3rd best HW ever?

[Ezzard]

I voted for Johnson.

I think you can make a case for any of the ten listed.

[Ambling Alp II]

In over 120 years of HW history...

I just can't help but question whether 4 of the top 6 or 7 really did just happen to fight in the same 10 year span.

It could be right. It really could. But if I knew nothing about the sport (don't say it!!!) and someone showed me these lists I'd be highly sceptical that they weren't extremely biased.

If we were talking about all fighters (not just heavyweights) then it would look suspicious. However, most weight divisions have 1 or 2 eras where it is great. During that same time period, other divisions are ordinary and weak.

If we were doing say the lightheavyweights, Moore, Charles, Johnson (maybe Bivins) would be in most peoples top 10 and they fought in the same era.

[Ezzard]

In over 120 years of HW history...

I just can't help but question whether 4 of the top 6 or 7 really did just happen to fight in the same 10 year span.

It could be right. It really could. But if I knew nothing about the sport (don't say it!!!) and someone showed me these lists I'd be highly sceptical that they weren't extremely biased.

If we were talking about all fighters (not just heavyweights) then it would look suspicious. However, most weight divisions have 1 or 2 eras where it is great. During that same time period, other divisions are ordinary and weak.

If we were doing say the lightheavyweights, Moore, Charles, Johnson (maybe Bivins) would be in most peoples top 10 and they fought in the same era.

Perhaps, but just 1 fighter from the from the first 80 years of the sport?

And zero from the first half?

[Syntax Error]

Number of "title defenses" and wins vs "ex champions" in this era of 4 belts (5 if you count worthless 'interim champs' like Povetkin) and shallow divisions mean diddly poo.

Absolutely 100% correct.

Wladimir is around in the wrong era: I really wish he was around in the 90s, when they had giant HWs that could fight, plus a peak Holyfield, then we would really see how good Wladimir is.

It's so hard to gauge him because is is so vastly superior to the HW dross that is around today.

[Ambling Alp II]

He had talent and power, which would give him a chance vs most guys. However, with his stamina and especially his chin, he would not dominate any other era. He would lose to a lot of guys in "upsets."

[Ambling Alp II]

In over 120 years of HW history...

I just can't help but question whether 4 of the top 6 or 7 really did just happen to fight in the same 10 year span.

It could be right. It really could. But if I knew nothing about the sport (don't say it!!!) and someone showed me these lists I'd be highly sceptical that they weren't extremely biased.

If we were talking about all fighters (not just heavyweights) then it would look suspicious. However, most weight divisions have 1 or 2 eras where it is great. During that same time period, other divisions are ordinary and weak.

If we were doing say the lightheavyweights, Moore, Charles, Johnson (maybe Bivins) would be in most peoples top 10 and they fought in the same era.

Perhaps, but just 1 fighter from the from the first 80 years of the sport?

I get what you are saying, but if you go just a little deeper I think most people here have some respect for most of the older greats. A lot people have Marciano, Dempsey and Jeffries just behind those guys.

And zero from the first half?

[Tuan_Jim]

#4- Among his victories are the following ex champions, present champions: Ray Mercer, Frans Botha, Alexander Povetkin, David Haye, Samuel Peter, Lamon Brewster, Jean Marc Mormeck, Sultan Ibragimov, Ruslan Chagaev Chris Byrd, which stacks against the amount of HOF'ers that Joe Louis fought and defeated (Carnera, Baer, Sharkey, Schmeling, Lewis, Conn, Walcott).

These are spurious, almost incomprehensibly naive reasons to elevate Wladimir.

How could old timers like Joe Louis possibly beat so many ABC 'titlists' when ABC titlists didn't then exist? Are you really that ignorant? Or just exercising some willful blindness here?

