Top 100 heavyweights all time

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 24 Apr 2007, 14:10

Friedie wrote:I miss Walter Neusel in your lists. I thin he was better than e.g. Karl Mildenberger.

I know you like the German heavies, but there are several 1930s/40s fighters I'd include before Walter Neusel... I did not even find space for Tommy Farr and Nathan Mann in the top 100.

Marciano Frazier · Post by **Marciano Frazier** » 24 Apr 2007, 15:37

On a sub-top-tier, I think Ingemar Johansson is being shortchanged on these lists. I really find it ludicrous to have Eddie Machen ahead of Johansson. If Machen is going to outrank Johansson, why even have fights? Johansson was champion, while Machen wasn't, he had a better record than Machen, he had a better resume than Machen, he did better against Patterson than Machen did, and he blasted Machen himself all over the ring in one round and left him looking like he might've been positively dead. I also think Cleveland Williams is being hugely overrated, seeing how he only actually had exactly one win over a top 10 heavyweight in his entire career of nearly 100 professional fights. I don't think he should even make the top 50, let alone top 35.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 24 Apr 2007, 15:45

Whenever you make a list this extensive, you are going to get criticisms. It's human nature to point out out the differences. I would have about 90 of the 100 guys that you have listed. Pundit- sorry that I was away for a few days and didn't list my top 100. (I post one almost 2 years ago; of course I have made changes since then.)

At any rate here, are some some suggested changes that I would make:

Holyfield has to be higher than #17. First of all his prime was not 1996-1999. It was more like 1989-1993. He was well past his best when he beat Tyson. You can claim that Tyson was more dominaint for a few years (because he wasn't fighting Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis) but Holyfield had the better career. Tyson had some cool knockouts, but Holyfield was better.

As mentioned in previous posts, Langford at #8 and Godfrey at #39 are too high.

Everyone likes Archie Moore (including myself) but he certainly is way too high at #31. (Besides Bivins (who is way too high at #60) The best guy that he beat on your own list is only #89.

As a rule, I think you have many of the heavyweights of the 1940's and early 1950's too high. (though curiously, I would include LaStarza and Farr in the top 100 and Pundit didn't)

I guess my other biggest difference in opinion is that in general I don't think you should rank fighters that spent almost their entire career as a lightheavyweight as a heavyweight unless they did something extraordinary such as Tunney or Michael Spinks. Even then it's difficult.
Therefore, I think you have Conn way too high at #41, Norfolk too high at #80, Loughran too high at #51. Loughran's case is a little different since he fought several of the top heavyweights of his era (sometimes multiple times). He had mixed success, winning some and lsoing some. He deserves to be in the top 100, but #51 is way too high.

Harry Greb doesn't belong here either. (No the win over Tunney doesn't count. He couldn't handle a bigger Tunney)

Including Harold Johnson however, is a good choice since he had several good results against heavyweights.

Quarry is #29, but Ellis is only #48? Ellis beat Quarry for the WBA title. The rest of their careers is pretty even. Both have few good wins and some losses. Quarry is a little high, Ellis a little too low.

Don't really understanding your ratings of the "Alpha champions of the 1980's". Most of them were very close. Yet you have Witherspoon, Thomas, and Weaver in the top 40, while Page,Berbick,Smith, and Tubbs don't even make the top 100? There is no way that there is much difference between these guys. All of these guys should be in the #45-60 range. There were several fights between these guys (as well as against guys like Snipes,Williams,Tillis,Bey) . These fights were on film and can be watched again. (Though many were boring and you many not want to)These guys were all very close. No one sticks out. Dokes at #83 and Coetzee at #76 probably deserves to be in this group as well. If you take out Tyson and Holmes, there is incredible parity in the heavyweight divison in the 1980's.

Golota at #75, Ed Martin at #86, Baker at #91,Oma at #93, Valdes at #94 and of course Galento at #95 didn't do enough to be in the top 100.

Lee Q Murray at #46? huh? He beat one other in your top 100, that being Bivins at #60. He also lost to Bivins four times. He lost to some ordinary fighters. Why is he even in the top 100?

Risko at #92 probably doesn't quite either. I used to think so as well, because he did have several really good wins.
However, he lost so many times to ordinary fighters that he probably doesn't deserve it.

Vitali Klitscho is way too high at #45. Being arguably the best for short time in a very weak era doesn't mean much. Way too many guys would have had the same record or better if they would have fought his competition.
David Tua is way too high at #61. He had a few big moments, but way too many disappointing pefromances. I no longer even put him in the top 100.
Ibeabuchi is more of a case of what might have been. Shouldn't be in the top 100.

On the other side of the coin:
The early 1990's was actually a pretty good period in the heavyweight divison and several fighters from this time are rated way too low. As mentioned Holyfield should be much higher than #17. Bowe at only #27, I know you don't like him but come on. Mercer only #71? He had a few bad performances but he gave Holyfield all that he could handle and probably should have gotten the decision against Lewis. Had a few nice wins as well. I know Moorer had a few meltdowns but #77? He was better than that.

Tommy Burns should be higher than #69, Bugner much higher than #100. McVey is too low at #36.

Leotis Martin,Marvin Hart, Roland LaStarza, Tommy Farr, Renaldo Snipes, Carl Williams and Gunboat Smith did just enough that they should have been in the top 100. However, they are borderline cases and I can see why they were left out.

Charlie Weinert was an interesting choice at #98. He isn't a guy that you here much about, but did have a decent career.
Overall a good effort. The list didn't just go by conventional wisdom. There was some thinking outside of the box. What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that the farther you rank the fighters, the closer they become.
ie- the difference between #5 and #25 is a lot more than #75 and #95.

MEISINGER · Post by **MEISINGER** » 24 Apr 2007, 17:20

pundit wrote:
MEISINGER wrote:i like seeing peoples ratings.but no one will ever agree.
not saying you are wrong in your assesment.it is just that i would of had
alot of changes.
biggest problems i have are tyson above holyfield
and vitali in the top 50
26 of your top 30 are the same fighters i have in my top 30 just
in different orders.

nice read though
What are the 4 in your top 30 that I don't have, and what fighters would you take out?

I've Tyson above Holyfield because in his prime (1986-89) Tyson was a deadly force at HW as Holyfield never was. Comparable with the young Joe Louis or Muhammad Ali. Post-prison Tyson was never the same again, and this is the Tyson Holyfiled beat. Holyfield's career is different -- there isn't a clear peak but various phases of achievement, followed by disappointing slippages, which again were followed by unlikely comebacks.

i would of moved down do to lack of video or film
peter jackson
joe jeanette
harry wills

and i would also move out michael spinks mainly because he
did not beat larry holmes either fight and his other 2 wins in the heavyweight division were tangstad and a gerry cooney who was retired for 2 plus years

i would replace them with
archie moore
tim witherspoon
pinklon thomas
and jimmy young

i was really amazed that we had a very similar list in terms of
who was on it.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 24 Apr 2007, 17:23

MEISINGER wrote:
pundit wrote:
MEISINGER wrote:i like seeing peoples ratings.but no one will ever agree.
not saying you are wrong in your assesment.it is just that i would of had
alot of changes.
biggest problems i have are tyson above holyfield
and vitali in the top 50
26 of your top 30 are the same fighters i have in my top 30 just
in different orders.

nice read though
What are the 4 in your top 30 that I don't have, and what fighters would you take out?

I've Tyson above Holyfield because in his prime (1986-89) Tyson was a deadly force at HW as Holyfield never was. Comparable with the young Joe Louis or Muhammad Ali. Post-prison Tyson was never the same again, and this is the Tyson Holyfiled beat. Holyfield's career is different -- there isn't a clear peak but various phases of achievement, followed by disappointing slippages, which again were followed by unlikely comebacks.
i would of moved down do to lack of video or film
peter jackson
joe jeanette
harry wills

and i would also move out michael spinks mainly because he
did not beat larry holmes either fight and his other 2 wins in the heavyweight division were tangstad and a gerry cooney who was retired for 2 plus years

i would replace them with
archie moore
tim witherspoon
pinklon thomas
and jimmy young

i was really amazed that we had a very similar list in terms of
who was on it.

Very similar indeed -- the four guys you'd move up are my ## 31, 33, 34, 38.

Great minds....

pound per pound · Post by **pound per pound** » 24 Apr 2007, 22:38

dempseyfire says: This won't be easy, but since I'm critiquing I might as well present my own for critique as well. For an all time ranking I'm trying to include a mixture of head to head, accomplshments, and how good they were at their best.

I exclude fighters pre-Burns due to lack of film and tangible resources that are available to the study of fighters in the 19teens and beyond.

Some of your reaches. A few comments on those who I feel are too high or too low:

1) Joe Louis
2) Cassius Clay/Ali
3) Jack Johnson
4) Rocky Marciano
5) Larry Holmes
6) Jack Dempsey
7) George Foreman
8) Sonny Liston
9) Joe Frazier
10) Sam Langford
11) Gene Tunney
12) Lennox Lewis
13) Evander Holyfield
14) Mike Tyson
15) Max Schmeling - Based on one big win and a few Ko losses?
16) Ezzard Charles
17) Jersey Joe Walcott
18) Joe Jeannette
19) Harry Willis
20) Max Baer
21) Floyd Patterson
22) Sam Mcvey
23) Riddick Bowe
24) Ken Norton
25) Jerry Quarry
26) Eddie Machen - No way
27) Archie Moore - No way
28) Jack Sharkey
29) Billy Miske - No way
30) Jess Williard
31) Elmer Ray - A reach
32) Cleveland Williams - A bit high
33) Jimmy Young
34) Ernie Terrell - A bit high
35) George Godfrey
36) Tiger Jack Fox - Huge reach
37) Ed Gunboat Smith - Huge reach
38) Primo Carnera
39) Tommy Loughran - Light heavy
40) Larry Gaines
41)Ingo Johannson
42) Tommy Burns
43) Zora Folley
44) Jimmy Braddock - A reach
45) Tommy Farr - Too high.
46) Young Stribling - who did he beat to rate this high?
47) Jimmy Ellis
48) Fred Fulton - Too high.
49) Lou Nova - Too high
50) Earnie Shavers

51) Tim Witherspoon
52) George Chuvalo - No way
53) James Douglas
54) Jimmy Bivins
55) Kid Norfolk - light heavy
56) Buddy Baer
57) Oscar Bonavena
58) Roland LaStarza - A reach
59) Bill Brennan
60) Michael Spinks
61) Joe Bugner
62) Mike Weaver
63) Trevor Berbick
64) Lee Q. Murray - A reach
65) Pinklon Thomas
66) Michael Dokes
67) Tony Tucker
68) Michael Moorer
69) Gerry Cooney
70) Leotis Martin - Basesd on beating an old Liston? A reach.
71) Bob Cleroux - A huge reach
72) Doug Jones - A bit high
73) Chris Byrd
74) Vitali Klitschko - Would clean up on many above him.
75) Curtis Sheppard - A huge reach
76) Bob Pastor
77) Tony Galento - A reach
78) James Bonecrusher Smith
79) Abe Simon - A reach
80) Luther Mccarty
81) Ray Mercer
82) Henry Cooper - a reach
83) Lee Savold - A reach
84) Tami Mauriello - A reach
85) Frank Moran - A reach
86) Jim Coffey - A reach
87) Turkey Thompson
88) Arturo Godoy
89) Paulino Uzucudun
90) Rex Laybe
91) Leon Spinks - A reach
92) Frank Bruno
93) Karl Mildenburger
94) Clarence Henry
95) Bob Baker - A reach
96) David Tua - Would clean up on many above him.
97) Wladimir Klitschko - Would clean up on many above him
98) Charley Weinert - No way
99) Nathan Mann - No way
100) Jeff Clarke

It seems you fancy Dempsey and Louis opponents and loathe modern fighters.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 25 Apr 2007, 05:27

Decagon wrote:You just posted that, dumbass. Why do you rank Andrew Golota over Michael Grant?

