my top 35 heavyweights of all time

[Les Darcy]

Langford had more fights than Holyfield so statistically is likely to lose more. That said, I'd rate Holyfield higher in the heavyweight pantheon than Langford, who was no more than a light heavy at best.
I think Lewis proved himself the better fighter than Holyfield in their two close fights. Lewis also beat everyone he fought in his pro career, and avenged his two losses emphatically. Lennox Lewis was the top heavyweight of his generation, and given that includes Holyfield, Tyson and Bowe he fully merits his high place on any heavyweight all time list; id personally put Lewis at no. 5 and Holyfield at about no. 9

their first fight close? if you said holyfield won 4 rounds, you're being generous

[pundit]

Holyfield gets knocked for losing to Bowe and Lewis, but Langford doesn't get knocked for losing to Jack Johnson, Joe Jeanette, Larry Temple, Dave Holly, Young Peter Jackson, Sam McVea, Gunboat Smith, Harry Wills and Bill Tate? That is a contradiction, and your rankings are full of them.

He lost to Jack Johnson only once in 1906 when he was very green (and very small - about 165 lbs, compared to his prime weight of 185 lbs). Johnson never granted Langford a refight after becoming champ himself, even though from about 1908/09 Langford would have been the logical challenger, and he asked Johnson for a shot several times, without success. In fact, as a champ Johnson didn't behave much differently to Dempsey or Jeffries, avoiding the best black fighters while clobbering mediocre white ones.

Most of the other fighters you list (if not all of them, I didn't go through all the records) he fought umptteenth times, and on balance he holds a clear advantage over them (over Wills only until 1916). This includes Jeanette and McVea, who were and are considered the next-best black haevyweights of Langford's prime time.

This contrasts with Holyfield, who on balance simply lost to both Lewis and Bowe.

You know what? You accuse me of placing some of the fighters on the basis of one fight only (which is of course rubbish). But when I read your stuff about Langford or Wills I've a hard time fighting back the impression you do your assessment on the basis of zero fights.

[RazorKO]

here it is, feel free to disagree. its based on head to head, accomplishments, and some historical signifigance


1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad ali
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Larry Holmes
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Joe Frazier
9. Jack Johnson- sorry jack i had to take off points for you know wut
10. Mike Tyson
11. James Jeffries
12. Sam Langford
13. Ezzard Charles
14. Evander Holyfield
15. Lennox Lewis
16. Jersey Joe Walcott
17. Harry Wills
18. Floyd Patterson
19. Max Schmeling
20. Ken Norton
21. Peter Jackson
22. Gene Tunney
23. Riddick Bowe
24. Joe Jeanette
25. Jack Sharkey
26. James Corbett
27. Max Baer
28. Jerry Quarry
30. Elmer Ray
30. Sam Mcvey
31. George Godfrey
32. Jimmy Young
33. Archie Moore
34. Tim Witherspoon
35. Cleveland Williams

Im actually quite impressed with your list Brockton, although you have Lewis way way too high, Schemling a bit high and Ken Norton too low. Id also add Coetzee's name in at least the bottom 5 and take out Cleveland Williams.

[Cojimar 1945]

Holyfield might get knocked because he had fewer fights against top foes than the guys he is being compared to and suffered losses to Lewis, Bowe and Moorer. He did not show himself to be the best of his era.

[Cojimar 1945]

Bowe and Moorer only became champs because they beat Holyfield. I really don't see the point of your arguement. Just because he beat lineal champs does not make his competition particularly good compared to Langford.

[Cojimar 1945]

Head to head I don't think the old timers are superior. However, it seems much fairer to compare results against the best fighters of each era. Langford fought many of the best fighters of his era as did Holyfield. Langford's resume seems so impressive to me because of the sheer number of fights against elite competition.