Best heavyweights of the 1960s

[Boilermaker]

Each of the last decades created a storm. Any obvious Contenders missed or any out and out shocking inclustions like the last decades. Jimmy Ellis was probably the best performer and closest to doing an Occassio. Leotis Martin ruined his shot at an occassio with some key losses. It is getting a lot more interesting to hear the key criticisms about omissions on this list.


1. Clay – Jones, Liston, Bonavena, Terrell, Williams, Folley, Cooper & others
2. Frazier – W Bonavena, Machen, Chuvalo
3. Liston L Ali, Martin W Foley, Williams, Machen, Patterson
4. Paterson L Liston, Ali W Johansen, Machen Chuvalo
5. Ellis – W Patterson, bonavena, Quarry, L Frazier
6. Terrell – W Jones, Chuvalo, Machen, Folley L Bethea, Ali & Others D Williams
7. Williams – W Bethea D Terrell, Machan L Ali
8. Z Folley - D Jones, L Terrell, Bonavena D Bonavena W Machen
9. Machen – W Bethea, London, Jones, Quarry L Liston, Ali, Johnson & Others D Terrell
10. Bonavena - W Martin, Chuvalo L Ellis, Frazier D Folley
11. Martin W Liston L Ellis, Bonavena, & OthersL Russell & Clarke
12. Chuvalo W Jones, Quarry L Ali, Folley, Patterson, Terrell, Bonavena & others
13. W machen, Bethea D Folley L Ali, Bonavena, Martin, Cooper
14. Jones W Foster D Folley L Ali, Frazier, Terrell, Chuvalo
15. Ramos – W Terrell, Machan L Frazier, Chuvalo & Others

[Controversial]

No Quarry?

[Goodnight, Irene]

No Quarry?

Dont get him started, man.

[hhaehre]

How come Ellis, Machen and Chuvalo are credited with wins over Quarry while Patterson's loss to Quarry goes unmentioned? Also, why is Jones and Ramos on the list instead of arguably superior fighters like Cleroux and/or Mathis? Who is at no 13?

[Goodnight, Irene]

Because hes subtlely trolling.

[hhaehre]

Because hes subtlely trolling.

I used to think so but he is vigorously defending his 'system' in long-winded exhaustive posts. I think he is sincere and has an unflinching belief in his system, a system that seems totally fvcked to most people.

In keeping with the spirit of the 'system', why isn't a legend like Henry Clark included. He owns wins over Ramos, Machen and Martin, surely a shoe in for a spot in the top 10.

[Boilermaker]

Because hes subtlely trolling.

I used to think so but he is vigorously defending his 'system' in long-winded exhaustive posts. I think he is sincere and has an unflinching belief in his system, a system that seems totally fvcked to most people.

In keeping with the spirit of the 'system', why isn't a legend like Henry Clark included. He owns wins over Ramos, Machen and Martin, surely a shoe in for a spot in the top 10.

I have never placed any belief in the system other than as a starting point and a discussion point.

I do place belief in the fact that when two fighters have one win a piece over each other than unless there are exceptional circumstances that usually means that both fighters deserve equal credit, as neither has bested the other, ie it is a draw. I believe (or at least in this discussion) i am valuing one win over a top 3 fighter as better than 4 wins over top 10-15 fighters unless there are losses to others which suggest the win should be downgraded. Still though, it gets a little boring discussing the system, i would much rather discuss the merits of the various fighters, i think most understand the system by now.

I only looked briefly at Henry Clark. Where do you think he should slot in? A couple of ordinary losses and decent wins. There are a few like him with similar records. But, he has a win over 9,11 and 15 with losses to so i would say that no higher than 9th at best, and probably lower since there are several losses. I dont see it as a shoe in for the top 10 but a possibility.

The 6'6 Al Jones might be a different story, with his draw with Foley and win over Cleveland Williams and Clark. Actually i am thinking on performance he might need to rank over Williams which would place him at 7.

[Boilermaker]

How come Ellis, Machen and Chuvalo are credited with wins over Quarry while Patterson's loss to Quarry goes unmentioned?