Well Golota was talented but erratic, and his batterings of Riddick Bowe were more than Grant achieved in the whole of his sorry overrated career. I definitely wouldnt rank Grant in the top 100, and Golota if he made it would only get into the outer reaches.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 25 Apr 2007, 10:42

Ambling Alp wrote:Whenever you make a list this extensive, you are going to get criticisms. It's human nature to point out out the differences. I would have about 90 of the 100 guys that you have listed. Pundit- sorry that I was away for a few days and didn't list my top 100. (I post one almost 2 years ago; of course I have made changes since then.)

At any rate here, are some some suggested changes that I would make:

Thanks, Alp. A few reactions.

Holyfield has to be higher than #17. First of all his prime was not 1996-1999. It was more like 1989-1993.

Well this makes it worse, doesn't it? During his first "prime" Holyfield was clearly overshadowed by Mike Tyson, Holy was considered a placeholder champ while Tyson was in prison. He was also erratic, knocking Douglas out in three but then struggling badly with old men Foreman and Holmes. In my book Holyfield made it into a top notch ATG only in 1996/97 with his dominating wins over (beyond peak) Tyson and(peak) Moorer.

More generally, the issue seems to me that Holyfield is one of the fighters who don't have a well-defined prime -- he had several ups and downs, disappointing when you thought he would make it but staging unlikely comebacks when people had written him off.

He was well past his best when he beat Tyson. You can claim that Tyson was more dominaint for a few years (because he wasn't fighting Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis) but Holyfield had the better career. Tyson had some cool knockouts, but Holyfield was better.

We had that before. Holyfield was never the terror that prime Tyson was.

As mentioned in previous posts, Langford at #8 and Godfrey at #39 are too high.

Seems to have escaped your attention that I graded Godfrey down after our discussion, although only by a handful of places...

I don't think Langford is too high at all at #8.

Everyone likes Archie Moore (including myself) but he certainly is way too high at #31. (Besides Bivins (who is way too high at #60) The best guy that he beat on your own list is only #89.

.... which seems pretty respectable to me. Btw, I strongly contest that Bivins is too high at #60.

As a rule, I think you have many of the heavyweights of the 1940's and early 1950's too high. (though curiously, I would include LaStarza and Farr in the top 100 and Pundit didn't)

Tell that to Brockton that I rate the 50s too highly...

I guess my other biggest difference in opinion is that in general I don't think you should rank fighters that spent almost their entire career as a lightheavyweight as a heavyweight unless they did something extraordinary such as Tunney or Michael Spinks. Even then it's difficult.
Therefore, I think you have Conn way too high at #41, Norfolk too high at #80, Loughran too high at #51. Loughran's case is a little different since he fought several of the top heavyweights of his era (sometimes multiple times). He had mixed success, winning some and lsoing some. He deserves to be in the top 100, but #51 is way too high.

Well either you rate them or you don't, but if you rate them it has to be on the basis of what they did and could do at HW -- be in in 3 fights or in 300.

Harry Greb doesn't belong here either. (No the win over Tunney doesn't count. He couldn't handle a bigger Tunney)

Greb fought and beat many other top heavyweights but Tunney -- Miske, Brennan, Meehan, Renault, Gunboat Smith, etc. etc. Like Norfolk, he auditioned for a shot at Dempseyu but never got it.

Including Harold Johnson however, is a good choice since he had several good results against heavyweights.

Quarry is #29, but Ellis is only #48? Ellis beat Quarry for the WBA title. The rest of their careers is pretty even. Both have few good wins and some losses. Quarry is a little high, Ellis a little too low.

Ellis didn't beat the likes of Ron Lyle or Earnie Shavers. This said, he could still be a few spots higher.

Don't really understanding your ratings of the "Alpha champions of the 1980's". Most of them were very close. Yet you have Witherspoon, Thomas, and Weaver in the top 40, while Page,Berbick,Smith, and Tubbs don't even make the top 100? There is no way that there is much difference between these guys. All of these guys should be in the #45-60 range. There were several fights between these guys (as well as against guys like Snipes,Williams,Tillis,Bey) . These fights were on film and can be watched again. (Though many were boring and you many not want to)These guys were all very close. No one sticks out. Dokes at #83 and Coetzee at #76 probably deserves to be in this group as well. If you take out Tyson and Holmes, there is incredible parity in the heavyweight divison in the 1980's.

It's true that these folks are difficult to rate, but on balance Witherspoon leads the pack, not at least because he came with a whisker of beating Holmes. Thomas and Weaver were for a while considered Holmes' only real challengers -- none of the other alphabet champs achieved that status. Btw, I have Berbick in there.

Golota at #75, Ed Martin at #86, Baker at #91,Oma at #93, Valdes at #94 and of course Galento at #95 didn't do enough to be in the top 100.

You want to kick Ed Martin -- maybe the best black heavyweight of the early 1900s -- out of the top 100 but have McVey in the top 20? Now you are stretching it. Btw, if you take Ed Martin out, McVey beat on balance none in the top 100.

More generally, the guys between, say, #80 and #120 are a pick'em. Sure Galento could be out, but he gave Joe Louis a pretty interesting fight. Golota I have in there due to his fights with Bowe; Baker and Valdes because they were top challengers in the mid 50s; Oma because he was one of the feared, avoided black heavyweights of the 1940s.

Lee Q Murray at #46? huh? He beat one other in your top 100, that being Bivins at #60. He also lost to Bivins four times. He lost to some ordinary fighters. Why is he even in the top 100?

See Oma. I admit though that #46 is probably too high.

Risko at #92 probably doesn't quite either. I used to think so as well, because he did have several really good wins.
However, he lost so many times to ordinary fighters that he probably doesn't deserve it.

I rate people mostly according to what they could do at their best, not according to what they did on average.

Vitali Klitscho is way too high at #45. Being arguably the best for short time in a very weak era doesn't mean much. Way too many guys would have had the same record or better if they would have fought his competition.

But would they have gone these six hellish rounds with LL? I admit that my high rating of Vitali largely hinges on this one fight.

David Tua is way too high at #61. He had a few big moments, but way too many disappointing pefromances. I no longer even put him in the top 100.

I have him mostly in there due to the Ibeabuchi (that he won in my book) and Rahman fights. Maybe a little too high.

Ibeabuchi is more of a case of what might have been. Shouldn't be in the top 100.

Can be argued.

On the other side of the coin:
The early 1990's was actually a pretty good period in the heavyweight divison and several fighters from this time are rated way too low. As mentioned Holyfield should be much higher than #17. Bowe at only #27, I know you don't like him but come on.

Come on what? He beat Holyfield when Holyfield was at a low, he got beaten up by Golota when he himself was at a low. I'm comfortable with Bowe's rating.

Mercer only #71? He had a few bad performances but he gave Holyfield all that he could handle and probably should have gotten the decision against Lewis. Had a few nice wins as well. I know Moorer had a few meltdowns but #77? He was better than that.

Possible.

Tommy Burns should be higher than #69, Bugner much higher than #100. McVey is too low at #36.

Burns is hard to assess. He did not fight the best heavyweights of his era except once, and then Jack Johnson beat him up. He looked good mostly against white light-heavyweights.

Leotis Martin,Marvin Hart, Roland LaStarza, Tommy Farr, Renaldo Snipes, Carl Williams and Gunboat Smith did just enough that they should have been in the top 100. However, they are borderline cases and I can see why they were left out.

You're right, they can all be argued. Gunboat Smith actually is an oversight, I probably would include him in a revision.

Charlie Weinert was an interesting choice at #98. He isn't a guy that you here much about, but did have a decent career.
Overall a good effort.

Cheers and thanks for your coms,
P

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 25 Apr 2007, 11:35

pundit wrote:
Well this makes it worse, doesn't it? During his first "prime" Holyfield was clearly overshadowed by Mike Tyson, Holy was considered a placeholder champ while Tyson was in prison. He was also erratic, knocking Douglas out in three but then struggling badly with old men Foreman and Holmes. In my book Holyfield made it into a top notch ATG only in 1996/97 with his dominating wins over (beyond peak) Tyson and(peak) Moorer.

We had that before. Holyfield was never the terror that prime Tyson was.

The things is that being overshadowed and not being the 'terror' are mystique and perception. being overshadowed does not make you an inferior fighter, perhaps not as famous or such a draw but that's different. I don't see why someone should be penalised for struggling but winning. Looking good means a lot less than winning fights.

Tyson looked more formidable but Holyfield faced, and beat, more top fighters.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 25 Apr 2007, 15:37

Pundit,
I pretty much agree with Ezzard. You can say that Tyson "overshadowed Holyfield" or that Tyson was the "terror" of the division, but that is hype. It doesn't mean that Tyson was the better fighter.
I strongly disagree with the comment about Holyfield being considered a place holder champion when Tyson was in prison. Who thought that? Tyson lost the title when was knocked out by Douglas. He was no longer the champion. Holyfield became the champion when he knocked out Douglas. That's how it works in boxing. Later Tyson went to jail. Tyson had no claim as being the champion whatsover. Holyfield was.

I agree that Holyfield should have been able to beat an old Holmes easier than he did. However, he didn't look bad against Foreman. He hit him with everything but the kitchen sink, but Foreman just wouldn't go down. nobody scores a knockout every time.That happens. Holyfield won a clearcut decision.

Holyfield had a clearcut prime. It was from 1988-1993. Outside of the holmes fight Holyfield was impressive in all of his fights during this period. Watch the fights. He was faster, had better reflexes, and threw more punches than when he beat Tyson. Watch his fights with Tillis,Thomas,Dokes, Stewart,and douglas. He was a better figher during this time than the battle worn 34 year old that beat Tyson.

I'm glad you are reevaluating Ellis. I hope you aren't counting Ellis' losses against Shavers and Lyle against him. He was past it by then. Ellis also beat chuvalo. Quarry lost to Chuvalo, controversy or not Ellis has the edge there. Throw in Ellis wins over Bonavena and Martin and his career is pretty even with Quarry's. Since he won the head to head fight I think Ellis should get the edge over Quarry. It certainly has to be very close.

Don't really understand the point about Witherspoon,Thomas, and Weaver being Holmes only real challengers. Page certainly was. Besides:
Page barely lost to Witherspoon, and beat Coetzee who you have in the top 100.
Smith lost a decision to Witherspoon, but knocked him out in a rematch. He also knocked out an aging but not shot Weaver in the first round.
Tubbs beat both Smith and Page.
These guys are all extremely close. There is no way that some of them are in the top 40 and others not even in the top 100.
Sorry I missed that you had Berbick.