And the names you list... Ray Mercer who was 42 and coming off hepatitis, broken neck, alcoholism and inactivity... Lamon Brewster who was 35, medically suspended, coming off a 15 month layoff, retina surgery... Povetkin who simultaneously held the same ABC title Wlad held... and then we descend into the fresh hell of Mormeck, Ibragimov, Chagaev... are you serious? This filthy list earns a man an all-time great ranking?

I'm astonished by the lack of reason and logic you have applied the whole of your post regarding your inclusion of Wladimir, but especially in 'all the champions he beat'. Laughable and embarrassing.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

#4- Among his victories are the following ex champions, present champions: Ray Mercer, Frans Botha, Alexander Povetkin, David Haye, Samuel Peter, Lamon Brewster, Jean Marc Mormeck, Sultan Ibragimov, Ruslan Chagaev Chris Byrd, which stacks against the amount of HOF'ers that Joe Louis fought and defeated (Carnera, Baer, Sharkey, Schmeling, Lewis, Conn, Walcott).

These are spurious, almost incomprehensibly naive reasons to elevate Wladimir.

How could old timers like Joe Louis possibly beat so many ABC 'titlists' when ABC titlists didn't then exist? Are you really that ignorant? Or just exercising some willful blindness here?

And the names you list... Ray Mercer who was 42 and coming off hepatitis, broken neck, alcoholism and inactivity... Lamon Brewster who was 35, medically suspended, coming off a 15 month layoff, retina surgery... Povetkin who simultaneously held the same ABC title Wlad held... and then we descend into the fresh hell of Mormeck, Ibragimov, Chagaev... are you serious? This filthy list earns a man an all-time great ranking?

I'm astonished by the lack of reason and logic you have applied the whole of your post regarding your inclusion of Wladimir, but especially in 'all the champions he beat'. Laughable and embarrassing.

[Bard of Boxrec]

Mine looks something like this, though I change it every so often

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Larry Holmes
5. Lennox Lewis
6. George Foreman
7. Mike Tyson
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Joe Frazier
10. Wladimir Klitschko

I would swap Foreman and Marciano, Tyson and Holyfield, and needless to say evacuate Wladimir promptly to 30 or so where he belongs..

[drunkenpiper36]

Mine looks something like this, though I change it every so often

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Larry Holmes
5. Lennox Lewis
6. George Foreman
7. Mike Tyson
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Joe Frazier
10. Wladimir Klitschko

I would swap Foreman and Marciano, Tyson and Holyfield, and needless to say evacuate Wladimir promptly to 30 or so where he belongs..

I'm willing to make the change and place Holy at 7 and Tyson at 8, which I believe to be fair, though I think they are interchangeable. Placing Wlad down at #30 is criminally low, but its fine if you don't think he's top 10.. As much as I love George Foreman he has no business at #3.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

30 might be a bit high for Wlad. Foreman at 3 is fine, he clearly accomplished more than Marciano.

[drunkenpiper36]

Top 10

#1...... Jack Dempesy
#2...... Joe Louis
#3..... Larry Holmes
#4...... Rocky Marciano
#5...... James J. Jeffries
#6...... Jack Johnson
#7...... Lennox Lewis
#8...... George Foreman
#9...... Joe Frazier
#10.... Gene Tunney
#11.... Ezzard Charles

I'd like to hear your reasoning for ranking Dempsey #1. Oh wait, you don't even have Ali on there. Never mind.

[Crease]

I'm not saying that he is the third best Heavyweight of all time - but I do think that should be a Mike Tyson option. He achieved more than some of the names of those candidates on that list.

[Crease]

I voted Rocky Marciano.

Excellent record.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I voted Rocky Marciano.

Excellent record.

I'm surprised you have him that low.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I'm not saying that he is the third best Heavyweight of all time - but I do think that should be a Mike Tyson option. He achieved more than some of the names of those candidates on that list.

I'd rate him over Langford and I think you can make a case for him with Jeffries, Dempsey & Marciano. The fact that he really can't go over Holyfield is a reason to leave him off.

To me the #3 spot comes down to Holmes, Evander, Johnson, Foreman or Lewis.

