HW Rankings

[Ezzard]

Inspired by a to and fro with my forum friend Gilgamesh I decided to go into my loft and dust off the old boxing magazines.

Rated on Defence, Determination, Durability, Hand Speed, Foot Work, Punching Power, Cur Resistance, Natural Ability, Quality of Opposition and Historical Impact.

Clearly it is a comprehensive review with a lot of thought and effort.

Really just posting to show how ideas on rating change and how there are so many different ways of rating these great champions. It's as much about the ideas of the era than any reality.

1. Ali
2. Johnson
3. Louis
4. Dempsey
5. Tunney
6. Holmes
7. Marciano
8. Liston
=9. Charles
=9. Walcott

Frazier was 11th tied with Jeffries. Schmeling was 13th tied with Patterson. Foreman was 19th.

[keithmoonhangover]

Inspired by a to and fro with my forum friend Gilgamesh I decided to go into my loft and dust off the old boxing magazines.

Rated on Defence, Determination, Durability, Hand Speed, Foot Work, Punching Power, Cur Resistance, Natural Ability, Quality of Opposition and Historical Impact.

Clearly it is a comprehensive review with a lot of thought and effort.

Really just posting to show how ideas on rating change and how there are so many different ways of rating these great champions. It's as much about the ideas of the era than any reality.

1. Ali
2. Johnson
3. Louis
4. Dempsey
5. Tunney
6. Holmes
7. Marciano
8. Liston
=9. Charles
=9. Walcott

Frazier was 11th tied with Jeffries. Schmeling was 13th tied with Patterson. Foreman was 19th.

When was the mag published Ezz?

[Ezzard]

1987 I think. Foreman had already started his comeback.

[DrDuke]

Awful ranking.

In 87 it should have been like:

1. Ali
2. Holmes
3. Foreman
4. Frazier
5. Marciano
6. Louis
7. Norton
8. Tunney
9. Dempsey
10. Liston

If to add 5 more:

11. Patterson
12. Walcott
13. Charles
14. Johnson
15. Jeffries

[Ezzard]

Half of your top 15 all fought within the same 10-15 year time span. That's highly unlikely.

[DrDuke]

Half of your top 15 all fought within the same 10-15 year time span. That's highly unlikely.

Some eras can be better than the others.

[Ezzard]

You don't have some eras. You have one era.

But it's interesting to see.

[margaret thatcher]

well it would make sense there would be chronilogical clusters, since a great way to be ranked high is to beat other high ranked guys

[gilgamesh]

So I suppose we're supposed to be thinking of what the all time rankings would've been in 1987?

Ali and Louis are still 1 and 2 obviously.

Holmes is still #3.

Ironically I'd have Foreman even higher here, because Lennox Lewis isn't around yet to push him further down the list to #5.

Jack Johnson often gets overrated by these old magazines I think.

[margaret thatcher]

johnson is hugely overrated, obviously a huge historical figure but nowhere near anything like #2 all time as a boxer

[keithmoonhangover]

So I suppose we're supposed to be thinking of what the all time rankings would've been in 1987?

Ali and Louis are still 1 and 2 obviously.

Holmes is still #3.

Ironically I'd have Foreman even higher here, because Lennox Lewis isn't around yet to push him further down the list to #5.

Jack Johnson often gets overrated by these old magazines I think.

Johnson makes my top five.

[oogiebe]

johnson is hugely overrated, obviously a huge historical figure but nowhere near anything like #2 all time as a boxer

Agreed. Made a career of beating on middleweights and pissing off 'the man.'

[Ambling Alp II]

Yeah that about sums it up.
He really had it easy.

[margaret thatcher]

if you say so boss

[gilgamesh]

So I suppose we're supposed to be thinking of what the all time rankings would've been in 1987?

Ali and Louis are still 1 and 2 obviously.

Holmes is still #3.

Ironically I'd have Foreman even higher here, because Lennox Lewis isn't around yet to push him further down the list to #5.

Jack Johnson often gets overrated by these old magazines I think.

Johnson makes my top five.

A lot of people rate him highly like that.

[DrDuke]

Johnson is ridiculously overrated.

[Ezzard]

Johnson was Mayweather before Mayweather.

I struggle to see how Foreman ranks above Marciano. Rocky has power and chin too. He also has proven stamina and a better defence. And wins over Charles x2, Walcott x2 and Moore are impressive.

[DrDuke]

Johnson was Mayweather before Mayweather.

I struggle to see how Foreman ranks above Marciano. Rocky has power and chin too. He also has proven stamina and a better defence. And wins over Charles x2, Walcott x2 and Moore are impressive.

And Foreman won Frazier with Norton, who are greater than Charles and Walcott. While the likes of Lyle and Moorer were more credible HWs than the Old Mongoose.

[Ezzard]

Johnson was Mayweather before Mayweather.

I struggle to see how Foreman ranks above Marciano. Rocky has power and chin too. He also has proven stamina and a better defence. And wins over Charles x2, Walcott x2 and Moore are impressive.

And Foreman won Frazier with Norton, who are greater than Charles and Walcott. While the likes of Lyle and Moorer were more credible HWs than the Old Mongoose.

That's an opinion you hold. Many experts hold a different view. If Jimmy Young could beat a prime Foreman there's a really big chance that Charles and Walcott could too.

[Ambling Alp II]

Carfeul, Ezzard, it almost looks like you think that Foreman's loss means something. You have said in the past that losses shouldn't be factored in when rating a fighter.

Anyway, Marciano had some good wins. However, Foreman's wins over Frazier, Norton and Lyle top them. Foreman's wins top almost eveyone else's.
You could make a serious case that Foreman could be the #3 heavyweight behind only Ali and Louis. Had he beat Young, he could even be #2.

[Ezzard]

Tunney always appeared in those HW top 10 lists. Almost never these days. I know Ali admired his HW work and ranked him highly.