Baker and Valdes were considered top contenders in the mid 1950's and that's all it takes to put them in the top 100? Several other guys were top contenders (or even champions) in their era and weren't ranked. Valdes and Baker each lost a lot of fights and had too few big wins.
Oma was feared? Why would they have been. He lost so many times. He is nowhere near top 100. Consequently, why is it such a big deal for Lee Q Murray to beat Oma when so many other guys did?

You are comfortable with Bowe at #27? He beat Holyfield when Holyfield was at a low? Holyfield was in his absolute prime during their first fight. Have you ever seen the Holyfield-Bowe fights? They were great fights. You always bring up the Golota fights with Bowe. Why is that fighters like Sharkey,Baer, Walcott, and Charles get a free pass and are ranked ahead of Bowe? They all lost multiple times to fighters that you have ranked well below them or not rated at all. None of them ever beat anyone as good as a prime Holyfield.

Some guys seem to be getting a little too much credit for one fight. Klitschko get ranked #45 for 6 "hellish" rounds with a rusty, out of shape 37 year old Lewis. Tony Galento makes the top 100 for a knockdown of Louis? He got ko'd soon after this and did little else in his career. (I'm guess a big part of why Moore is ranked so high is for the knockdown of Marciano. If not let me know.)
On this basis why not rank Bert Cooper, Stanley Ketchel, Renaldo Snipes or Luis Firpo?
Or McCall or Rahman? At least they won.

I wanted to address your comment "I rate people mostlyaccording to what they could do at their best, not on average."
I strongly disagree with this philosophy. Losses and bad performances have to count. Consistency does matter. Sure, fights when a fighter is old and/or had has been in too many wars should count against him. Nor early on his his career when he is still improving. There certainly are some gray areas in some fighters careers as to whether they are on in their primes or not. However, you have to count the highs, lows, and in betweens of every fight a fighters career when he is close to his prime. Of course the longer the prime the more impressive.

One or two great performances in a career that is otherwise unimpressive doesn't make you great. A truly great fighter is good time after time.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 25 Apr 2007, 16:18

Ambling Alp wrote:Pundit,
I pretty much agree with Ezzard. You can say that Tyson "overshadowed Holyfield" or that Tyson was the "terror" of the division, but that is hype. It doesn't mean that Tyson was the better fighter.
I strongly disagree with the comment about Holyfield being considered a place holder champion when Tyson was in prison. Who thought that? Tyson lost the title when was knocked out by Douglas. He was no longer the champion. Holyfield became the champion when he knocked out Douglas. That's how it works in boxing. Later Tyson went to jail. Tyson had no claim as being the champion whatsover. Holyfield was.

I agree that Holyfield should have been able to beat an old Holmes easier than he did. However, he didn't look bad against Foreman. He hit him with everything but the kitchen sink, but Foreman just wouldn't go down. nobody scores a knockout every time.That happens. Holyfield won a clearcut decision.

Holyfield had a clearcut prime. It was from 1988-1993. Outside of the holmes fight Holyfield was impressive in all of his fights during this period. Watch the fights. He was faster, had better reflexes, and threw more punches than when he beat Tyson. Watch his fights with Tillis,Thomas,Dokes, Stewart,and douglas. He was a better figher during this time than the battle worn 34 year old that beat Tyson.

I'm glad you are reevaluating Ellis. I hope you aren't counting Ellis' losses against Shavers and Lyle against him. He was past it by then. Ellis also beat chuvalo. Quarry lost to Chuvalo, controversy or not Ellis has the edge there. Throw in Ellis wins over Bonavena and Martin and his career is pretty even with Quarry's. Since he won the head to head fight I think Ellis should get the edge over Quarry. It certainly has to be very close.

Don't really understand the point about Witherspoon,Thomas, and Weaver being Holmes only real challengers. Page certainly was. Besides:
Page barely lost to Witherspoon, and beat Coetzee who you have in the top 100.
Smith lost a decision to Witherspoon, but knocked him out in a rematch. He also knocked out an aging but not shot Weaver in the first round.
Tubbs beat both Smith and Page.
These guys are all extremely close. There is no way that some of them are in the top 40 and others not even in the top 100.
Sorry I missed that you had Berbick.

Baker and Valdes were considered top contenders in the mid 1950's and that's all it takes to put them in the top 100? Several other guys were top contenders (or even champions) in their era and weren't ranked. Valdes and Baker each lost a lot of fights and had too few big wins.
Oma was feared? Why would they have been. He lost so many times. He is nowhere near top 100. Consequently, why is it such a big deal for Lee Q Murray to beat Oma when so many other guys did?

You are comfortable with Bowe at #27? He beat Holyfield when Holyfield was at a low? Holyfield was in his absolute prime during their first fight. Have you ever seen the Holyfield-Bowe fights? They were great fights. You always bring up the Golota fights with Bowe. Why is that fighters like Sharkey,Baer, Walcott, and Charles get a free pass and are ranked ahead of Bowe? They all lost multiple times to fighters that you have ranked well below them or not rated at all. None of them ever beat anyone as good as a prime Holyfield.

Some guys seem to be getting a little too much credit for one fight. Klitschko get ranked #45 for 6 "hellish" rounds with a rusty, out of shape 37 year old Lewis. Tony Galento makes the top 100 for a knockdown of Louis? He got ko'd soon after this and did little else in his career. (I'm guess a big part of why Moore is ranked so high is for the knockdown of Marciano. If not let me know.)
On this basis why not rank Bert Cooper, Stanley Ketchel, Renaldo Snipes or Luis Firpo?
Or McCall or Rahman? At least they won.

I wanted to address your comment "I rate people mostlyaccording to what they could do at their best, not on average."
I strongly disagree with this philosophy. Losses and bad performances have to count. Consistency does matter. Sure, fights when a fighter is old and/or had has been in too many wars should count against him. Nor early on his his career when he is still improving. There certainly are some gray areas in some fighters careers as to whether they are on in their primes or not. However, you have to count the highs, lows, and in betweens of every fight a fighters career when he is close to his prime. Of course the longer the prime the more impressive.

One or two great performances in a career that is otherwise unimpressive doesn't make you great. A truly great fighter is good time after time.

I want to take one issue with this post.

You ask "Why is that fighters like Sharkey,Baer, Walcott, and Charles get a free pass and are ranked ahead of Bowe?

And then state "Some guys seem to be getting a little too much credit for one fight."

Besides the first Holyfield fight and (arguably) the 3rd fight vs the same guy, what did Bowe do to be put ahead of Sharkey, Charles, Walcott, and Baer? Knockout Bruce Seldon and struggle to a decision vs Tony Tubbs??

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 25 Apr 2007, 16:46

Ambling Alp wrote:Pundit,
I pretty much agree with Ezzard. You can say that Tyson "overshadowed Holyfield" or that Tyson was the "terror" of the division, but that is hype. It doesn't mean that Tyson was the better fighter.
I strongly disagree with the comment about Holyfield being considered a place holder champion when Tyson was in prison. Who thought that? Tyson lost the title when was knocked out by Douglas.

The Douglas loss was considered an accident at the time, resulting from lack of motivation. Admittedly, with hindsight it looks a bit different. Tyson was probably going downhill already.

He was no longer the champion. Holyfield became the champion when he knocked out Douglas. That's how it works in boxing. Later Tyson went to jail. Tyson had no claim as being the champion whatsover. Holyfield was.

I agree that Holyfield should have been able to beat an old Holmes easier than he did. However, he didn't look bad against Foreman.

Oh sure he did. It simply doesn't look good if a fat 40 something year old gives you a competitive fight. And if it happens twice it looks even worse. Holyfield vs. Foreman was entertaining but Holy didn't fight very cleverly, trying to slug with a slugger, adn this made him look bad.

Holyfield had a clearcut prime. It was from 1988-1993. Outside of the holmes fight Holyfield was impressive in all of his fights during this period.

That's not my recollection. Holyfield looked good before he won the title, but then he stalled, seemed overmotivated. As if he couldn't deal with the expectations and pressure of being champ. Bowe II restored his reputation, but then Holyfield deteriorated again.

Now Holyfield's body may have been a bit slower in 1996 than in 1991, but body and mind have to come together in a champ. The 1996 Holyfield had the mindset of a true champion.

I'm glad you are reevaluating Ellis. I hope you aren't counting Ellis' losses against Shavers and Lyle against him.

No, but I count Quarry's wins over these guys very much in his favor.

Don't really understand the point about Witherspoon,Thomas, and Weaver being Holmes only real challengers. Page certainly was. Besides:
Page barely lost to Witherspoon, and beat Coetzee who you have in the top 100.

Page lost too often when it mattered, as did Bonecrusher. I'd be more inclined to put Tony Tubbs in (who beat them both)

Baker and Valdes were considered top contenders in the mid 1950's and that's all it takes to put them in the top 100? Several other guys were top contenders (or even champions) in their era and weren't ranked. Valdes and Baker each lost a lot of fights and had too few big wins. Oma was feared? Why would they have been. He lost so many times. He is nowhere near top 100. Consequently, why is it such a big deal for Lee Q Murray to beat Oma when so many other guys did?

This is a very naive argument. You can't measure the black heavyweights of the 1940s by the same yardstick as modern fighters. Oma fought several times a month at some stages of his career -- with no preparation, often on the shortest notice, and often injured. Of course you lose fights under these conditions. Some he arguably had to lose, otherwise he would have run into trouble with his paymasters. Jersey Joe Walcott's record wasn't much different until he ran into the right manager.

Hence, as with all others, you'll have to assess Oma or Murray by what they could do at their best, otherwise you compare apples with oranges, and disadvantaged fighters get no credit in your ratings. And at their best Murray and Oma were formidable heavyweights.

Comfortable with Bowe at #27? He beat Holyfield when Holyfield was at a low? Holyfield was in his absolute prime during their first fight. Have you ever seen the Holyfield-Bowe fights? They were great fights.

You overrate Holyfield, as a consequence you overrate Bowe. We've discussed this plentiful times. I see little gain from another round.

You always bring up the Golota fights with Bowe. Why is that fighters like Sharkey,Baer, Walcott, and Charles get a free pass and are ranked ahead of Bowe?

Well, as you insist... They all had their glory moments. Sharkey was winning against Dempsey and fought on level terms with prime Schmeling. Baer knocked the hell out of durable and skilled Schmeling. Walcott arguably beat Louis. Charles dominated that very same Walcott. All great performances.

AND ALL of these beat far more quality fighters (ranked in the top 100) than Bowe, who is essentially a one-fight wonder (Holyfield I).

Some guys seem to be getting a little too much credit for one fight. Klitschko get ranked #45 for 6 "hellish" rounds with a rusty, out of shape 37 year old Lewis.

Thing is, I see noone who could have done that below the top 50.

Tony Galento makes the top 100 for a knockdown of Louis? He got ko'd soon after this and did little else in his career.

What about Galento KO 14 Lou Nova. Galento KO 2 Nathan Mann. Galento's entertaining fights with the Baer brothers (although he lost).