Edit: I suppose Marciano could squeeze in there if that '0' means that much in your criteria.

[drunkenpiper36]

I voted Rocky Marciano.

Excellent record.

He certainly has a strong case and #3 is exactly where I placed him. He is one of the few champions to have faced and beaten all of his #1 ranked contenders, has the highest KO percentage of any heavyweight champion and after more than half a century remains the only undefeated heavyweight champ. I can see arguments for others taking that #3 spot and don't have a problem with them, but his claim is as good as anybody's.

[Crease]

I'm surprised you have him that low.

Oh, Mr Saad, you know me so well....

[BoxBuzz]

I think one has to seriously entertain the notion, that if Rocky Marciano was NEVER beaten, perhaps it's not possible for him to have EVER been beaten. Under any circumstances. At anytime, against anyone. 100%

For example, if Marciano faced Wlad K what would happen? Surely Wlad would be too tall to beat Rocky. Rocky would have the advantage of all that rich oxygenated air that exists at the lower altitudes, air that Wlad would be too tall to take advantage of. Especially if the fight took place in Manchester.

[Ezzard]

If you want to just look at the records Langford's at HW is seriously underrated. He wins the series with Jeanette, McVea and Flynn... He only starts to lose to the much bigger Wills once he is old and past it.

[Duch]

Top 10

#1...... Jack Dempesy
#2...... Joe Louis
#3..... Larry Holmes
#4...... Rocky Marciano
#5...... James J. Jeffries
#6...... Jack Johnson
#7...... Lennox Lewis
#8...... George Foreman
#9...... Joe Frazier
#10.... Gene Tunney
#11.... Ezzard Charles

Frito-Lay

I have Muhammad Ali at #11.

He just wasn't good enough to make the Top 10.

He loses big points for 'not' taking out an injured back Floyd Patterson in November 1965.

That's all I need to know...........

What happened during these 2 days?

[macaca]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I consider Holmes to be either the best heavyweight of all time or that he is tied with Ali for that distinction. In my view the top five are: Holmes, Ali, Louis, Dempsey, and Marciano. Jim Jeffries, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield and Vladimir Klitschko, probably round out the rest of the top ten.

That is a 'Good List'.

I have it >
#1... Jack Dempsey
#2... Joe Louis
#3... Larry Holmes
#4... Rocky Marciano
#5... James J. Jeffries

Dempsey's reign as champion was too 'here and there' for me, but his rise to the top of the division was phenomenal. The version that destroyed Jess Willard was certainly an ATG. Jeffries, I am a huge fan of and have always believed that if all fights were 20+ rounds, with 3oz gloves, etc. that no heavyweight could of possibly beaten him. So I do like your list.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I consider Holmes to be either the best heavyweight of all time or that he is tied with Ali for that distinction. In my view the top five are: Holmes, Ali, Louis, Dempsey, and Marciano. Jim Jeffries, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield and Vladimir Klitschko, probably round out the rest of the top ten.

I will agree with your top 3.Holmes,Ali Louis are all so close.I do not agree with the rest of your top 10.
Klitschko I will not rank.I do not rate current fighters until their careers are finished.

I add Klitschko for a number of reasons:

#1- Second longest title reign in HW history

#2- Third in most title defenses in HW history

#3- It is hard for me to imagine most HW's in the past being able to deal with a man with that much size, power, skill set, and speed--- i.e., Ali fought men almost as tall, but not as heavy. Ali fought men just as heavy but nowhere near the shape and physique. Ali fought men just as skilled, but not with the size and power. Ali fought men just as powerful, but not as skilled or calm and collective. The same can be said of Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Rocky Marciano, etc.

#4- Among his victories are the following ex champions, present champions: Ray Mercer, Frans Botha, Alexander Povetkin, David Haye, Samuel Peter, Lamon Brewster, Jean Marc Mormeck, Sultan Ibragimov, Ruslan Chagaev Chris Byrd, which stacks against the amount of HOF'ers that Joe Louis fought and defeated (Carnera, Baer, Sharkey, Schmeling, Lewis, Conn, Walcott).

