Boxing News 100 best heavyweights

[Cojimar 1946]

I don't think Ali could beat Joshua. Him dominating at heavyweight is no given at all nostalgia aside.

[evrenb]

And Dr Duke were you serious when you said athleticism improved in the 1980s? Was that sarcasm?

And what's wrong with this? It was about those times, what is even logical acknowledging the fact, that PEDs became more spread then in the sports.

Let's see we had tony tubbs, Greg page, Tim Witherspoon, Leroy Jones, buster Douglas, Michael dokes, David bey, John tate ...
There were exceptions of course...I think they were more often on coke rather than PEDS ...

[evrenb]

I don't think Ali could beat Joshua. Him dominating at heavyweight is no given at all nostalgia aside.

Of course he could beat Joshua...you got to be joking me....Ali was faster by far, better stamina, better chin, far superior boxer, better skill set, better footwork ..Joshua is heavier and punches harder..reach difference is 2 inches per arm but Ali was the master of measuring the distance in how he positioned his feet...the height would be no problem.. Ali ate up taller fighters like Terrell, Foreman , Sabedong....you are talking baloney....

[dalcumly]

And then there's the legend that Dempsey dipped his hand bandages in plaster of paris powder before putting on his gloves for the Willard fight, not including grainy film evidence that he had a ring bolt clenched in his hand when hitting the same fighter supported by the way some of his punches landed with the inside of his fist.

[DrDuke]

And Dr Duke were you serious when you said athleticism improved in the 1980s? Was that sarcasm?

And what's wrong with this? It was about those times, what is even logical acknowledging the fact, that PEDs became more spread then in the sports.

Let's see we had tony tubbs, Greg page, Tim Witherspoon, Leroy Jones, buster Douglas, Michael dokes, David bey, John tate ...
There were exceptions of course...I think they were more often on coke rather than PEDS ...

On the one hand. And on the other hand there were Tyson, Holyfield, Tucker, Weaver, Smith, Bruno, Morrison.

[evrenb]

And what's wrong with this? It was about those times, what is even logical acknowledging the fact, that PEDs became more spread then in the sports.

Let's see we had tony tubbs, Greg page, Tim Witherspoon, Leroy Jones, buster Douglas, Michael dokes, David bey, John tate ...
There were exceptions of course...I think they were more often on coke rather than PEDS ...

On the one hand. And on the other hand there were Tyson, Holyfield, Tucker, Weaver, Smith, Bruno, Morrison.

Holyfield yes though he was a cruiserweight most of his time in the 1980s...tyson yes...weaver yes though he was a title challenger in the 1970s, Morrison wasn't the most athletic and had questionable stamina though he did look more athletic after his breast implants. Bruno had a great physique though poor stamina...tucker and Smith were decent though hardly progression from Ali, Foreman, Norton, Frazier, Ellis, Holmes, Lyle..??

[Ambling Alp II]

Anyway, getting back to how to go about rating a top 100. There are many qways of course.
I think one good way to get started to look at the lineal champions (so you don't overlook anyone obvious) . Put them into three groups, above average, average, below average.

Ali, Louis, Foreman etc would be above average. Call it Group A (Should be about 13-15 guys)
Schemling, Sharkey, Patterson, Charles, Walcott etc would be average Call it Group B
Hart, burns, Willard, Braddock, Leon, Spinks etc would be below average. Call it Group D.

I would put a few guys who never got title shots with the middle group: Langford, Wills, Jeannette, and McVey.

Then make a fourth group with all the alphabet soup title holders of the 1980s and 1990s. (Witherspoon, Thomas Dokes, etc.) Call it group C. I would rate this group higher than the weak group but below the middle group.

Then start sprinkling in contenders form strong eras who were better than weak champions (Quarry, Machen, Schaaf. )
Add beltholders who were never, lineal champions but better than the weak lineal champions such as Terrell, Ellis. Michael Spinks.
Put these guys in group C.

By this point you should be around 80 guys add. The best remaining contenders and WBS title holders would fill it up.

Then go back and rate the fighters within the groups.
You can always make slight adjustments after this.

[evrenb]

Anyway, getting back to how to go about rating a top 100. There are many qways of course.
I think one good way to get started to look at the lineal champions (so you don't overlook anyone obvious) . Put them into three groups, above average, average, below average.

Ali, Louis, Foreman etc would be above average. Call it Group A (Should be about 13-15 guys)
Schemling, Sharkey, Patterson, Charles, Walcott etc would be average Call it Group B
Hart, burns, Willard, Braddock, Leon, Spinks etc would be below average. Call it Group D.

I would put a few guys who never got title shots with the middle group: Langford, Wills, Jeannette, and McVey.

Then make a fourth group with all the alphabet soup title holders of the 1980s and 1990s. (Witherspoon, Thomas Dokes, etc.) Call it group C. I would rate this group higher than the weak group but below the middle group.

Then start sprinkling in contenders form strong eras who were better than weak champions (Quarry, Machen, Schaaf. )
Add beltholders who were never, lineal champions but better than the weak lineal champions such as Terrell, Ellis. Michael Spinks.
Put these guys in group C.

By this point you should be around 80 guys add. The best remaining contenders and WBS title holders would fill it up.

Then go back and rate the fighters within the groups.
You can always make slight adjustments after this.

Problem is 100 people will give you 100 different lists...and they'll all be wrong ...because mine will be right

[Ambling Alp II]

Wouldn't only 99 be wrong?

[evrenb]

Wouldn't only 99 be wrong?

No all of them...im on the outside looking in...

[Cojimar 1946]

Cant see why Foreman would be ahead of Ezzard Charles.

[dalcumly]

The magazine was out today. Here are the heavyweights I've never heard of - Joe Choynski, Elmer Rey.
Here are the LIGHT heavyweights who are listed ( why ? ) ,John Henry Lewis,Maxie Rosenbloom, Mickey Walker ( middleweight),Joey Maxim, Billy Conn, Harold Johnson, Archie Moore. If these guys are featured I wonder why no Carpentier or Greb?

Great magazine though - recommended.

[Ambling Alp II]

Choynski was a top contender for several years in the 1890s. He was a rival of Corbett's coming up. They had a an epic fight on a barge. Beat an inexperienced Jack Johnson.
Elmer Ray was a hard hitting contender in the 40s. He was a late bloomer, but eventually became a really good fighter. Split fights with Walcott and Charles.
Johnson and Moore had some success against good heavyweights. They should be in the top 100. To a lesser extent Walker did. Not sure if I would put him in.
Agree Greb should be in. Carpentier is arguable. The other guys probably should not be in the top 100 though they had their moments at heavyweight.

[PredatorHayds]

Did either Danny Williams or Herbie Hide squeeze in?