(I'm guess a big part of why Moore is ranked so high is for the knockdown of Marciano. If not let me know.)

Harold Johnson, Clarency Henry, Bob Baker, Nino Valdes, Jimmy Bivins -- all top 100 heavyweights, and all found their master in Archie. Archie was also winning against Patterson until the KO, btw.

On this basis why not rank Bert Cooper, Stanley Ketchel, Renaldo Snipes or Luis Firpo?

Because this isn't the basis.

I wanted to address your comment "I rate people mostlyaccording to what they could do at their best, not on average."
I strongly disagree with this philosophy.

Well then you disagree. I'm not changing it because of that. As sketched above, any other approach results in naive ratings. Oma or Murray would have far fewer losses to their record if they fought today -- most of their fights would not even have taken place.

The question though is how much of our differences are rooted in the different philosophy, and how many in arguments where we can agree on their validity.

Cheers,
P

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 26 Apr 2007, 00:21

No, Golota didn't win either fight, but that doesn't seem to matter very much to Pundit.
The Golota-Bowe fights show some glaring inconsistencies with Pundit's reasoning.
1. He sometimes gives way too much credit for a fighter who has a near big win.
Golota gets ranked #75 for the Bowe fights. Klitscho gets ranked #45 for giving a rusty, out of shape 37 year old Lewis trouble.
Galento gets in the top 100 for knocking down Joe Louis. (Later it was added that Galento beat Nova and the great Nathan Mann. also that the Galento-Baer fight was entertaining. The Galento-Max Baer fight is on Youtube. Galento looks awful)
Moore gets a ton of credit for a knockdown of Marciano and for supposedly winning after 4 rounds against Patterson (btw Moore wasn't winning that fight)
Sharkey get credit for leading Dempsey before being knocked out.

It's very selective. Snipes didn't make the top 100 even though he decked Holmes (and beat Berbick)
John Tate does make it even though he was winning for 14 rounds against top 40 Mike Weaver. (and beat Coetzee)
Firpo doesn't make even though he almost beat Dempsey.

2. Pundit said earlier that he rates people mostly according to what they could do at their best, not on average. He does seem to do that with some fighters.
Yet he constantly rips Bowe for the Golota fights when Bowe was way below average.
Holyfield gets ripped for his below average performances as well.

Other inconsistencies include the reasoning why Page and James Smith didn't make it. They lost too many big fights? How about Valdes and Baker. They each lost almost every big fight they were ever in.

I wanted to address something dempsey fire asked. He asked (besides Holyfield, Seldon and and a close win over Tubbs) what did Bowe do that should put him a head of Charles,Walcott,Sharkey and Baer?

Bowe beat the guys that he was supposed to. That has to be factored in. sure there was a drop off after Holyfield.If Bowe would have beaten Lewis or Tyson it would have been better. Still he did beat some other good fighters, and fairly easily. He beat Biggs,Cooper,Coetzer,Donald, and Hide. Rip them all that you want but at least Bowe beat all of them.
Charles and Baer lost to some guys that they shouldn't have. Walcott and Sharkey lost to several guys they shouldn't have. If Charles,Walcott, Sharkey, or Walcott would have fought Seldon,Tubbs,Biggs,Cooper,Coetzer,Donald, and Hide they all would have slipped up at least once. And none would have beaten Holyfield 2 out of 3. (not to mention that Bowe's loss to Holyfield was very close)

Charles beat a washed up Louis.Walcott fought a slipping Louis. Their best wins were actually against each other. Baer and Sharkey's best wins were against Schmeling. None of those wins matches Bowe beating Holyfield.

Bowe gets ripped for fighting relatvely weak competition. I am going to again ask a question that Bowe doubters never seem to want to answer: If Charles, Walcott,Sharkey and Baer fought Bowe's exact competition, would they gone 42-1 or better?

For that matter, how many fighters in history would have gone 42-1 or better? A few. Certainly not 26. There is no way that Bowe is only the #27 heavyweight of all time.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 26 Apr 2007, 08:27

Decagon wrote:
dr_devious wrote:
Decagon wrote:You just posted that, dumbass. Why do you rank Andrew Golota over Michael Grant?
Well Golota was talented but erratic, and his batterings of Riddick Bowe were more than Grant achieved in the whole of his sorry overrated career. I definitely wouldnt rank Grant in the top 100, and Golota if he made it would only get into the outer reaches.
Um, he didn't actually beat Riddick Bowe, remember?

He didnt get the wins, but he battered him in both fights

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 26 Apr 2007, 09:52

Ambling Alp wrote:No, Golota didn't win either fight, but that doesn't seem to matter very much to Pundit.
The Golota-Bowe fights show some glaring inconsistencies with Pundit's reasoning.
1. He sometimes gives way too much credit for a fighter who has a near big win.
Golota gets ranked #75 for the Bowe fights. Klitscho gets ranked #45 for giving a rusty, out of shape 37 year old Lewis trouble.
Galento gets in the top 100 for knocking down Joe Louis. (Later it was added that Galento beat Nova and the great Nathan Mann. also that the Galento-Baer fight was entertaining. The Galento-Max Baer fight is on Youtube. Galento looks awful)
Moore gets a ton of credit for a knockdown of Marciano and for supposedly winning after 4 rounds against Patterson (btw Moore wasn't winning that fight)

If you don't read properly what I write (or don't read it at all) what's the point of discussing. I do not have Moore in there for the Marciano knockdown, that's a fantasy of yours. But for the fact that he was the #1 challenger at heavyweight for many years and beat plentiful excellent heavyweights.

Btw, if you think Galento looked awful against MaxBaer I don't know what you were watching. He had Baer in all kinds of trouble in the early rounds before he ran out of gas. In terms of raw ability Galento was much higher than #95. It's his poor conditioning that prevented him from achieving more.

Sharkey get credit for leading Dempsey before being knocked out.

He gets credit for beating Dempsey from pillar to post before losing on a foul. Sorry, but this is just common sense. It was this very Dempsey "loss" established Sharkey as the most deserving challenger for Tunney.

It's very selective. Snipes didn't make the top 100 even though he decked Holmes (and beat Berbick)

See above. One punch doesn't get a fighter anywhere.

2. Pundit said earlier that he rates people mostly according to what they could do at their best, not on average. He does seem to do that with some fighters.
Yet he constantly rips Bowe for the Golota fights when Bowe was way below average.
Holyfield gets ripped for his below average performances as well.

I rate both Holyfield and Bowe for what they could do at their best. Bowe vs. Golota is a reason to rate Golota relatively highly, not a reason to mark Bowe down.

My main problem with Bowe is that he had really only one convincing fight. In view of this #27 is a pretty high rating.

Other inconsistencies include the reasoning why Page and James Smith didn't make it. They lost too many big fights? How about Valdes and Baker. They each lost almost every big fight they were ever in.

Valdes and Baker are in the 90-100 range, Page and Smith in the 100-120. These differences are minimal. I'd have little problem swapping them. Try a top 100 yourself -- you'll see it becomes difficult to be totally consistent once you are at #77...

I wanted to address something dempsey fire asked. He asked (besides Holyfield, Seldon and and a close win over Tubbs) what did Bowe do that should put him a head of Charles,Walcott,Sharkey and Baer?

Bowe beat the guys that he was supposed to. That has to be factored in. sure there was a drop off after Holyfield.If Bowe would have beaten Lewis or Tyson it would have been better. Still he did beat some other good fighters, and fairly easily. He beat Biggs,Cooper,Coetzer,Donald, and Hide.

None of them is even close to top 100, while the fighters ranked above him beat plentiful top 100 fighters. And yet Bowe is only a couple of ranks below them. If I think about it carefully, maybe I give Bowe too generous treatment.

Charles and Baer lost to some guys that they shouldn't have. Walcott and Sharkey lost to several guys they shouldn't have.

Have you bothered to do some research under what conditions Walcott fought when he lost these fights? Full-time job during day time, no training, often injured, brought in with no prearation? Did Bowe EVER fight under remotely similar conditions?

As I said earlier, ignoring circumstances leads necessarily to utterly misleading comparisons.

If Charles,Walcott, Sharkey, or Walcott would have fought Seldon,Tubbs,Biggs,Cooper,Coetzer,Donald, and Hide they all would have slipped up at least once.

This is naive nonsense. If they would have fought under the conditions of Bowe -- a pampered, carefully managed modern heavyweight -- they would most likely have won all these fights. And with great ease.

And none would have beaten Holyfield 2 out of 3. (not to mention that Bowe's loss to Holyfield was very close)

I would pick prime Charles over Holyfield. And Walcott and Sharkey at their best would have given Holfyield all he could handle. They were fast, agile, had good punching power in both hands and superb ring generalship. Only Baer was probably a bit too raw to give a fighter as polished as Holyfield major difficulties.

Charles beat a washed up Louis.

Noone said a word about Charles' win over Louis. Reply at least to the points that have been made, not to those where you think you know an answer, but that have nothing to do with what has been discussed.

Walcott fought a slipping Louis.

.... but still a formidable one.

Their best wins were actually against each other. Baer and Sharkey's best wins were against Schmeling. None of those wins matches Bowe beating Holyfield.

These achievemetns are at the very least very close to Bowe beating a Holfyield who was badly prepared in the first fight and sick in the third.

Plus and to repeat, in contrast to Bowe these guys have a lot more than one good fight to their record.

Bowe gets ripped for fighting relatvely weak competition. I am going to again ask a question that Bowe doubters never seem to want to answer: If Charles, Walcott,Sharkey and Baer fought Bowe's exact competition, would they gone 42-1 or better?

Yes. Under comparabale circumstances -- of course.

You know what, Bud? It's time that yo submit your own ratings, rather than getting wound up (and increasingly ill-tempered) over issues where your arguments won't sway someone who isn't convinced already.

Cheers,
P

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 26 Apr 2007, 09:56

Ambling Alp wrote:
I wanted to address something dempsey fire asked. He asked (besides Holyfield, Seldon and and a close win over Tubbs) what did Bowe do that should put him a head of Charles,Walcott,Sharkey and Baer?

Bowe beat the guys that he was supposed to. That has to be factored in. sure there was a drop off after Holyfield.If Bowe would have beaten Lewis or Tyson it would have been better. Still he did beat some other good fighters, and fairly easily. He beat Biggs,Cooper,Coetzer,Donald, and Hide. Rip them all that you want but at least Bowe beat all of them.
Charles and Baer lost to some guys that they shouldn't have. Walcott and Sharkey lost to several guys they shouldn't have. If Charles,Walcott, Sharkey, or Walcott would have fought Seldon,Tubbs,Biggs,Cooper,Coetzer,Donald, and Hide they all would have slipped up at least once. And none would have beaten Holyfield 2 out of 3. (not to mention that Bowe's loss to Holyfield was very close)

Charles beat a washed up Louis.Walcott fought a slipping Louis. Their best wins were actually against each other. Baer and Sharkey's best wins were against Schmeling. None of those wins matches Bowe beating Holyfield.

