Post your all-time top heavyweights rankings

[Professor X]

Actually, pundit, only a fool would say that Liston did live up to the hype. It's a long way from being called possibly the greatest ever, like Liston was in '62, to throwing a fight that involved the heavyweight championship. That's a dog...like Tyson.

Chris Byrd could upset an old, content Jack Dempsey too, just like Tunney did...with movement and evasiveness.

[Cojimar 1945]

I don't see how Burns can possibly rate above Lewis. Lewis rates very highly on any criteria. He was the dominant heavyweight of his era and beat most of the other top guys of his era.

[pundit]

Actually, pundit, only a fool would say that Liston did live up to the hype. It's a long way from being called possibly the greatest ever, like Liston was in '62, to throwing a fight that involved the heavyweight championship. That's a dog...like Tyson.

Chris Byrd could upset an old, content Jack Dempsey too, just like Tunney did...with movement and evasiveness.

Liston lived up to the hype in my book by KOing Patterson twice in round 1. Bad luck to run next into one of the two greatest heavyweights that ever lived.

Dempsey went into the first Tunney fight as heavy favorite. Only after the bout did people say Dempsey was over the hill (although he was still good enough to knock out Jack Sharkey in the next fight, albeit by dirty means). But Tunney did not only beat Dempsey - with Risko and Heeney he also defated two top contenders in his short career at heavyweight, and at light-heavy he beat scores of great fighters (Gibons, Greb, Carpentier, Delaney, Loughran, Levinksy).

Honestly, the comparison with Chris Byrd looks inadequate and rather silly to me. Byrd was never undisputed champ, he was beaten from pillar to post by the Klitschkos to start with (nothing like this ever happened to Tunney). And he never dominated the light-heavyweight division, even though he may be a natrual l-h.

[Professor X]

First, for the record, I would have Liston and Tunney in my top-25, pundit. Chris Byrd is an afterthought...but he is/was a very successful, longtime heavyweight.

Barring that, elmersalsa has the most accurate list (yes, I do agree with Dempsey at no.5).

But Chris Byrd (and a few other good, but just-less-than-great heavyweights...Jimmy Ellis, Jimmy Young types) most definitely could have beat, or more specifically, outboxed, THAT Dempsey. He wasn't fighting for his supper anymore...so...

X

[pundit]

First, for the record, I would have Liston and Tunney in my top-25, pundit. Chris Byrd is an afterthought...but he is/was a very successful, longtime heavyweight.

Barring that, elmersalsa has the most accurate list (yes, I do agree with Dempsey at no.5).

But Chris Byrd (and a few other good, but just-less-than-great heavyweights...Jimmy Ellis, Jimmy Young types) most definitely could have beat, or more specifically, outboxed, THAT Dempsey. He wasn't fighting for his supper anymore...so...

X

OK. Dempsey at #5 is a matter of legitimate debate, he and Marciano are the champions people tend to disagree most on. I don't have them in my top ten (and am happy to argue my case) but I can see why some would rank them much higher.

But Liston and Tunney in the top 25 seems a must to me, and I'm happy we agree on this one.

Cheers, P

[The Great John L]

Who did John L. Sullivan or Peter Jackson beat that was as good as even an older version of Dempsey?

???? What are you refering to with this statement? Was there someone who ranked both of them ahead of Dempsey?

Of course you could flip your statement and ask who did Dempsey beat that was as good as Sullivan or Jackson?

[pundit]

No, someone was suggesting that Gene Tunney wasn't one of the top 25 heavyweights of all time, because the best fighter he beat - an old Jack Dempsey - probably would have lost to Jimmy Young, Chris Byrd, or any fairly competent heavyweight. I was pointing out that he was being capricious in not ranking Tunney simply based on that.

Now, if he were to bring up the race line Tunney never crossed, I might have bought into the argument a little more, but having seen Tunney in the ring, I'd have trouble not ranking him as one of the top 25 heavyweights of all time.

Dempsey didn't cross the race line either, at least not after becoming champ.

[Professor X]

[quote="Decagon"]No, someone was suggesting that Gene Tunney wasn't one of the top 25 heavyweights of all time, because the best fighter he beat - an old Jack Dempsey - probably would have lost to Jimmy Young, Chris Byrd, or any fairly competent heavyweight. I was pointing out that he was being capricious in not ranking Tunney simply based on that.

Now, if he were to bring up the race line Tunney never crossed, I might have bought into the argument a little more, but having seen Tunney in the ring, I'd have trouble not ranking him as one of the top 25 heavyweights of all time.[/quote]

Mmm-hmm. And Michael Spinks, a great lightheavyweight, came up and beat an old Holmes. Is he in your top-25 heavyweight list? He sure the fornicate isn't in mine.

Capricious, my ass. Race line, my ass. I already stated that Tunney was a top-25 heavyweight IMO, and Byrd and Young are not, but that they could OUTBOX an older, content Dempsey (Spinks probably could too...you know, turn sideways and run most of the time, throwing the occassional frustrating flurry...but he would not could not ever KO Dempsey).