Laziness in typing, or sometimes when i start, assuming a fighter like Quarry will rank highly, when you check his record, it is clear he wont.

I am not a big fan of Quarry, and consider him vastly overated.

Still, he probably was left off in error as i dont remember scrutinising his record even though i intended to. Quarry has losses to Chuvalo, Frazier, Machen and Ellis, but he has a big win over Patterson. So he lost to 5,6,9,10 but defeated 4. Rankings wise Patterson's best wins were Machen and Chuvalo, meaning he should probably rank ahead of those. Since Quarry lost to both these fighters that patterson beat, it would make sence that Patterson would rank somewhere near there, and his wins over the two guys that Quarry Lost to should probably rank him ahead of Quarry despite the loss shouldnt they. I think in hindsight that Quarry would probably move in just behind Bonavena, and Patterson should probably drop behind Williams.

Also, why is Jones and Ramos on the list instead of arguably superior fighters like Cleroux and/or Mathis?

Both were lucky to have wins against guys who were higher on the list, and just seemed to make it. Ramos does have wins over Terrell and Machen who are both top 10 fighters it seems. If it wasnt for the ordeinary losses, Ramos would be higher. Cleroux i didnt look at yet, but was going to get around to it. Mathis didnt beat a top 10 fighter. His one and only notable win was over George Chuvalo who did not make the top 10. Ramos beat Terrell and Machan who both did more than Chuvalo even though Chuvalo did beat Ramos. One win over the 12 best fighter in the decade is not enough to make the decades top 10. Jones probably shouldnt be there, to be honest.

Who is at no 13?

no 13 was Karl Mildenberg.

[Boilermaker]

No Quarry?

Quarry is now included at the bottom of the top 10.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

It's quite ironic that your outlandish placement of Ocasio is accompanied by butchering the spelling of his name.

[Boilermaker]

It's quite ironic that your outlandish placement of Ocasio is accompanied by butchering the spelling of his name.

Even more ironic is the fact that you are the only one to have mentioned his name on this thread

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Each of the last decades created a storm. Any obvious Contenders missed or any out and out shocking inclustions like the last decades. Jimmy Ellis was probably the best performer and closest to doing an Occassio. Leotis Martin ruined his shot at an occassio with some key losses. It is getting a lot more interesting to hear the key criticisms about omissions on this list.


1. Clay – Jones, Liston, Bonavena, Terrell, Williams, Folley, Cooper & others
2. Frazier – W Bonavena, Machen, Chuvalo
3. Liston L Ali, Martin W Foley, Williams, Machen, Patterson
4. Paterson L Liston, Ali W Johansen, Machen Chuvalo
5. Ellis – W Patterson, bonavena, Quarry, L Frazier
6. Terrell – W Jones, Chuvalo, Machen, Folley L Bethea, Ali & Others D Williams
7. Williams – W Bethea D Terrell, Machan L Ali
8. Z Folley - D Jones, L Terrell, Bonavena D Bonavena W Machen
9. Machen – W Bethea, London, Jones, Quarry L Liston, Ali, Johnson & Others D Terrell
10. Bonavena - W Martin, Chuvalo L Ellis, Frazier D Folley
11. Martin W Liston L Ellis, Bonavena, & OthersL Russell & Clarke
12. Chuvalo W Jones, Quarry L Ali, Folley, Patterson, Terrell, Bonavena & others
13. W machen, Bethea D Folley L Ali, Bonavena, Martin, Cooper
14. Jones W Foster D Folley L Ali, Frazier, Terrell, Chuvalo
15. Ramos – W Terrell, Machan L Frazier, Chuvalo & Others

Wrong again troll.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Jim Jeffries hasnt looked this bad since Johnson beat him up.

[Controversial]

Ultimately the problem with any "list" or rankings of fighters is no-one is ever going to agree 100%. We could all submit lists on here and chances are they would all be different, some rating one fighter high, and others rating him lower. In other words it's highly subjective.

I do place belief in the fact that when two fighters have one win a piece over each other than unless there are exceptional circumstances that usually means that both fighters deserve equal credit, as neither has bested the other, ie it is a draw.