Bowe gets ripped for fighting relatvely weak competition. I am going to again ask a question that Bowe doubters never seem to want to answer: If Charles, Walcott,Sharkey and Baer fought Bowe's exact competition, would they gone 42-1 or better?

It's a tricky one. I agree that Bowe did what he had to. He really suffers because of the shallowness of his opposition at the time when he fought them. BUT he still won the fights. I don't think the opponents are so formidable that Charles, Walcott, Sharkey, etc... couldn't have gone 42-1 too (though Sharkey was inconsistent).

The Holyfield wins are stand out victories for him.

Friedie · Post by **Friedie** » 26 Apr 2007, 10:19

pound per pound wrote: 15) Max Schmeling - Based on one big win and a few Ko losses?

Schmeling had much more big wins besides the Louis Fight (Risko, Uzcudun, Sharkey, Stribling, Walker, Neusel, Hamas, Thomas, Heuser....)

...and K.o. losses ? okay there were two t.K.o. losses when Max was a Heavyweight; against Baer and Louis...there's no shame in that I guess.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 26 Apr 2007, 13:17

pundit wrote:Here is an honest attempt to come up with a reasonably consistent top 100 all-time list, where "all-time" starts with Corbett vs. Sullivan. Of course there are plentiful chances to disagree (I'm not always in agreement with myself and copuld spend several more hours rearranging the list). Comments are welcome.

I considered Vitali retired but Vlad, Rahman, Byrd, Ruiz active. On current achievements Vlad would probably enter the top 70. The other three would barely make the top 100.

Cheers,
P

---------------------------

Hororable mention (out of competition) : John L Sullivan

1. Muhammad Ali - Prime 1963-1967
2. Joe Louis - Prime 1935-1942
3. Jack Johnson - Prime 1906-1910
4. Larry Holmes -Prime 1978-1984
5. George Foreman - Prime 1970-1974
6. Sonny Liston - Prime 1958-1962
7. Lennox Lewis - Prime 1997-2001
8. Sam Langford - Prime 1909-1912
9. Joe Frazier- Prime 1967-1971
10. Gene Tunney - Prime 1924-1928

11. Rocky Marciano - Prime 1951-1954
12. Jack Dempsey - Prime 1918-1922
13. Mike Tyson - Prime 1986-1990
14. Ezzard Charles - Prime 1946-1950
15. Harry Wills - Prime 1916-1921
16. James Jeffries - Prime 1899-1904
17. Evander Holyfield - Prime 1996-1999
18. James Corbett - Prime 1889-1894
19. Max Schmeling - Prime 1929-1933
20. Jersey Joe Walcott - Prime 1946-1951

21. Floyd Patterson - Prime 1956-1962
22. Peter Jackson- Prime late 1880's
23. Jack Sharkey- Prime 1926-1930
24. Michael Spinks - prime 1985-87
25. Ken Norton - Prime 1973-1978
26. Max Baer - Prime 1932-1935
27. Riddick Bowe - Prime 1992-1995
28. Joe Jeanette - Prime 1908-1913
29. Jerry Quarry - Prime 1967-1973
30. Bob Fitzsimmons - Prime 1896-99

31. Archie Moore - Prime 1952-1955
32. Elmer Ray - Prime 1942-1947
33. Jimmy Young - Prime 1974-1977
34. Tim Witherspoon - Prime 1983-1986
35. Cleveland Williams - Prime 1958-1963
36. Sam McVea - Prime 1907-1911
37. Ron Lyle - Prime 1973-1976
38. Pinklon Thomas - Prime 1982-1985
39. George Godfrey - Prime 1925-1928
40. Mike Weaver - Prime 1979-1983

41. Billy Conn - Prime 1941/1942 (at HW)
42. Ernie Terrell - prime 1963-1967
43. Tom Sharkey - Prime 1896-1899
44. Earnie Shavers - prime 1976-79
45. Vitali Klitschko - Prime 2002-04
46. Lee Q Murray- Prime 1943-1947
47. Ingemar Johannsen - Prime 1958-1961
48. Jimmy Ellis - Prime 1967-1971
49. Eddie Machen - Prime 1957-1962
50. Primo Carnera - Prime 1932-1934

51. Tommy Loughran - prime 1929-33
52. Young Stribling - prime 1928-31
53. Zora Folley - prime 1956-65
54. Jim Braddock - prime 1934-37
55. Joe Choynski - prime 1892-96
56. Harry Greb - prime (at HW) 1919-22
57. Oscar Bonavena - prime 1966-69
58. Tommy Gibbons - prime 1919-23
59. Jimmy Bivins - prime 1942-46
60. Earnie Schaaf - prime 1930-32

61. David Tua - prime 1996-2000
62. Tony Tucker - prime 1987-92
63. Buddy Baer - prime 1937-41
64. Gerry Cooney - prime 1980-82
65. George Chuvalo - prime 1966-70
66. James Douglas - prime 1986-90
67. Donovan Ruddock - prime 1989-92
68. Billy Miske - prime 1917/18
69. Tommy Burns - prime 1906-1910
70. Paolino Uzcudun - prime 1927-30

71. Ray Mercer - prime 1990-96
72. Larry Gains - prime 1928-32
73. Ike Ibeabuchi – prime 1997-99
74. Trevor Berbick - prime 1980-86
75. Andrew Golota - prime 1995/96
76. Gerrie Coetzee - prime 1979-83
77. Michael Moorer - prime 1992-97
78. Peter Maher, prime 1896-99
79. Lou Nova, prime 1938-41
80. Harold Johnson, prime 1953-61

81. Bob Pastor, prime 1938-42
82. Kid Norfolk, prime 1917-22
83. Michael Dokes - prime 1980-83
84. Fred Fulton - prime 1917-1920
85. Tommy (Hurricane) Jackson - prime 1954-57
86. Denver Ed Martin - prime 1902-04
87. Frank Bruno - prime 1993-96
88. Jess Willard - prime 1915-1919
89. Clarence Henry - prime 1950-1953
90. Henry Cooper - prime 1958-63

91. Bob Baker - prime 1953-56
92. Johnny Risko - prime 1927-30
92. Arturo Godoy - prime 1937-40
93. Lee Oma - prime 1944-46
94. Nino Valdes - prime 1953-55
95. Tony Galento - prime 1936-39
96. Rex Layne - prime 1950-53
97. Karl Mildenberger - prime 1963-66
98. Charley Weinert - prime 1920-24
99. Gus Ruhlin - prime 1899-1902
100. Joe Bugner - prime 1970-1974

Just missed the cut: Joe Goddard (prime in part before Sullivan-Corbett), Marvin Hart, Bill Brennan, Willy Meehan, Luis Angel Firpo, Jack Renault, Tom Heeney, King Levinsky, Tommy Farr, Nathan Mann, Tami Mauriello, Joe Baksi, Lee Savold, Roland LaStarza, Harry Kid Matthews, Joe Erskine, Thad Spencer, Leotis Martin, Leon Spinks, Renaldo Snipes, Corrie Sanders

I AM TOTALLY GLAD THAT JOHN RUIZ IS NOT ON THIS LIST

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 26 Apr 2007, 13:56

elmersalsa wrote:
pundit wrote:Here is an honest attempt to come up with a reasonably consistent top 100 all-time list, where "all-time" starts with Corbett vs. Sullivan. Of course there are plentiful chances to disagree (I'm not always in agreement with myself and copuld spend several more hours rearranging the list). Comments are welcome.

I considered Vitali retired but Vlad, Rahman, Byrd, Ruiz active. On current achievements Vlad would probably enter the top 70. The other three would barely make the top 100.

Cheers,
P

---------------------------

Hororable mention (out of competition) : John L Sullivan

1. Muhammad Ali - Prime 1963-1967
2. Joe Louis - Prime 1935-1942
3. Jack Johnson - Prime 1906-1910
4. Larry Holmes -Prime 1978-1984
5. George Foreman - Prime 1970-1974
6. Sonny Liston - Prime 1958-1962
7. Lennox Lewis - Prime 1997-2001
8. Sam Langford - Prime 1909-1912
9. Joe Frazier- Prime 1967-1971
10. Gene Tunney - Prime 1924-1928

11. Rocky Marciano - Prime 1951-1954
12. Jack Dempsey - Prime 1918-1922
13. Mike Tyson - Prime 1986-1990
14. Ezzard Charles - Prime 1946-1950
15. Harry Wills - Prime 1916-1921
16. James Jeffries - Prime 1899-1904
17. Evander Holyfield - Prime 1996-1999
18. James Corbett - Prime 1889-1894
19. Max Schmeling - Prime 1929-1933
20. Jersey Joe Walcott - Prime 1946-1951

21. Floyd Patterson - Prime 1956-1962
22. Peter Jackson- Prime late 1880's
23. Jack Sharkey- Prime 1926-1930
24. Michael Spinks - prime 1985-87
25. Ken Norton - Prime 1973-1978
26. Max Baer - Prime 1932-1935
27. Riddick Bowe - Prime 1992-1995
28. Joe Jeanette - Prime 1908-1913
29. Jerry Quarry - Prime 1967-1973
30. Bob Fitzsimmons - Prime 1896-99

31. Archie Moore - Prime 1952-1955
32. Elmer Ray - Prime 1942-1947
33. Jimmy Young - Prime 1974-1977
34. Tim Witherspoon - Prime 1983-1986
35. Cleveland Williams - Prime 1958-1963
36. Sam McVea - Prime 1907-1911
37. Ron Lyle - Prime 1973-1976
38. Pinklon Thomas - Prime 1982-1985
39. George Godfrey - Prime 1925-1928
40. Mike Weaver - Prime 1979-1983

41. Billy Conn - Prime 1941/1942 (at HW)
42. Ernie Terrell - prime 1963-1967
43. Tom Sharkey - Prime 1896-1899
44. Earnie Shavers - prime 1976-79
45. Vitali Klitschko - Prime 2002-04
46. Lee Q Murray- Prime 1943-1947
47. Ingemar Johannsen - Prime 1958-1961
48. Jimmy Ellis - Prime 1967-1971
49. Eddie Machen - Prime 1957-1962
50. Primo Carnera - Prime 1932-1934

51. Tommy Loughran - prime 1929-33
52. Young Stribling - prime 1928-31
53. Zora Folley - prime 1956-65
54. Jim Braddock - prime 1934-37
55. Joe Choynski - prime 1892-96
56. Harry Greb - prime (at HW) 1919-22
57. Oscar Bonavena - prime 1966-69
58. Tommy Gibbons - prime 1919-23
59. Jimmy Bivins - prime 1942-46
60. Earnie Schaaf - prime 1930-32

61. David Tua - prime 1996-2000
62. Tony Tucker - prime 1987-92
63. Buddy Baer - prime 1937-41
64. Gerry Cooney - prime 1980-82
65. George Chuvalo - prime 1966-70
66. James Douglas - prime 1986-90
67. Donovan Ruddock - prime 1989-92
68. Billy Miske - prime 1917/18
69. Tommy Burns - prime 1906-1910
70. Paolino Uzcudun - prime 1927-30