Elmersalsa has the most accurate list. If he put Langford and McVeay or Jackson on his list instead of Tunney and Liston, oh fornicating well.

Dempsey is Tyson with heart as far I'm concerned, pundit (see Dempsey-Firpo). He broke a (old-fashioned) mould...Frazier (one-handed) and Tyson (spoiled dog), good as they were, didn't better that particular mould, now did they? You know, some people think that Dempsey should have been the first two-time heavyweight champion, at least 30 years before Patterson did it. Good job, elmersalsa, ranking Dempsey above Frazier and Tyson.

[jezzamundo]

Please, if you are posting on this thread and are yet to put up your all-time top 10, 15, 20 or more, please do so.

BTW
Because of the complexity in compiling these all time ratings, I think I am going to use everyone's votes to make a all-time top 15, or perhaps 20 but no more. I would definitely like to have more opinions to go by though, last I checked we still only had 14 or so people submitting their rankings.

[thunderfromdownunder]

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. George Foreman
4. Larry Holmes
6. Lennox Lewis
7. Sonny Liston
8. Rocky Marciano
9. Evander Holyfeild
10. Joe Frazier
11. Jack Johnson
12. Mike Tyson
13. Floyd Patterson
14. Max Schmelling
15. Ken Norton

[barry]

>>>Who did John L. Sullivan or Peter Jackson beat that was as good as even an older version of Dempsey?<<<

If you would ever try to research any pre-1990 boxing, you might find out about some of the fighters they fought, but as I told you before after you admitted to it....just looking at a fighters record is not going to tell you what kind of fighter a certain boxer was!

[barry]

>>>You're COMPLETELY missing the context of the question. Please read the thread better.<<<

What’s to miss? You are constantly yapping about who did this early fighter ever fight, or who did that early fighter ever fight, mainly because you have never read anything at all about the fighters you try to question, which you yourself have admitted to on more than one occasion...the question is simply really...do some pre-1990 research and you might find out!

[barry]

Why don't you try to prove otherwise? It's obvious to most people that from your ridiculous posts, like, Stanley Ketchel being nothing but a 160 pound John Ruiz, or your other moronic claims that are similar about the early fighters that I don't need to prove anything...your posts speak for themselves that you don't know anything about the early era's...as you so adamantly admitted to a few months ago…you know it, I know it and so does everyone else!

[barry]

Of course you said that...you know it...I know it...and so does everyone else that has read it, but that is just one of the many, many jewels that you have spouted!

How about one of your classic quotes about heavyweight boxing:

>>>Oh, I don't think that Wright would beat Langford of Johnson. Those two actually were good fighters. Corbett? He was knocked out by a skill-less middleweight like Fitzsimmons. A skilled middleweight like Wright would destroy him. Oh, and I would never rank Wright over the middleweights of the 1940s. Burley, Marshall, Robinson, Cerdan, Williams, LaMotta and maybe even Tony Zale would beat Corbett as well.<<<

[The Great John L]

...but having seen Tunney in the ring, I'd have trouble not ranking him as one of the top 25 heavyweights of all time.

I agree 100%.

[The Great John L]

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Johnson
4. Holmes
5. Marciano
6. Dempsey
7. Tyson
8. Frazier
9. Jeffries
10. Lewis
11. Langford
12. Tunney
13. Wills
14. Charles
15. Holyfield
16. Foreman
17. Corbett
18. Liston
19. Jeanette
20. Sullivan

[barry]

Pretty soild list John L.

[pound per pound]

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Johnson
4. Holmes
5. Marciano
6. Dempsey
7. Tyson
8. Frazier
9. Jeffries
10. Lewis
11. Langford
12. Tunney
13. Wills
14. Charles
15. Holyfield
16. Foreman
17. Corbett
18. Liston
19. Jeanette
20. Sullivan

Some people prefer to rate fighters only in their own eras. This is the least subjective.

Others prefer to rate fighters accomplishments regardless of era. This is somewhat subjective.

A few others prefer a who beats who list. This is the most subjective.

My list would differ depending on the criteria.

Any method is fine, but one thing that can not be done is rating a guy like Foreman many spots behind Frazier. Foreman had a longer career, he beat a better group of fighters, and he beat Frazier twice in head to head match ups.

[barry]

>>>Any method is fine, but one thing that can not be done is rating a guy like Foreman many spots behind Frazier. Foreman had a longer career, he beat a better group of fighters, and he beat Frazier twice in head to head match ups.<<<

But regardless of what method, or combinations of methods someone may chose to use, all results and final ratings will still be nothing more than opinion.

[The Great John L]

Some people prefer to rate fighters only in their own eras. This is the least subjective.

Others prefer to rate fighters accomplishments regardless of era. This is somewhat subjective.

A few others prefer a who beats who list. This is the most subjective.

My list would differ depending on the criteria.

Any method is fine, but one thing that can not be done is rating a guy like Foreman many spots behind Frazier. Foreman had a longer career, he beat a better group of fighters, and he beat Frazier twice in head to head match ups.

