What do you think of my all-time heavyweight by decade?

tgchungmj · Post by **tgchungmj** » 14 Jun 2007, 08:26

Below is my all-time heavyweight by decade list.

I made this in the form of table using the spreadsheet of Microsoft excel but I couldn't list up that in table form. Some are omitted in the process of being listed up.

1890 Jim Corbett 83, Peter Jackson 82, Bob Fitzsimmons 80
1900 Jack Johnson 93, Jim Jeffries 86, Sam Langford 84
1910 Sam Langford 88, Harry Wills 85, Jack Johnson 85
1920 Jack Dempsey 92, Gene Tunny 90, Harry Wills 84
1930 Joe Louis 95, Max Schmeling 90, Primo Carnera 88
1940 Joe Louis 98, Ezzard Charles 90, Jersey Joe Walcott 89
1950 Rocky Marciano 93, Sonny Liston 95, Floyd Patterson 86
1960 Muhammad Ali 99, Sonny Liston 94, Floyd Patterson 86
1970 Muhammad Ali 96, George Foreman 95, Joe Frazier 94
1980 Larry Holmes 97, Mike Tyson 96, Michael Spinks 87
1990 Lennox Lewis 96, Riddick Bowe 93, Evander Holyfield 92
2000 Lennox Lewis 95, Vitali Klitschko 89, Vladimir Klitschko 88

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 14 Jun 2007, 08:45

tgchungmj wrote:Below is my all-time heavyweight by decade list.

I made this in the form of table using the spreadsheet of Microsoft excel but I couldn't list up that in table form. Some are omitted in the process of being listed up.

1890 Jim Corbett 83, Peter Jackson 82, Bob Fitzsimmons 80
1900 Jack Johnson 93, Jim Jeffries 86, Sam Langford 84
1910 Sam Langford 88, Harry Wills 85, Jack Johnson 85
1920 Jack Dempsey 92, Gene Tunny 90, Harry Wills 84
1930 Joe Louis 95, Max Schmeling 90, Primo Carnera 88
1940 Joe Louis 98, Ezzard Charles 90, Jersey Joe Walcott 89
1950 Rocky Marciano 93, Sonny Liston 95, Floyd Patterson 86
1960 Muhammad Ali 99, Sonny Liston 94, Floyd Patterson 86
1970 Muhammad Ali 96, George Foreman 95, Joe Frazier 94
1980 Larry Holmes 97, Mike Tyson 96, Michael Spinks 87
1990 Lennox Lewis 96, Riddick Bowe 93, Evander Holyfield 92
2000 Lennox Lewis 95, Vitali Klitschko 89, Vladimir Klitschko 88

In 1950 (do you mean 1950s) Liston has more points than marciano but is listed second. Interesting work though. What is your scoring matrix/criteria?

tgchungmj · Post by **tgchungmj** » 14 Jun 2007, 08:53

Liston should be listed above Marciano. I made a mistake at ranking them. Though Marciano is a champ representing 1950's.

I made a scoring as follows.

In my opinion the No.1 heavyweight boxer is Ali in 1960(about 1965 or so) and gave him 99 point.

then I think who is the next to him? The answer is Joe Louis. He is 98.

Going in the same way..

The scientific criterion doesn't exist. Scoring is very subjective..

'Rocket'Rigby · Post by **'Rocket'Rigby** » 14 Jun 2007, 10:46

tgchungmj wrote:Liston should be listed above Marciano. I made a mistake at ranking them. Though Marciano is a champ representing 1950's.

I made a scoring as follows.

In my opinion the No.1 heavyweight boxer is Ali in 1960(about 1965 or so) and gave him 99 point.

then I think who is the next to him? The answer is Joe Louis. He is 98.

Going in the same way..

The scientific criterion doesn't exist. Scoring is very subjective..

How can this logic work when ranking boxers in decades? How can you rank Liston over Marciano when Marciano was heavyweight champion. You are ranking a future heavyweight champion over the heavyweight champion of that decade. That doesn't make sense.