71. Ray Mercer - prime 1990-96
72. Larry Gains - prime 1928-32
73. Ike Ibeabuchi – prime 1997-99
74. Trevor Berbick - prime 1980-86
75. Andrew Golota - prime 1995/96
76. Gerrie Coetzee - prime 1979-83
77. Michael Moorer - prime 1992-97
78. Peter Maher, prime 1896-99
79. Lou Nova, prime 1938-41
80. Harold Johnson, prime 1953-61

81. Bob Pastor, prime 1938-42
82. Kid Norfolk, prime 1917-22
83. Michael Dokes - prime 1980-83
84. Fred Fulton - prime 1917-1920
85. Tommy (Hurricane) Jackson - prime 1954-57
86. Denver Ed Martin - prime 1902-04
87. Frank Bruno - prime 1993-96
88. Jess Willard - prime 1915-1919
89. Clarence Henry - prime 1950-1953
90. Henry Cooper - prime 1958-63

91. Bob Baker - prime 1953-56
92. Johnny Risko - prime 1927-30
92. Arturo Godoy - prime 1937-40
93. Lee Oma - prime 1944-46
94. Nino Valdes - prime 1953-55
95. Tony Galento - prime 1936-39
96. Rex Layne - prime 1950-53
97. Karl Mildenberger - prime 1963-66
98. Charley Weinert - prime 1920-24
99. Gus Ruhlin - prime 1899-1902
100. Joe Bugner - prime 1970-1974

Just missed the cut: Joe Goddard (prime in part before Sullivan-Corbett), Marvin Hart, Bill Brennan, Willy Meehan, Luis Angel Firpo, Jack Renault, Tom Heeney, King Levinsky, Tommy Farr, Nathan Mann, Tami Mauriello, Joe Baksi, Lee Savold, Roland LaStarza, Harry Kid Matthews, Joe Erskine, Thad Spencer, Leotis Martin, Leon Spinks, Renaldo Snipes, Corrie Sanders

I AM TOTALLY GLAD THAT JOHN RUIZ IS NOT ON THIS LIST

He considered Ruiz active.. or else he woulda made bottom of the 100.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 Apr 2007, 14:51

Ambling Alp wrote:No, Golota didn't win either fight, but that doesn't seem to matter very much to Pundit.
The Golota-Bowe fights show some glaring inconsistencies with Pundit's reasoning.
1. He sometimes gives way too much credit for a fighter who has a near big win.
Golota gets ranked #75 for the Bowe fights. Klitscho gets ranked #45 for giving a rusty, out of shape 37 year old Lewis trouble.
Galento gets in the top 100 for knocking down Joe Louis. (Later it was added that Galento beat Nova and the great Nathan Mann. also that the Galento-Baer fight was entertaining. The Galento-Max Baer fight is on Youtube. Galento looks awful)
Moore gets a ton of credit for a knockdown of Marciano and for supposedly winning after 4 rounds against Patterson (btw Moore wasn't winning that fight)
Sharkey get credit for leading Dempsey before being knocked out.

It's very selective. Snipes didn't make the top 100 even though he decked Holmes (and beat Berbick)
John Tate does make it even though he was winning for 14 rounds against top 40 Mike Weaver. (and beat Coetzee)
Firpo doesn't make even though he almost beat Dempsey.

2. Pundit said earlier that he rates people mostly according to what they could do at their best, not on average. He does seem to do that with some fighters.
Yet he constantly rips Bowe for the Golota fights when Bowe was way below average.
Holyfield gets ripped for his below average performances as well.

Other inconsistencies include the reasoning why Page and James Smith didn't make it. They lost too many big fights? How about Valdes and Baker. They each lost almost every big fight they were ever in.

I wanted to address something dempsey fire asked. He asked (besides Holyfield, Seldon and and a close win over Tubbs) what did Bowe do that should put him a head of Charles,Walcott,Sharkey and Baer?

Bowe beat the guys that he was supposed to. That has to be factored in. sure there was a drop off after Holyfield.If Bowe would have beaten Lewis or Tyson it would have been better. Still he did beat some other good fighters, and fairly easily. He beat Biggs,Cooper,Coetzer,Donald, and Hide. Rip them all that you want but at least Bowe beat all of them.
Charles and Baer lost to some guys that they shouldn't have. Walcott and Sharkey lost to several guys they shouldn't have. If Charles,Walcott, Sharkey, or Walcott would have fought Seldon,Tubbs,Biggs,Cooper,Coetzer,Donald, and Hide they all would have slipped up at least once. And none would have beaten Holyfield 2 out of 3. (not to mention that Bowe's loss to Holyfield was very close)

Charles beat a washed up Louis.Walcott fought a slipping Louis. Their best wins were actually against each other. Baer and Sharkey's best wins were against Schmeling. None of those wins matches Bowe beating Holyfield.

Bowe gets ripped for fighting relatvely weak competition. I am going to again ask a question that Bowe doubters never seem to want to answer: If Charles, Walcott,Sharkey and Baer fought Bowe's exact competition, would they gone 42-1 or better?

For that matter, how many fighters in history would have gone 42-1 or better? A few. Certainly not 26. There is no way that Bowe is only the #27 heavyweight of all time.

Umm . . . . YES!

"the guys who they were supposed to beat" . . . .?? how can you rank someone based on that?
Sharkey, Walcott, Charles etc. wern't going through their careers essentially padding their records with a bunch of never-weres and nobodies.

Who did Bowe beat besides Evander who beats one of those 4? Larry "I fight like I'm always the sparring partner" Donald . . Herbie "chin of a Lightweight" Hide . . . .Bruce "Chin of a Batamweight" Seldon?? . . . Jorge "How the hell did I beat Bowe and Lennox in the amateurs being so clumsy and slow" Luis Gonzales??

Sharkey of course could find a way to lose against vastly inferior competetion, but the other 3, with the training camp preparation and time before fights that Bowe enjoyed (he wasn't fighting during the Great Depression), don't lose to any of those guys . . . .

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 26 Apr 2007, 16:37

In response to Pundits questions/comments for me:
I asked you let me know if Moore's kncokdown wasn't a major reason why you had Moore ranked so high. You didn't reply so I thought that it was.

I can't believe you are impressed with Galento against Baer. Most of the time he seems to be scared for his life. He was constantly holding. When he did punch, his punches were even more wild and telegraphed than Baer's.

No Sharkey didn't lose to Dempsey by a foul. It was by knockout. His own stupidity cost him the fight. (btw, when Bowe was in a similar situation against Golota, he wasn't so stupid. And he won.)
No the loss to Dempsey didn't establish Sharkey as the #1 contender to Tunney. He never was the top contender during the time Tunney was champion. After losing to Dempsey, Dempsey was the top contneder. In Sharkey's next fight, he could only get a draw with Heeney. His next figh after that he lost to Risko.

My point about Snipes, and Firpo, and Tate (there are others that could be mentioned) is that they came close to big wins but don't make your list. Other guys are on your list primarily because of a near big win. Rahman and McCall didn't make your list and they actaully had a big win. f you don't want to count Snipes fine.

Bowe only had one convincing fight? Have you actually seen their first two fights? they are tow of the best heavyweight fights of all time. In the first, Bowe was a little better, and in the 2nd, Holyfield was slightly better.
Outside of Golota, have you actually seen some of Bowes other fights?

I find it odd that Charles and Walcott are now regarded so highly given that you have criticized Marciano so much in the past.

Would Walcott, Charles,Sharkey and Baer have gone 42-1 against Bowe's competition?
I know all about Walcott early career losses. Lets give Walcott the benefit of the doubt and assume that all of guys that beat him always had ideal circumstances themselves.
What about the loss to Joey Maxim? He isn't in your top 100. What about his loss to Rex Layne ? He is barely in your top 100. I could imagine what would be said if Bowe lost to someone that is barely in the top 100 and to someone else who isn't.

Ezzard Charles-Lost to Layne,Valdes,and Johnson. Layne and Valdes are barely in your top 100. Would they still be if Charles himself wouldn't have lost to them?

Baer lost to Les Kennedy and to Willie Davies. A couple of legends. Also lost to Tommy Farr who isn't in your top 100. Not to mention blowing the title to Braddock.

Jack Sharkey-lost to Tony Schucco,King Levinsky,Bud Gorman,Jim Malony, and had draws with Walker and Heeney. None of these guys are in your top 100.

You would pick a prime Charles over Holyfield? If Holyfield is anywhere close to his best, this isn't going to happen. Sharkey,Baer, or Walcott aren't going to either. I have never undertood your view of Holyfield. I have never heard anyone only rate him #17.

If Charles, Walcott, Sharkey, or Baer had to fight Holyfield 3 times, Biggs,Donald, Tubbs,Hide,Cooper, Seldon, and the rest of Bowes opponents they would all lose at least 4 times.
Biggs and Donald had very good boxing skills. Hide, Seldon,and Cooper were hard punchers. Seldon even picked up a paper title. Tubbs was the WBA champion and good fighter and should have made this list. An off night, and they could beat you. No they weren't legends (even though donald thinks he is

) but they weren't guys that would roll over either. They had ability.

Charles, Walcott,Sharkey,and Baer weren't nearly as consistent as Bowe.

Sorry if it seems that I am nitpicking with Charles, Walcott,Sharkey, and Baer. However, with guys this good, you have to.

I'm sorry if you think my comments seem "ill-tempered". They aren't meant to be.

You asked for my Top 100, so here it is. In many cases, they are far different form yours, partially because I usually count losses and bad performances against a fighter. (Assuming a fighter is close to his prime, and there isn't a situation such as an awful decison. If two fighters are extremely close and one had a longer prime, the fighter with the longer prime gets the edge)

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Foreman
4. Johnson
5. Frazier
6. Holmes
7. Marciano
8. Dempsey
9. Holyfield
10. Lewis
11. Liston
12. Tyson
13. Jeffries
14. Bowe
15. Tunney
16. Langford
17. Wills
18. Norton
19. Patterson
20. Jeannette
21. McVey
22. Charles
23. Walcott
24. Schmeling
25. Fitzsimmons
26. Corbett
27. M. Baer
28. Jack Sharkey
29. M. Spinks
30. Sullivan
31. P. Jackson
32. Johannson
33. Ellis
34. Quarry
35. Terrell
36. Folley
37. Machen
38. Young
39. Lyle
40. T. Sharkey
41. Douglas
42. Moorer
43. Mercer
44. Burns
45. Witherspoon
46. Tucker
47. Tubbs
48. J. Smith
49. Berbick
50. Thomas
51. Dokes
52. Page
53. Weaver
54. Bruno
55. Tate
56. Coetzee
57. Cleveland Williams
58. McCall
59. Ruddock
60. Ray
61. Rahman
62. Braddock
63. Bonavena
64. Schaaf
65. Shavers
66. Martin
67. Choynski
68. Bugner
69. Godfrey
70. Chuvalo
71. Gains
72. Cooney
73. W. Klitschko
74. Carnera
75. Byrd
76. Loughran
77. Snipes
78. Uzcudun
79. V. Klitschko
80. Moore
81. B. Baer
82. Hart
83. Fulton
84. Miske
85. H. Johnson
86. La Starza
87. Layne
88. Stribling
89. Mildenberger
90. Greb
91. Willard
92. Firpo
93. Carl Williams
94. L. Spinks
95. Morris
96. G. smith
97. Farr
98. Ruhlin
99. Maher
100. Goddard

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 26 Apr 2007, 17:43

Ambling Alp wrote:In response to Pundits questions/comments for me:
I asked you let me know if Moore's kncokdown wasn't a major reason why you had Moore ranked so high. You didn't reply so I thought that it was.