Surely the problem with that criteria is one of the wins could be a huge upset and the return match goes the other way. By cancelling them out because the series ended as a 1-1 draw is ignoring both results?

[Ambling Alp]

People need to lighten up. Boilermaker himself has said this is just a starting point. Make comments, but there is no reason for people to be nasty.

This actually could be fun.

Boilermaker-I believe you are only counting fights from the 1960s, right? Ellis loss to Frazier should not count since it was in 1970. I would also list his win over Leotis Martin. Don't know if this is enough to move up his ranking or not.

[Boilermaker]

People need to lighten up. Boilermaker himself has said this is just a starting point. Make comments, but there is no reason for people to be nasty.

This actually could be fun.

Boilermaker-I believe you are only counting fights from the 1960s, right? Ellis loss to Frazier should not count since it was in 1970. I would also list his win over Leotis Martin. Don't know if this is enough to move up his ranking or not.

I will go through and fix that when i get time in a couple of days.

I think discussing the contributions and make up of the some of the lower ranked fighters is good. It is also good to see what lesser ranked fighters actually beat some decent contenders. It is a shame that most of those jumping up and down and getting insulted dont just make some (sometimes justified) criticisms. I think that some of the guys mentioned like Cleroux, Mathis, Jones and Ramos are interesting names to raise and look at. Some times they turn out to be not that good like Occasio (or however Saad spells it) while other times, they might be better than first glance or usual thinking suggests. I think it was Hhaehre who pointed out that Mathis and Cleroux should be in the top 10. I will look at this when i get time, but i would like to hear his argument as to why he thinks they might have better records or be better than those guys named.

[hhaehre]

Ramos does have wins over Terrell and Machen who are both top 10 fighters it seems. If it wasnt for the ordeinary losses, Ramos would be higher.

Ramos is a good example of why your system is flawed. Anyone who have seen Ramos knows that he does not belong in the list, he was simply not that good. You have to look behind the results and the reality is that he beat a well past it Machen via split decision and got a gift vs. Terrell. The fact that he lost to a bunch of nobodies and got totally dominated by both Frazier and Chuvalo should definitely be counted against him. Quarry also lost to Frazier but he put up one hell of a fight in arguably the best heavy weight bout of the decade, yet the loss is on par with the Ramos two round massacre according to your system. I realize that the system cannot encompass everything but at least it should consider losses to fighters that are not on the list and Ramos had plenty of those.

[Boilermaker]

Ramos does have wins over Terrell and Machen who are both top 10 fighters it seems. If it wasnt for the ordeinary losses, Ramos would be higher.

Ramos is a good example of why your system is flawed. Anyone who have seen Ramos knows that he does not belong in the list, he was simply not that good. You have to look behind the results and the reality is that he beat a well past it Machen via split decision and got a gift vs. Terrell. The fact that he lost to a bunch of nobodies and got totally dominated by both Frazier and Chuvalo should definitely be counted against him. Quarry also lost to Frazier but he put up one hell of a fight in arguably the best heavy weight bout of the decade, yet the loss is on par with the Ramos two round massacre according to your system. I realize that the system cannot encompass everything but at least it should consider losses to fighters that are not on the list and Ramos had plenty of those.

I find it astounding how many people are happy to credit losses. I dont know anyone who is any good at anything who would consider a loss anything other than a loss. A gift decision is one thing, but Frazier did not get a gift against Quarry. Quarry could fight Frazier 100 times and i doubt he wins many, if any. He was not in the same class. I probably should rewatch Frazier Quarry, it has been ages since i saw it. Why do you say Quarry deserves credit against Frazier, but Ramos deserves none against Williams. I havent seen the fight. Tell me about it, did he not win a round or something? How shot do you think that Machen was when he fought Ramos. I mean after all, he did defeat Quarry just to fights later, didnt he?

[hhaehre]

Ramos does have wins over Terrell and Machen who are both top 10 fighters it seems. If it wasnt for the ordeinary losses, Ramos would be higher.