Rocket
______
Molon Labe!

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 14 Jun 2007, 16:18

The Liston, Marciano scenario is a hard one to judge...but I agree with Rocky being ranked higher, because Liston would have been knocked out by Marciano when Rocky was champ and Liston was pre-prime at the time; Liston did beat the better men after Marciano retired, and was arguably the best of the late 1950's [1956-1959] next to Machen, whom he'd eventually beat and had he fought Johansson it's very possible he'd have beaten him too.

Despite that, I still would rank Rocky higher, as he was champion, was undefeated, and by time he retired, Liston wasn't even ranked in the top 10. After Marciano's reign, yes, Liston arguably was the best despite Patterson being champion, Johansson winning it and losing it back to Patterson.

Crease · Post by **Crease** » 15 Jun 2007, 09:56

Putting Liston above Marciano is simply SCANDALLOUS!

For starters, Liston wasn't even on the title horizon in the 50s, I would easily put Charles, Walcott & Moore before him.

Secondly, prime Liston wouldn't defeat prime Marciano, let's not beat around the bush here...We known that it wouldn't happen....

& Giving Lewis more points than Marciano is a true shocker!!! Lewis is nothing more than a lumbering tower who tried to tame boxers...With a leaning jab...

Rocky was a small powerhouse who could fight a full 15 rounds...SUPER-FIT & a heart of a lion.....

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 15 Jun 2007, 10:37

Crease wrote:Secondly, prime Liston wouldn't defeat prime Marciano, let's not beat around the bush here...We known that it wouldn't happen....

Prime Liston would annihilate prime Marciano

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 15 Jun 2007, 10:38

This is an interesting way of ranking fighters. With the point system, (which needs a little fine tuning) you can compare fighters from one decade to the next. If you can compare fighters from the 1920's to the 1930s, and the 1930's to the 1940's, then certainly you can compare fighters from the 1920's to the 1940's and so on. So it's also an interesting way to compare fighters of different eras.

For example, that the 1900's Johnson was better than the 1890's Corbett. Johnson got a score of 93 and Corbett was 83. The 1900's Johnson was better than the 1910-1919 Langford but by not as as great of a margin as Johnson was better than Corbett. So Langford got a score of 88, halfway between Corbett and Johnson, which seems about right.

I hope people can understand this concept. You can continue to this up the present era. It drives me up the wall when I hear people say that you can't rate fighters from vastly different eras. Of course you can. Here is one way.

Of course no two people would do this the same way. For example, I would rate Holyfield above Lewis in the 1990's. Some people would, some wouldn't.
The biggest problem would be Carnera as the #3 heavyweight of the 1930's. Even I wouldn't rank him that high!

Max Baer would be probably be #3 for that decade.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 15 Jun 2007, 13:28

It would take a prime Marciano to have a decent chance against Liston. To say Marciano could beat Liston easily, is a pipe dream, being as Liston was just about the most complete HW you can imagine; he had solid skills, possessed a great jab, was powerful beyond belief, could take a punch, had the intimidation factor and he had stamina---not to mention some decent speed.

'Rocket'Rigby · Post by **'Rocket'Rigby** » 17 Jun 2007, 07:48

dr_devious wrote:
Crease wrote:Secondly, prime Liston wouldn't defeat prime Marciano, let's not beat around the bush here...We known that it wouldn't happen....
Prime Liston would annihilate prime Marciano

Annihilate is a strong choice of word, you have to respect Liston and he would have the capabilities to beat Marciano. Marciano on the other hand would cause Liston equally as much trouble.

PRIME Marciano would no way get annihilated, his work-rate, conditioning, stamina, would see him easily through 15/12 rounds with Liston. Scoring a SD, if not a UD.

Rocket
______
Molon Labe!

What do you think of my all-time heavyweight by decade?

What do you think of my all-time heavyweight by decade?

Re: What do you think of my all-time heavyweight by decade?