You must have overlooked it. This is what I wrote in the response before:

-----------------

(I'm guess a big part of why Moore is ranked so high is for the knockdown of Marciano. If not let me know.)

Harold Johnson, Clarency Henry, Bob Baker, Nino Valdes, Jimmy Bivins -- all top 100 heavyweights, and all found their master in Archie. Archie was also winning against Patterson until the KO, btw.

-----------------

I can't believe you are impressed with Galento against Baer. Most of the time he seems to be scared for his life. He was constantly holding. When he did punch, his punches were even more wild and telegraphed than Baer's.

We really seem to watch different fights. Galento had a way to feint and then land a hook that you didn't know where it would go until it landed. In the early rounds he scored again and again with this against Baer.

No Sharkey didn't lose to Dempsey by a foul. It was by knockout. His own stupidity cost him the fight. (btw, when Bowe was in a similar situation against Golota, he wasn't so stupid. And he won.)

Fine. You know what I mean. Sharkey beat Dempsey from pillar to post until the less-then-clean event that ended the fight.

No the loss to Dempsey didn't establish Sharkey as the #1 contender to Tunney. He never was the top contender during the time Tunney was champion. After losing to Dempsey, Dempsey was the top contneder. In Sharkey's next fight, he could only get a draw with Heeney. His next figh after that he lost to Risko.

In public perception, yes. Noone considered Dempsey the most dangerous challenger for Tunney after Dempsey vs. Sharkey.

My point about Snipes, and Firpo, and Tate (there are others that could be mentioned) is that they came close to big wins but don't make your list. Other guys are on your list primarily because of a near big win. Rahman and McCall didn't make your list and they actaully had a big win. f you don't want to count Snipes fine.

Rahman and McCall had lucky punch wins. That doesn't do much to my rankings.

Bowe only had one convincing fight? Have you actually seen their first two fights? they are tow of the best heavyweight fights of all time. In the first, Bowe was a little better, and in the 2nd, Holyfield was slightly better.

True, Bowe's loss to Holyfield was also a good fight. Probably the second best on Bowe's record.

Outside of Golota, have you actually seen some of Bowes other fights?

As you say, he really had to win those because the opposition was mediocre at best. Beating Herbie Hide or Larry Donald alone doesn't get someone high in the ATG ratings.

I find it odd that Charles and Walcott are now regarded so highly given that you have criticized Marciano so much in the past.

They were old and past their prime when they fought Marciano. At least Charles. This is why these wins don't get Marciano in the top 5 or soemthing in my book. Too many question marks. Plus, Walcott was beating Marciano handily until Susie Q struck. But Marciano is of course still a top notch ATG heavyweight. #11 on my list.

Would Walcott, Charles,Sharkey and Baer have gone 42-1 against Bowe's competition?
I know all about Walcott early career losses. Lets give Walcott the benefit of the doubt and assume that all of guys that beat him always had ideal circumstances themselves.
What about the loss to Joey Maxim? He isn't in your top 100.

Because I had put down him as a light-heavyweight. But if I include Greb or Norfolk I arguably should include Maxim too. Top 70.

Btw, Walcott avenged this loss to Maxim. Twice.

What about his loss to Rex Layne ? He is barely in your top 100. I could imagine what would be said if Bowe lost to someone that is barely in the top 100 and to someone else who isn't.

How do we know, as Bowe never fought someone remotely in the top 100 except Holyfield and Golota? Btw, getting hit from pillar to post twice by Golota is at least as bad as losing a close decision to Layne, who at the time was a top contender.

Ezzard Charles-Lost to Layne,Valdes,and Johnson. Layne and Valdes are barely in your top 100. Would they still be if Charles himself wouldn't have lost to them?

Yes, they would be. And all these losses came year after Charles' prime.

Baer lost to Les Kennedy and to Willie Davies. A couple of legends. Also lost to Tommy Farr who isn't in your top 100. Not to mention blowing the title to Braddock.

You make too much of losses, and as a consequence too much of the pampered records of modern fighters that consist mostly of medicore opposition. This is not a good yardstick for the oldtimers.

We all know (or should know) that Baer didn't take boxing seriously until 1931 or so when Dempsey took him under his wings. We know that he came in poorly prepared against Braddock and gave away the early rounds because he thought he could knock Braddock out any time. And the Davies "loss" was an exhibition fight that shouldn't be on Maxies' record in the first place.

But Baer at his best was a force of nature.

Jack Sharkey-lost to Tony Schucco,King Levinsky,Bud Gorman,Jim Malony, and had draws with Walker and Heeney. None of these guys are in your top 100.

Well copied form boxrec (sorry, couldn't surpress this one). So what? Again, what matters (at least to me) is what fighters could do at their best. Sharkey at his best was awesome.

You would pick a prime Charles over Holyfield? If Holyfield is anywhere close to his best, this isn't going to happen. Sharkey,Baer, or Walcott aren't going to either. I have never undertood your view of Holyfield. I have never heard anyone only rate him #17.

Disagree, your honor. Charles at his best could have beaten almost anyone. Actually, I've been considering putting him as high as #10 or 11. Prime Charles would arguably have beaten Marciano; at least this is Archie Moore's view (who should know).

If Charles, Walcott, Sharkey, or Baer had to fight Holyfield 3 times, Biggs,Donald, Tubbs,Hide,Cooper, Seldon, and the rest of Bowes opponents they would all lose at least 4 times.

Well if you really think so.... I don't. Not at all.

Biggs and Donald had very good boxing skills. Hide, Seldon,and Cooper were hard punchers. Seldon even picked up a paper title.

Alp are you serious? Herbie Hide and Larry Donald qualify Bowe for a higher ATG ranking than #27??

If this is so, I surely must have Vitali Klitschko far too low. After all, he beat Hide and Donald too (and faster than Bowe)

Tubbs was the WBA champion and good fighter and should have made this list. An off night, and they could beat you.

The 1985 Tubbs, probably. The 1991 Tubbs Bowe fought -- no.

Charles, Walcott,Sharkey,and Baer weren't nearly as consistent as Bowe.

Sorry if it seems that I am nitpicking with Charles, Walcott,Sharkey, and Baer. However, with guys this good, you have to.

Nothing wrong with nitpicking, but with your criteria -- at least this is what it seems to me.

I'm sorry if you think my comments seem "ill-tempered". They aren't meant to be.

All right bud, this round was much better anyway.

You asked for my Top 100, so here it is. In many cases, they are far different form yours, partially because I usually count losses and bad performances against a fighter. (Assuming a fighter is close to his prime, and there isn't a situation such as an awful decison. If two fighters are extremely close and one had a longer prime, the fighter with the longer prime gets the edge)

I'll look at your list later. Thanks, bud.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 26 Apr 2007, 18:03

Some first reactions.
V: too high
^: too low.
Double: much too high/low.

I also write some coms, however often you know what I think, in this case I did not repeat.

-------------

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Foreman
4. Johnson
5. Frazier V
6. Holmes
7. Marciano V
8. Dempsey V
9. Holyfield V
10. Lewis
11. Liston
12. Tyson
13. Jeffries
14. Bowe VV
15. Tunney ^
16. Langford ^
17. Wills
18. Norton
19. Patterson
20. Jeannette
21. McVey V
22. Charles ^^
23. Walcott ^
24. Schmeling ^
25. Fitzsimmons (Corbett was post-prime when he lost to Fitz. I would definitely swap them)
26. Corbett ^
27. M. Baer
28. Jack Sharkey ^
29. M. Spinks (here the two of us agree against the rest of the world)
30. Sullivan (Sullivan was harldy a boxer by modern standards)
31. P. Jackson ^^ (you put the best black heavyweight -- and quite possibly best heavyweight -- of the 1880s/90s ten ranks below the fourth-best of the 1900s/1910s)
32. Johannson
33. Ellis V
34. Quarry
35. Terrell
36. Folley
37. Machen
38. Young
39. Lyle
40. T. Sharkey
41. Douglas V (one-fight wonder against a poor Tyson)
42. Moorer V
43. Mercer
44. Burns
45. Witherspoon
46. Tucker
47. Tubbs (bit high, but I take your point that he should be in)
48. J. Smith VV
49. Berbick
50. Thomas ^
51. Dokes
52. Page VV
53. Weaver ^ (boy you really clustered them)
54. Bruno V
55. Tate V
56. Coetzee
57. Cleveland Williams ^
58. McCall VV
59. Ruddock
60. Ray ^ (strange that you appreciate the 1900s/10s black heavyweights so much but the 1940 ones so little)
61. Rahman VV (what for?)
62. Braddock
63. Bonavena
64. Schaaf
65. Shavers
66. Martin (Denver Ed?)
67. Choynski ^
68. Bugner
69. Godfrey ^
70. Chuvalo
71. Gains
72. Cooney
73. W. Klitschko
74. Carnera
75. Byrd V
76. Loughran ^
77. Snipes
78. Uzcudun
79. V. Klitschko ^ (clearly above Byrd. Also above his brother)
80. Moore ^^ (and Patterson at 19? Very harsh)
81. B. Baer
82. Hart
83. Fulton
84. Miske
85. H. Johnson
86. La Starza
87. Layne
88. Stribling ^
89. Mildenberger
90. Greb ^^ (Greb was a terror for the 1920s heavyweights. Even Dempsey got beaten up in sparring by Greb)
91. Willard (again the two of us agree on what seems to be a minority view)
92. Firpo
93. Carl Williams
94. L. Spinks V
95. Morris
96. G(unboat). Smith
97. Farr
98. Ruhlin
99. Maher
100. Goddard

Now you are too harsh on the 50s challengers -- while all the 80s guys make your top 60. If there would have been alphabet titles in the 50s Layne, Baker, Henry, Valdes, Sattlerfield etc. would have carried belts as well. The 30s fighters except Joe Louis also get little love from you. An obvoius miss is Tommy Gibbons.

MEISINGER · Post by **MEISINGER** » 26 Apr 2007, 18:23

Ambling Alp wrote:In response to Pundits questions/comments for me:
I asked you let me know if Moore's kncokdown wasn't a major reason why you had Moore ranked so high. You didn't reply so I thought that it was.

I can't believe you are impressed with Galento against Baer. Most of the time he seems to be scared for his life. He was constantly holding. When he did punch, his punches were even more wild and telegraphed than Baer's.

No Sharkey didn't lose to Dempsey by a foul. It was by knockout. His own stupidity cost him the fight. (btw, when Bowe was in a similar situation against Golota, he wasn't so stupid. And he won.)
No the loss to Dempsey didn't establish Sharkey as the #1 contender to Tunney. He never was the top contender during the time Tunney was champion. After losing to Dempsey, Dempsey was the top contneder. In Sharkey's next fight, he could only get a draw with Heeney. His next figh after that he lost to Risko.