#5- Klitschko is one of a handful of heavyweight champions to of also been an Olympic gold medalist; his amateur credentials are just as impressive as are his professional credentials
#6- In his earlier career when he was inferior he was a WBO champion twice, and following, has become the dominate title holder erasing most (if not all) doubts to his dominance and increasing skill level as a fighter and one may argue he has not reached his apex

#7- While the division is weak, and the amount of 'worthy' challengers are scarce, one can easily imagine Klitschko reigning as champion for as long as he wants--- there is no one out there to compare with him in size, skill, power, overall ability and athleticism and it doesnt seem that anyone in the near future (give or take 4-5 years) is going to give him any problems in the ring

Quite enjoyed reading that

he is a super twunt though

[Leonid]

I voted Rocky Marciano.

Excellent record.

He certainly has a strong case and #3 is exactly where I placed him. He is one of the few champions to have faced and beaten all of his #1 ranked contenders, has the highest KO percentage of any heavyweight champion and after more than half a century remains the only undefeated heavyweight champ. I can see arguments for others taking that #3 spot and don't have a problem with them, but his claim is as good as anybody's.

Well, let's see about Marciano. Best wins of this supposedly top 3 HW ATG are: clearly past-it ex-champ after retirement and 3 middleweights blown-up to light-heavy, 2 of which were 39 yr old at the time of the fight. Not bad))

HW champs with higher KO percentage are for example Haye 92.3%, Vitali 91.1, Foreman 90.8, Fitzsimmons 84,3%, Tyson 80%. Man, Mac Foster has a 100% KO ratio, I guess we've got our king. Or just imagine quite reallistic situation of Wilder grabbing WBC title, defending against several old blown-up light-heavies like Adamek by way of kayo and retiring undefeated and with 100% KO ratio. And he's already got an ex-champ on his resume. C'mon, you'd just have to admin he's the greatest of all time.
Nuff said.

[drunkenpiper36]

I voted Rocky Marciano.

Excellent record.

He certainly has a strong case and #3 is exactly where I placed him. He is one of the few champions to have faced and beaten all of his #1 ranked contenders, has the highest KO percentage of any heavyweight champion and after more than half a century remains the only undefeated heavyweight champ. I can see arguments for others taking that #3 spot and don't have a problem with them, but his claim is as good as anybody's.

Well, let's see about Marciano. Best wins of this supposedly top 3 HW ATG are: clearly past-it ex-champ after retirement and 3 middleweights blown-up to light-heavy, 2 of which were 39 yr old at the time of the fight. Not bad))

HW champs with higher KO percentage are for example Haye 92.3%, Vitali 91.1, Foreman 90.8, Fitzsimmons 84,3%, Tyson 80%. Man, Mac Foster has a 100% KO ratio, I guess we've got our king. Or just imagine quite reallistic situation of Wilder grabbing WBC title, defending against several old blown-up light-heavies like Adamek by way of kayo and retiring undefeated and with 100% KO ratio. And he's already got an ex-champ on his resume. C'mon, you'd just have to admin he's the greatest of all time.
Nuff said.

You're confusing KO% with win/stoppage percentages. Marciano still holds the record for any champion barring contenders who haven't fought anybody. The men he defeated were up there in age, but the best available around at the time and he remains the only undefeated champion. I can see others taking that #3 spot but Marciano has a case.

[Ambling Alp II]

Statistics can be deceiving, and can really be so when people twist them. I have seen this before where people don't count the fights where a guy loses or has a draw. Makes no sense to do that. He failed to stop the other guy, so it should count; simple as that.

He is also acting like Walcott, Moore, and Charles were not real heavyweights. They had all had many heavyweight fights.

I agree that Marciano shouldn't be #3, but he was a great fighter.