ALL TIME HEAVYWEIGHT RATINGS/RANKINGS

[Ambling Alp II]

I think the following have to be in:
Ali, Louis, Foreman, Johnson, Frazier, Holmes, Holyfield, Lewis, Marciano, Dempsey, Liston, Tyson, Jeffries, Tunney and Bowe.
That's 15.
Then it gets tricky. I think it goes down to picking 5 of the following 10:

Langford
Wills
Jeannette
McVey
Sharkey
Schmeling
Baer
Charles
Walcott
Norton

They are all fairly close. After that, there aren't many guys who you could make a decent argument for.
Jeannette and McVey in particular always seem to get overlooked. They were pretty close to Langford and Wills.

[Djanders44]

It only gets tricky for me, after the top 3. In my opinion, #1. Ali. #2. Louis. #3. Holyfield. Being ranked higher doesn't always mean a fighter can beat all below him, head to head. Certain styles can be problematic for any fighter. Others have different views. It's a lot of fun to debate. I have a lot of trouble after the top 3.

[Onamastus]

It only gets tricky for me, after the top 3. In my opinion, #1. Ali. #2. Louis. #3. Holyfield. Being ranked higher doesn't always mean a fighter can beat all below him, head to head. Certain styles can be problematic for any fighter. Others have different views. It's a lot of fun to debate. I have a lot of trouble after the top 3.

Yes that's the problem I have. You can have a guy at 3 who you also think could lose to number 15, a guy at 5 who did lose to 10 etc. I might have Bowe at 15 even though on his night I think he beats everybody but 1 and 2. I can't even decide on 1. It's either Louis or 60s Ali, but who wins that I'm not sure. JL had the cunning to make adjustments where Liston went into mental freefall. Or maybe Clay is too good. Who knows. Fun discussing though.

[Onetimeonly]

Whom you think would win a fight is only relevant in a tiebreaker.

[Ambling Alp II]

When rating fighters, you should really go on what you know. i.e. on the fights that they actually had. We should not worry about hypothetical fantasy fights.

We should just weigh the evidence. Look at the significant wins that a fighter had. Weight that against the losses. Take into account the quality of the opponent, the stages of each fighter's career, and to some extent how competitive a fight was. To some extent factor in how a fighter looks on film.

[Ambling Alp II]

When rating fighters, we should really go on what you know. i.e. on the fights that they actually had. We should not worry about hypothetical fantasy fights.

We should just weigh the evidence. Look at the significant wins that a fighter had. Weight that against the losses. Take into account the quality of the opponent, the stages of each fighter's career, and to some extent how competitive a fight was. To some extent factor in how a fighter looks on film.

[Cojimar 1946]

Some of these guys have such thin resumes that its difficult to rank them even within their own eras.
I'm generally curious as to how you rank someone who only faced 2 or 3 world class opponents their entire career?

Michael Moorer for example as best I can tell only beat 1 top 10 heavyweight his entire career. We have very little to go on with him.

[Ambling Alp II]

If a guy has a thin resume, then he probably should not be rated highly. He would have to look awfully good on film.
As for Moorer, well he had two fights against Holyfield, as well as Foreman and the debacle against Tua. Would have been nice to if he would have had a more, but we do have something to go on. Actually looked pretty good for most of the Foreman fight; however in the end he of course got knocked out.
He has to get some credit for the win against Holyfield. Maybe a little bit for stopping Stewart. However, obviously not enough to be near the Top 20.

[Onamastus]

Some of these guys have such thin resumes that its difficult to rank them even within their own eras.
I'm generally curious as to how you rank someone who only faced 2 or 3 world class opponents their entire career?

Michael Moorer for example as best I can tell only beat 1 top 10 heavyweight his entire career. We have very little to go on with him.

Whose top 10 are you using? Stewart, Cooper, Holyfield, Schulz and Botha were top 10.

[Cojimar 1946]

Holyfield was clearly a top 10 heavyweight but I don't see any case for Botha, Schulz, Cooper and especially not Stewart.

At the time Moorer fought Schulz for example (1996) the following guys were all active and all better fighters than Schulz
Lennox Lewis
Evander Holyfield
Mike Tyson
Michael Moorer
Henry Akinwande
Riddick Bowe
David Tua
Oliver McCall
Ray Mercer
Tim Witherspoon
Andrew Golota

[Onamastus]

Oh, you're using your own subjective top 10. Got it. When Moorer fought Schulz Golota was an unknown yet to lose to Bowe, Tua's body of work was a 19 second KO over an unknown Ruiz, McCall hadn't done much since losing to Bruno and Mercer was without a win in 2 years. Moorer had only 1 win over a journeyman since being KOd by Foreman, who many thought Schulz beat. So even on your own list Schulz should leapfrog a few names and make the top 10.

Anyway Moorer doesn't factor in an all-time top 20 so it doesn't really matter.

[Cojimar 1946]

I don't think those guys being better fighters than Schulz in 1996 is really subjective.