Ramos is a good example of why your system is flawed. Anyone who have seen Ramos knows that he does not belong in the list, he was simply not that good. You have to look behind the results and the reality is that he beat a well past it Machen via split decision and got a gift vs. Terrell. The fact that he lost to a bunch of nobodies and got totally dominated by both Frazier and Chuvalo should definitely be counted against him. Quarry also lost to Frazier but he put up one hell of a fight in arguably the best heavy weight bout of the decade, yet the loss is on par with the Ramos two round massacre according to your system. I realize that the system cannot encompass everything but at least it should consider losses to fighters that are not on the list and Ramos had plenty of those.

I find it astounding how many people are happy to credit losses.

You seem to credit a loss every now and then. You count it against Quarry when he went down to a prime Frazier but disregard the many losses Ramos had to an assortment of bums.

I dont know anyone who is any good at anything who would consider a loss anything other than a loss.

So in your world Ali's loss to Frazier in FOTC is the same as Ali's loss to Holmes? As long as you can read the result off of Boxrec you don't even need to see the fights do you?

A gift decision is one thing, but Frazier did not get a gift against Quarry. Quarry could fight Frazier 100 times and i doubt he wins many, if any. He was not in the same class. I probably should rewatch Frazier Quarry, it has been ages since i saw it. Why do you say Quarry deserves credit against Frazier, but Ramos deserves none against Williams. I havent seen the fight.

Who's Williams?
And it's not about whether Quarry deserved credit for the first Frazier fight or not, it's about gauging his performance in the fight and using it to rank him as a fighter. Using your system Berbick was better than Liston since he beat Ali and Liston did not. You don't consider when the fights took place in the careers of the fighters you rate and you don't consider what actually happened in the fights, only the results matter. How can such an approach be anything other than deeply flawd when it comes to comparing and rating boxers?

Tell me about it, did he not win a round or something? How shot do you think that Machen was when he fought Ramos. I mean after all, he did defeat Quarry just to fights later, didnt he?

I didn't say he was shot, I said he was well past it. Do you disagree?
Machens win over Quarry was his last hurrah and it's of course much more of a knock on Jerry to loose to the 1966 version of Machen that it would have been to loose to a prime Machen. Your system wouldn't distinguish of course, a loss is a loss right?

[Controversial]

Ramos does have wins over Terrell and Machen who are both top 10 fighters it seems. If it wasnt for the ordeinary losses, Ramos would be higher.

Ramos is a good example of why your system is flawed. Anyone who have seen Ramos knows that he does not belong in the list, he was simply not that good. You have to look behind the results and the reality is that he beat a well past it Machen via split decision and got a gift vs. Terrell.

This is why my suggestion on the 1970s thread is better.

If you find out where fighters were rated in the world rankings at the time of the fight and score them points accordingly. Obviously a win over a top ranked contender in his prime is better than beating a former contender on the slide. Also if you score losing fighters for SD loses as well at least that sort of gives them some credit for it being a close fight.

[Boilermaker]

Ramos does have wins over Terrell and Machen who are both top 10 fighters it seems. If it wasnt for the ordeinary losses, Ramos would be higher.

Ramos is a good example of why your system is flawed. Anyone who have seen Ramos knows that he does not belong in the list, he was simply not that good. You have to look behind the results and the reality is that he beat a well past it Machen via split decision and got a gift vs. Terrell.

This is why my suggestion on the 1970s thread is better.

If you find out where fighters were rated in the world rankings at the time of the fight and score them points accordingly. Obviously a win over a top ranked contender in his prime is better than beating a former contender on the slide. Also if you score losing fighters for SD loses as well at least that sort of gives them some credit for it being a close fight.

I am really busy but why dont you give it a go then and we can see (60s or 70s thread)?

[Boilermaker]

Ramos is a good example of why your system is flawed. Anyone who have seen Ramos knows that he does not belong in the list, he was simply not that good. You have to look behind the results and the reality is that he beat a well past it Machen via split decision and got a gift vs. Terrell. The fact that he lost to a bunch of nobodies and got totally dominated by both Frazier and Chuvalo should definitely be counted against him. Quarry also lost to Frazier but he put up one hell of a fight in arguably the best heavy weight bout of the decade, yet the loss is on par with the Ramos two round massacre according to your system. I realize that the system cannot encompass everything but at least it should consider losses to fighters that are not on the list and Ramos had plenty of those.