My point about Snipes, and Firpo, and Tate (there are others that could be mentioned) is that they came close to big wins but don't make your list. Other guys are on your list primarily because of a near big win. Rahman and McCall didn't make your list and they actaully had a big win. f you don't want to count Snipes fine.

Bowe only had one convincing fight? Have you actually seen their first two fights? they are tow of the best heavyweight fights of all time. In the first, Bowe was a little better, and in the 2nd, Holyfield was slightly better.
Outside of Golota, have you actually seen some of Bowes other fights?

I find it odd that Charles and Walcott are now regarded so highly given that you have criticized Marciano so much in the past.

Would Walcott, Charles,Sharkey and Baer have gone 42-1 against Bowe's competition?
I know all about Walcott early career losses. Lets give Walcott the benefit of the doubt and assume that all of guys that beat him always had ideal circumstances themselves.
What about the loss to Joey Maxim? He isn't in your top 100. What about his loss to Rex Layne ? He is barely in your top 100. I could imagine what would be said if Bowe lost to someone that is barely in the top 100 and to someone else who isn't.

Ezzard Charles-Lost to Layne,Valdes,and Johnson. Layne and Valdes are barely in your top 100. Would they still be if Charles himself wouldn't have lost to them?

Baer lost to Les Kennedy and to Willie Davies. A couple of legends. Also lost to Tommy Farr who isn't in your top 100. Not to mention blowing the title to Braddock.

Jack Sharkey-lost to Tony Schucco,King Levinsky,Bud Gorman,Jim Malony, and had draws with Walker and Heeney. None of these guys are in your top 100.

You would pick a prime Charles over Holyfield? If Holyfield is anywhere close to his best, this isn't going to happen. Sharkey,Baer, or Walcott aren't going to either. I have never undertood your view of Holyfield. I have never heard anyone only rate him #17.

If Charles, Walcott, Sharkey, or Baer had to fight Holyfield 3 times, Biggs,Donald, Tubbs,Hide,Cooper, Seldon, and the rest of Bowes opponents they would all lose at least 4 times.
Biggs and Donald had very good boxing skills. Hide, Seldon,and Cooper were hard punchers. Seldon even picked up a paper title. Tubbs was the WBA champion and good fighter and should have made this list. An off night, and they could beat you. No they weren't legends (even though donald thinks he is ) but they weren't guys that would roll over either. They had ability.

Charles, Walcott,Sharkey,and Baer weren't nearly as consistent as Bowe.

Sorry if it seems that I am nitpicking with Charles, Walcott,Sharkey, and Baer. However, with guys this good, you have to.

I'm sorry if you think my comments seem "ill-tempered". They aren't meant to be.

You asked for my Top 100, so here it is. In many cases, they are far different form yours, partially because I usually count losses and bad performances against a fighter. (Assuming a fighter is close to his prime, and there isn't a situation such as an awful decison. If two fighters are extremely close and one had a longer prime, the fighter with the longer prime gets the edge)

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Foreman
4. Johnson
5. Frazier
6. Holmes
7. Marciano
8. Dempsey
9. Holyfield
10. Lewis
11. Liston
12. Tyson
13. Jeffries
14. Bowe
15. Tunney
16. Langford
17. Wills
18. Norton
19. Patterson
20. Jeannette
21. McVey
22. Charles
23. Walcott
24. Schmeling
25. Fitzsimmons
26. Corbett
27. M. Baer
28. Jack Sharkey
29. M. Spinks
30. Sullivan
31. P. Jackson
32. Johannson
33. Ellis
34. Quarry
35. Terrell
36. Folley
37. Machen
38. Young
39. Lyle
40. T. Sharkey
41. Douglas
42. Moorer
43. Mercer
44. Burns
45. Witherspoon
46. Tucker
47. Tubbs
48. J. Smith
49. Berbick
50. Thomas
51. Dokes
52. Page
53. Weaver
54. Bruno
55. Tate
56. Coetzee
57. Cleveland Williams
58. McCall
59. Ruddock
60. Ray
61. Rahman
62. Braddock
63. Bonavena
64. Schaaf
65. Shavers
66. Martin
67. Choynski
68. Bugner
69. Godfrey
70. Chuvalo
71. Gains
72. Cooney
73. W. Klitschko
74. Carnera
75. Byrd
76. Loughran
77. Snipes
78. Uzcudun
79. V. Klitschko
80. Moore
81. B. Baer
82. Hart
83. Fulton
84. Miske
85. H. Johnson
86. La Starza
87. Layne
88. Stribling
89. Mildenberger
90. Greb
91. Willard
92. Firpo
93. Carl Williams
94. L. Spinks
95. Morris
96. G. smith
97. Farr
98. Ruhlin
99. Maher
100. Goddard

leon spinks?wtf?
carl williams?
mercer?

i am at a loss.i can not figure out how alot of these guys are rated in the top 100.
we are looking at the best 100 from roughly 100 years.how is leon spinks or carl williams considered one of the best of the last 100 years?

just taking a quick glance at ratings from 1940 to present i count over
750 different fighters in a given top 10 each month for 67 years
i can not see leon or carl as top 100 looking at just those other names.
sorry

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 Apr 2007, 18:35

Ambling Alp wrote:In response to Pundits questions/comments for me:
I asked you let me know if Moore's kncokdown wasn't a major reason why you had Moore ranked so high. You didn't reply so I thought that it was.

I can't believe you are impressed with Galento against Baer. Most of the time he seems to be scared for his life. He was constantly holding. When he did punch, his punches were even more wild and telegraphed than Baer's.

No Sharkey didn't lose to Dempsey by a foul. It was by knockout. His own stupidity cost him the fight. (btw, when Bowe was in a similar situation against Golota, he wasn't so stupid. And he won.)
No the loss to Dempsey didn't establish Sharkey as the #1 contender to Tunney. He never was the top contender during the time Tunney was champion. After losing to Dempsey, Dempsey was the top contneder. In Sharkey's next fight, he could only get a draw with Heeney. His next figh after that he lost to Risko.

My point about Snipes, and Firpo, and Tate (there are others that could be mentioned) is that they came close to big wins but don't make your list. Other guys are on your list primarily because of a near big win. Rahman and McCall didn't make your list and they actaully had a big win. f you don't want to count Snipes fine.

Bowe only had one convincing fight? Have you actually seen their first two fights? they are tow of the best heavyweight fights of all time. In the first, Bowe was a little better, and in the 2nd, Holyfield was slightly better.
Outside of Golota, have you actually seen some of Bowes other fights?

I find it odd that Charles and Walcott are now regarded so highly given that you have criticized Marciano so much in the past.

Would Walcott, Charles,Sharkey and Baer have gone 42-1 against Bowe's competition?
I know all about Walcott early career losses. Lets give Walcott the benefit of the doubt and assume that all of guys that beat him always had ideal circumstances themselves.
What about the loss to Joey Maxim? He isn't in your top 100. What about his loss to Rex Layne ? He is barely in your top 100. I could imagine what would be said if Bowe lost to someone that is barely in the top 100 and to someone else who isn't.

Ezzard Charles-Lost to Layne,Valdes,and Johnson. Layne and Valdes are barely in your top 100. Would they still be if Charles himself wouldn't have lost to them?

Baer lost to Les Kennedy and to Willie Davies. A couple of legends. Also lost to Tommy Farr who isn't in your top 100. Not to mention blowing the title to Braddock.

Jack Sharkey-lost to Tony Schucco,King Levinsky,Bud Gorman,Jim Malony, and had draws with Walker and Heeney. None of these guys are in your top 100.

You would pick a prime Charles over Holyfield? If Holyfield is anywhere close to his best, this isn't going to happen. Sharkey,Baer, or Walcott aren't going to either. I have never undertood your view of Holyfield. I have never heard anyone only rate him #17.

If Charles, Walcott, Sharkey, or Baer had to fight Holyfield 3 times, Biggs,Donald, Tubbs,Hide,Cooper, Seldon, and the rest of Bowes opponents they would all lose at least 4 times.
Biggs and Donald had very good boxing skills. Hide, Seldon,and Cooper were hard punchers. Seldon even picked up a paper title. Tubbs was the WBA champion and good fighter and should have made this list. An off night, and they could beat you. No they weren't legends (even though donald thinks he is ) but they weren't guys that would roll over either. They had ability.

Charles, Walcott,Sharkey,and Baer weren't nearly as consistent as Bowe.

Sorry if it seems that I am nitpicking with Charles, Walcott,Sharkey, and Baer. However, with guys this good, you have to.

I'm sorry if you think my comments seem "ill-tempered". They aren't meant to be.

You asked for my Top 100, so here it is. In many cases, they are far different form yours, partially because I usually count losses and bad performances against a fighter. (Assuming a fighter is close to his prime, and there isn't a situation such as an awful decison. If two fighters are extremely close and one had a longer prime, the fighter with the longer prime gets the edge)

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Foreman
4. Johnson
5. Frazier
6. Holmes
7. Marciano
8. Dempsey
9. Holyfield
10. Lewis
11. Liston
12. Tyson
13. Jeffries
14. Bowe
15. Tunney
16. Langford
17. Wills
18. Norton
19. Patterson
20. Jeannette
21. McVey
22. Charles
23. Walcott
24. Schmeling
25. Fitzsimmons
26. Corbett
27. M. Baer
28. Jack Sharkey
29. M. Spinks
30. Sullivan
31. P. Jackson
32. Johannson
33. Ellis
34. Quarry
35. Terrell
36. Folley
37. Machen
38. Young
39. Lyle
40. T. Sharkey
41. Douglas
42. Moorer
43. Mercer
44. Burns
45. Witherspoon
46. Tucker
47. Tubbs
48. J. Smith
49. Berbick
50. Thomas
51. Dokes
52. Page
53. Weaver
54. Bruno
55. Tate
56. Coetzee
57. Cleveland Williams
58. McCall
59. Ruddock
60. Ray
61. Rahman
62. Braddock
63. Bonavena
64. Schaaf
65. Shavers
66. Martin
67. Choynski
68. Bugner
69. Godfrey
70. Chuvalo
71. Gains
72. Cooney
73. W. Klitschko
74. Carnera
75. Byrd
76. Loughran
77. Snipes
78. Uzcudun
79. V. Klitschko
80. Moore
81. B. Baer
82. Hart
83. Fulton
84. Miske
85. H. Johnson
86. La Starza
87. Layne
88. Stribling
89. Mildenberger
90. Greb
91. Willard
92. Firpo
93. Carl Williams
94. L. Spinks
95. Morris
96. G. smith
97. Farr
98. Ruhlin
99. Maher
100. Goddard

You seem to be dismissing the likes of Schucco, Kennedy, Levinsky, Maloney etc. a fair deal.

How do you know they wern't better than Bruce Seldon and Herbie Hide? B/c they didn't pad up a nice looking 20-0 record before they fought for the title?

I have no doubt Nino Valdez and Harold Johnson were far superior to anyone Bowe fought besides Holyfield. Maybe I'd rate Layne as a Bert Cooper without the cocaine addiction (and that's probably not giving Layne enough credit)

Top 100 heavyweights all time

picks

Re: picks

Re: Top 100 heavyweights all time

Re: Top 100 heavyweights all time

!!