Also I dont see how someone not scoring a good win in the past year or so should impact their ranking.

McCall was simply a better fighter than Schulz as their careers bear out. Whether he had scored an impressive win in the prior few months doesn't change that.

As far as Moorer being top 20 I wouldn't think he would qualify but many argue Bowe is top 20 and like Moorer he has a very thin resume aside from Holyfield

[Onamastus]

I don't think those guys being better fighters than Schulz in 1996 is really subjective.

Also I dont see how someone not scoring a good win in the past year or so should impact their ranking.

McCall was simply a better fighter than Schulz as their careers bear out. Whether he had scored an impressive win in the prior few months doesn't change that.

As far as Moorer being top 20 I wouldn't think he would qualify but many argue Bowe is top 20 and like Moorer he has a very thin resume aside from Holyfield

1. Yes, it is subjective.

2. Of course it impacts their ranking.

3. Schulz losing a controversial decision to Foreman is more impressive than McCall eking out a decision over Holmes and losing to Bruno.

4. Beating prime Holyfield twice gets you in the top 20.

[Cojimar 1946]

Riddick Bowe may have just been a bad stylistic matchup for Holyfield. There are plenty of examples of great fighters losing to guys generally not regarded as great.I think its bonkers to say such a high ranking is warranted when we have no idea how he does against the other top fighters of his era due to not fighting them.

Andrew Golota positively thrashed a Bowe coming off a knockout win over Holyfield twice. That would seem like pretty overwhelming evidence that his performance against Holyfield is not necessarily a good barometer as to how he does against other contemporary fighters. If it were I would have expected an easy kayo win in one or two rounds.

At that stage of Foreman's career he was struggling with guys who certainly seem to be no more than journeyman/gatekeepers like Alex Stewart and Lou Savarese. So I'm not sure how impressive Schulz giving him trouble really is. I'd pick Bruno to beat Schulz so I'm not sure McCall losing to him is relevant.

As far as recent wins affecting rankings, going into his fight with Holyfield Ray Mercer hadn't scored a notable win in years. Are you suggesting that win shouldn't count for Holyfield simply because Mercer hadn't beaten anyone highly rated recently?
I would think we should count that as a good win for Holyfield based on how Mercer performed in that fight and in his next two fights including a close fight with Lennox Lewis that he nearly won.

[Onamastus]

Bowe was out of shape for Golota and possibly showing signs of brain damage and still he won in the end. That compares well with, say, Lennox Lewis who when in not top form went down easily against McCall and Rahman, Golota level fighters.

[oogiebe]

Bowe was out of shape for Golota and possibly showing signs of brain damage and still he won in the end. That compares well with, say, Lennox Lewis who when in not top form went down easily against McCall and Rahman, Golota level fighters.

He won on DQ's FFS!

[margaret thatcher]

Bowe got beaten up for sure, but the thing I give him credit for is that he held tough and had enough to trigger Golota's weirdness to get the win both times

[Ambling Alp II]

We already discussed Bowe at length earlier; not sure why we have to rehash everything again.
Anyway, to the detractors:
You can't just throw out his biggest wins. If you add the three Holyfield fights to the rest of his career, that is by no means a thin resume. As mentioned before, take a look at his competition on his way up well.

As mentioned before, yes the Golota fights happened. However, he won those fights. DQs yes. That is a lot better than losing. Other guys would have been knocked out or quit in that situation.

Most of the guys mentioned had losses to less than stellar fighter. Most got beat badly by someone. Not Bowe.

If you really don't think Bowe is top 20, name your 20.

[Onamastus]

Bowe was out of shape for Golota and possibly showing signs of brain damage and still he won in the end. That compares well with, say, Lennox Lewis who when in not top form went down easily against McCall and Rahman, Golota level fighters.

He won on DQ's FFS!

A DQ is a win. Golota caved in both times. Bowe was willing to fight on to the end, Golota wanted out.

[margaret thatcher]

Now that we've worked out that those are wins over Andy Golota, how do those rate as wins- what impact do they have on Bowe's overall resume? Good wins? Solid? Nothing much? Not adding anything but not detracting anything?

[Onamastus]

They weren't good for Bowe's health but he showed great intangibles.

[Ambling Alp II]

The Golota fights don't have a lot of impact on Bowe's resume.
However, we have more than enough to go on when rating Bowe. Obviously he had the three fights with Holyfield. He had several tests when he was an up and coming fighter. There is a ton of footage available to see him action.

[DrDuke]

I've always been taking Bowe's bouts vs Golota as Bowe's losses. He was beaten up. Golota gave away both those wins.

[Onetimeonly]

I've always been taking Bowe's bouts vs Golota as Bowe's losses. He was beaten up. Golota gave away both those wins.

[Wee Tommy]

I've always been taking Bowe's bouts vs Golota as Bowe's losses. He was beaten up. Golota gave away both those wins.

They were boxing matches not no holds barred fights. Why did Golota give the fight away, charity?