I find it astounding how many people are happy to credit losses.

You seem to credit a loss every now and then. You count it against Quarry when he went down to a prime Frazier but disregard the many losses Ramos had to an assortment of bums.

I dont know anyone who is any good at anything who would consider a loss anything other than a loss.

So in your world Ali's loss to Frazier in FOTC is the same as Ali's loss to Holmes? As long as you can read the result off of Boxrec you don't even need to see the fights do you?

A gift decision is one thing, but Frazier did not get a gift against Quarry. Quarry could fight Frazier 100 times and i doubt he wins many, if any. He was not in the same class. I probably should rewatch Frazier Quarry, it has been ages since i saw it. Why do you say Quarry deserves credit against Frazier, but Ramos deserves none against Williams. I havent seen the fight.

Who's Williams?
And it's not about whether Quarry deserved credit for the first Frazier fight or not, it's about gauging his performance in the fight and using it to rank him as a fighter. Using your system Berbick was better than Liston since he beat Ali and Liston did not. You don't consider when the fights took place in the careers of the fighters you rate and you don't consider what actually happened in the fights, only the results matter. How can such an approach be anything other than deeply flawd when it comes to comparing and rating boxers?

Tell me about it, did he not win a round or something? How shot do you think that Machen was when he fought Ramos. I mean after all, he did defeat Quarry just to fights later, didnt he?

I didn't say he was shot, I said he was well past it. Do you disagree?
Machens win over Quarry was his last hurrah and it's of course much more of a knock on Jerry to loose to the 1966 version of Machen that it would have been to loose to a prime Machen. Your system wouldn't distinguish of course, a loss is a loss right?

These ratings are compiled in a 15 minute period using the records. it is up to others in discussion to raise points about form or reasons or whatever. You have done that with Machen i havent time to even consider it at the moment which is why i am mostly asking questions and trying to prompt questions (you are one of the few making good points tehre are others). You say Quarry was Machens last hurrah. Would you give Quarry any credit if he won the fight?

Berbick gets no credit for beating Ali because ali was finished when it happened. The holmes fight proves it, the Spinks fight, and the fact that he probably had parkinsons. He wasnt rated on any thread because of his win over Ali.

[Controversial]

I am really busy but why dont you give it a go then and we can see (60s or 70s thread)?

I'm pretty busy myself but if anyone can point me to a link that shows month by month rankings during those periods I will give it a go. I guess to keep it fair and consistent we would have to stick to the same ratings, something like Ring Magazine or similar.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Ramos does have wins over Terrell and Machen who are both top 10 fighters it seems. If it wasnt for the ordeinary losses, Ramos would be higher.

Ramos is a good example of why your system is flawed. Anyone who have seen Ramos knows that he does not belong in the list, he was simply not that good. You have to look behind the results and the reality is that he beat a well past it Machen via split decision and got a gift vs. Terrell. The fact that he lost to a bunch of nobodies and got totally dominated by both Frazier and Chuvalo should definitely be counted against him. Quarry also lost to Frazier but he put up one hell of a fight in arguably the best heavy weight bout of the decade, yet the loss is on par with the Ramos two round massacre according to your system. I realize that the system cannot encompass everything but at least it should consider losses to fighters that are not on the list and Ramos had plenty of those.

I find it astounding how many people are happy to credit losses.

This is the core of why you're so wretched at rating fighters. You penalize guys who continuously take on the best competition and reward shallow victories. There is such a thing as good losses and I rate them far above meaningless wins. Luis Rodriguez fought Emile Griffith on even terms for four fights and he lost three decisions. That's a black mark on his record for you, it proves how great he was to those with a clue.

[raylawpc]

People need to lighten up. Boilermaker himself has said this is just a starting point. Make comments, but there is no reason for people to be nasty.

This actually could be fun.

Boilermaker-I believe you are only counting fights from the 1960s, right? Ellis loss to Frazier should not count since it was in 1970. I would also list his win over Leotis Martin. Don't know if this is enough to move up his ranking or not.

Unless there was a year 0 AD, 1970 is the last year in the decade of the 60s.