I guess it can be done because I did it.

Why I waste my time explaining my reasoning to you is beyond me, but here goes. These ratings are based on how well each fighter would do based on direct matchups with a list of 77 ATG HWs. I’ve posted my method several times on this forum. While Foreman did beat Joe twice (I don’t agree that George beat better fighters – didn’t Joe beat Ali, Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena, etc…?), he had problems with boxers throughout his career and he just doesn’t matchup as well against the many of the all time greats, some of whom would have been able to figure out how to tie George up and extend him until he became less dangerous (fatigued?). George was great. I love George. But just watch him against Young and Peralta. George even knew his limitations and acted on them in his second career. You didn’t see George fight any good movers in that second career did you?

Anyway, as you noted, it’s ALL subjective so the list is really just my opinion. So why bother critiquing it? Should I go look for your list and question your ratings? Of course not, because your ratings are perfect and beyond question.

[The Great John L]

>>>Any method is fine, but one thing that can not be done is rating a guy like Foreman many spots behind Frazier. Foreman had a longer career, he beat a better group of fighters, and he beat Frazier twice in head to head match ups.<<<

But regardless of what method, or combinations of methods someone may chose to use, all results and final ratings will still be nothing more than opinion.

How true. But remember his opinions are probably just better than mine.

[pound per pound]

Any method is fine, but one thing that can not be done is rating a guy like Foreman many spots behind Frazier. Foreman had a longer career, he beat a better group of fighters, and he beat Frazier twice in head to head match ups.

But regardless of what method, or combinations of methods someone may chose to use, all results and final ratings will still be nothing more than opinion.

It is subjective, but there should be some reason and logical thought to the madness. Otherwise we are all throwing darts at a board.

The poster know as the Great John L doesn’t need to say why he thinks Frazier is #8 and Foreman is way back there at #16. I just found it a very odd placement for Foreman, considering he beat Frazier twice by KO, and Fraizer is his #8 man.

Have you ever seen a list where Foreman behind Frazier, Charels, Wills, and Tunney?

[pundit]

Very few World Heavyweight Champions before Ezzard Charles didn't hide behind the race line. Most of their reasons, however, were economical, or political. Jack Johnson only fought one black fighter while champion because every fight in which he squared off against a "White Hope" brought in huge cash. Jack Dempsey signed to fight Harry Wills, but was prevented from making that defense. Joe Louis fought a series of no-hope white fighters in his "Bum of the Month Club" tour simply because he could make more money facing off against white fighters as he could against black fighters.

Gene Tunney, however, didn't fight black fighters because he was a racist.

Dempsey's motives for not fighting blacks can at least be debated. There was a lot of public pressure on him to take on Harry Wills, who was widely seen as the by far most deserving contender from day one of Dempsey's title reign. But then Dempsey could be sure that Tex Rickards would do everything possible not to make this fight happen. Whether it's Dempsey or his manager who prevented Depmsey from crossing the color line is irrelevant, at the end of the day - Dempsey should have crossed it, because the toughest challenger was black, and he didn't.

As for Tunney, at least he fought the best white fighters of his era (at this weight class) - Greb, Loughran, Gibbons, Delaney, Levinsky. Dempsey didn't even do this. His best defense prior to Tunney was against a wild slugger who was at best second rate (Firpo). Apparently Greb owned Dempsey in sparring, would have loved to get a shot at the heavyweight title, but never got it.

As a consequence, all Dempsey assessments are necessarily based on three things: (i) a long title reign, (ii) an exciting style that made him very popular; and (iii) lots of woulda coulda shoulda. No wonder people disagree on whether the should be top 3 all time or barely top 20.

[The Great John L]

Any method is fine, but one thing that can not be done is rating a guy like Foreman many spots behind Frazier. Foreman had a longer career, he beat a better group of fighters, and he beat Frazier twice in head to head match ups.

But regardless of what method, or combinations of methods someone may chose to use, all results and final ratings will still be nothing more than opinion.

It is subjective, but there should be some reason and logical thought to the madness. Otherwise we are all throwing darts at a board.

The poster know as the Great John L doesn’t need to say why he thinks Frazier is #8 and Foreman is way back there at #16. I just found it a very odd placement for Foreman, considering he beat Frazier twice by KO, and Fraizer is his #8 man.

Have you ever seen a list where Foreman behind Frazier, Charels, Wills, and Tunney?

Yes, I see it every time I open the xls that contains my ratings. The same xls has HW ratings based on assessing skill values in 15 categories. That list looks quite a bit different.

I did take a very logical methodical approach to my ratings, rather than just saying that George beat Joe twice. Based on your post then I could say that Meehan beat Dempsey, so does that mean that Willie s/b ranked higher than Jack?

So what method do you use to rate them so you avoid the madness shown in my ratings? Try making a LONG list of ATG HWs and then try to determine how each would fare against all of the other HWs on the list. It took quite a bit of time. Still subjective, but at least a methodical, logical approach.

[The Great John L]

Hey pound, I couldn't find your list. Did I miss it?