few men ahead of him on that list.

Out of curiosity, does the poster know where Bowe was? If anywhere?

[orbtastic]

Oddly enough, his last top ten (for his book) doesn't include Tunney and includes Langford instead.

Ali himself rated both Tunney & Charles in his top ten.

Atlas (in the same book) also has Tunney in his top five and also has Liston.

[Rocky Balboa]

Bert Randolph Sugar ranks his top 10 Greatest Heavyweights of history: (dated 2007)

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

Other notable rankings of his:
11. Holyfield
14. Tyson
19. Lewis

Comments?

Bert Sugar lives in a Time warp. You really telling me Ezzard Charles, Gene Tunney & Rocky Marciano, in their Prime, would have beaten Larry Holmes and/or Mike Tyson in their Prime?

To have Holmes as low as 10 is just plain stupid. Guy was champion for seven years, made 20 defenses of the title.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Obviously very subjective list to make, but I would sure love to hear his reasoning behind Holyfield and Tyson being before Lewis. If you were counting Holyfield's Cruiser accomplishments then I could see, but when a guy beats you twice (arguably), I am not sure how you get 8 spots ahead of the guy.

I'm guessing this is based on accomplishments and not head to head opinion of who would win, because I believe Holmes would handle quite a few men ahead of him on that list.

Out of curiosity, does the poster know where Bowe was? If anywhere?

Holyfield beat better fighters than Lewis and almost beat Lennox well past his best days. But I consider them very closely grouped and don't have an issue with LL being ahead of him. It's not like Evander was shot. They are both clearly ahead of Tyson.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Oddly enough, his last top ten (for his book) doesn't include Tunney and includes Langford instead.

Ali himself rated both Tunney & Charles in his top ten.

Atlas (in the same book) also has Tunney in his top five and also has Liston.

Atlas is an imbecile.

[Ezzard]

I reckon we're all biased. To me it's all about your argument. Can you put tpgether something to defend your picks? Doesn't matter if I agree or not - just has to hold a bit of water...

[Flump]

Regardless of the merits of his list I find it hard to take anything he says seriously because the drunken bald fool goes around referring to himself as the world's foremost boxing historian. What a tool.

[Crease]

Regardless of the merits of his list I find it hard to take anything he says seriously because the drunken bald fool goes around referring to himself as the world's foremost boxing historian. What a tool.

[Crease]

Sugars list is extremely biased towards old-time heavyweights, its pretty ludicrous really.

Bert Sugar lives in a Time warp.

I agree completely, I recently watched a video of him on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYulCtjkCvQ

Sugar massively overrates the boxers from a century ago, he starts throwing names out there (Sam Langford, Jimmy Wilde) as talks of their greatness and their accomplishments, and the interviewer has no response to him because most of us haven't even seen these guys fights... (Certainly not all their fights, like we can today, we see every Klitchsko fight if we want to, full exposure).

But Sugar like to bamboozle people to make himself look smarter than what he actually is and just throws odd statements out there. And he expects people to swallow it because they don't know of a counter argument.

[The 1bangkid]

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Jack Johnson
5. Tyson in his day tyson would give ne1 in the 10 top a fight
6. Rocky Marciano
7. larry holmes
8. Jack Dempsey
9. Joe Frazier
10. george foreman

Other notable rankings of his:
11. Ezzard Charles
14. holyfield
19. Lewis

[Goodnight, Irene]

Ezz Charles doesnt belong in the top-10, but he is massively under-rated, and the victim of a clear double-standard in the way people make so much of Joe Walcott.

[Ezzard]

Sugar massively overrates the boxers from a century ago, he starts throwing names out there (Sam Langford, Jimmy Wilde) as talks of their greatness and their accomplishments, and the interviewer has no response to him because most of us haven't even seen these guys fights... (Certainly not all their fights, like we can today, we see every Klitchsko fight if we want to, full exposure).

Hang on, how do you know they are overrated if most of us haven't seen them?