How do you like this all-time heavyweight list?

jezzamundo · Post by **jezzamundo** » 20 Sep 2007, 10:06

This is the list I compliled based on 17 different posters lists, back in mid 2006. In brackets is the mean ranking that that boxer received.:

1. Ali (1) Voted over Louis by 13-4
2. Louis (2) Voted over Holmes by 15-2
3. Holmes (4) Votes over Johnson by 9-8
4. Johnson (5) Voted over Foreman by 11-6
5. Foreman (7) Voted over Marciano by 11-6
6. Marciano (7) Voted over Dempsey by 11-6
7. Dempsey ( 8 ) Voted over Frazier by 9-8
8. Frazier ( 8 ) Voted over Lewis by 12-5
9. Lewis (10) Voted over Liston by 10-7
10. Liston (11) Voted over Holyfield by 11-6
11. Holyfield (12) Voted over Tyson by 13-4
12. Tyson (12) Voted over Jeffries by 13-3
13. Jeffries Voted even with Charles and Tunney, ahead by mean vote
14. Charles Voted even with Jeffries and Tunney, ahead by mean vote
15. Tunney Voted even with Charles and Jeffries
16. Langford Voted ahead of Walcott by 9-5
17. Walcott Voted ahead of Patterson by 8-4
18. Patterson Voted ahead of Wills by
19. Wills Voted ahead of Schmeling by 7-6
20. Schmeling Voted ahead of Norton by 10-3

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 20 Sep 2007, 10:21

I think it stands up to scrutiny pretty well. All in all a good list.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 20 Sep 2007, 10:41

Not bad

Martin Sosa Cameron · Post by **Martin Sosa Cameron** » 21 Sep 2007, 19:11

It's a good work! By the way, nobody voted Sullivan, Corbett or Fitzs?

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 21 Sep 2007, 19:43

Yep, that's not too bad. Nothing I would really object to.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 22 Sep 2007, 09:22

After reviewing I would swap Charles for Walcott. Otherwise not bad.

barry · Post by **barry** » 22 Sep 2007, 10:33

Pretty good list though I would have Lennox Lewis right around 20, or lower and I would have Foreman and Holmes rated a bit lower. Also, I would likely remove Tunney, Patterson, Willis, Walcott and Schmeling from the top twenty altogether, though they all would likely be between 20 and 35.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 22 Sep 2007, 12:10

barry wrote:Pretty good list though I would have Lennox Lewis right around 20, or lower and I would have Foreman and Holmes rated a bit lower. Also, I would likely remove Tunney, Patterson, Willis, Walcott and Schmeling from the top twenty altogether, though they all would likely be between 20 and 35.

Would you have Lewis over Tunney?

bill.lockhart · Post by **bill.lockhart** » 23 Sep 2007, 13:46

My biggest objection is Jeffries. Jeffries would have taken both Liston & Tyson into the championship rounds & licked both, if they didn't lick themselves. Jeffries should be rated 6th at worst. Glad to see Floyd made the list.

Rocky Balboa · Post by **Rocky Balboa** » 23 Sep 2007, 15:04

jezzamundo wrote:This is the list I compliled based on 17 different posters lists, back in mid 2006. In brackets is the mean ranking that that boxer received.:

1. Ali (1) Voted over Louis by 13-4
2. Louis (2) Voted over Holmes by 15-2
3. Holmes (4) Votes over Johnson by 9-8
4. Johnson (5) Voted over Foreman by 11-6
5. Foreman (7) Voted over Marciano by 11-6
6. Marciano (7) Voted over Dempsey by 11-6
7. Dempsey ( 8 ) Voted over Frazier by 9-8
8. Frazier ( 8 ) Voted over Lewis by 12-5
9. Lewis (10) Voted over Liston by 10-7
10. Liston (11) Voted over Holyfield by 11-6
11. Holyfield (12) Voted over Tyson by 13-4
12. Tyson (12) Voted over Jeffries by 13-3
13. Jeffries Voted even with Charles and Tunney, ahead by mean vote
14. Charles Voted even with Jeffries and Tunney, ahead by mean vote
15. Tunney Voted even with Charles and Jeffries
16. Langford Voted ahead of Walcott by 9-5
17. Walcott Voted ahead of Patterson by 8-4
18. Patterson Voted ahead of Wills by
19. Wills Voted ahead of Schmeling by 7-6
20. Schmeling Voted ahead of Norton by 10-3

IMO, the list is a good one, although there are a few amendments I would make.

Nice to see Charles on the list. In all the HW lists that get posted on various sites, Ezzard is rarely amongst the names that make the list.

Charles was a real good boxer, technician.

I'd have Tyson higher than 12, but hey, that's why boxing is so great. Hardly ever does two people agree exactly the same!

theone · Post by **theone** » 23 Sep 2007, 22:08

My biggest objection is Jeffries. Jeffries would have taken both Liston & Tyson into the championship rounds & licked both, if they didn't lick themselves.

Please expound on this. What do you base this opinion on?

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 24 Sep 2007, 04:56

The question invariably comes down to what criteria the list is based upon, either accomplishment, or who-beats-who. Sometimes, those criterion are absolutely irreconcilable. For instance, there is no feasible way to argue Liston accomplished more than Patterson. He's not even close. Yet, in the ring, Liston clobbered him.

So in my view it all weighs on your criteria. For me, I would slightly favour Ali ahead of Louis in accomplishment. But in a straight fight, I fancy Louis' chances of defeating Ali.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 24 Sep 2007, 05:31

Point duly taken, but it would mean you would have to place Patterson ahead of Liston. Personally at least, I couldn't feel right about my own list doing that. I favour a who-beats-who list, & while this is theoretical in nature, there is still subjectivity (albeit considerably less) in a list based upon accomplishments.

bill.lockhart · Post by **bill.lockhart** » 24 Sep 2007, 17:03

theone wrote:
My biggest objection is Jeffries. Jeffries would have taken both Liston & Tyson into the championship rounds & licked both, if they didn't lick themselves.
Please expound on this. What do you base this opinion on?

Jeffries was terribly strong, tough, durable, had great heart & was very fast for a big man. He had the size & skill to tangle with the big men of to-day. When I rate him no lower than sixth on the list, I base it on the competition he met, & that a contest prime on prime would ensure each fighter had the same benefits. Technology has improved. It would be unfair to match a fighter from 1905 & 2007. This would have to be a level playing field. Jeffries was indeed a man among men.

barry · Post by **barry** » 24 Sep 2007, 17:45

>>>Would you have Lewis over Tunney?<<<

No, but I don't have issues with someone who would choose Lewis over Tunney as I feel they are pretty close in terms of ranking.

theone · Post by **theone** » 24 Sep 2007, 17:55

Jeffries was terribly strong, tough, durable, had great heart & was very fast for a big man. He had the size & skill to tangle with the big men of to-day. When I rate him no lower than sixth on the list, I base it on the competition he met, & that a contest prime on prime would ensure each fighter had the same benefits. Technology has improved. It would be unfair to match a fighter from 1905 & 2007.

It's exactly his competitions that makes me believe Liston and Tyson would have beaten him easily. Tom Sharkey and Bob Fritsimmons, who weighed only around 170lbs. when they fought gave him hell, and even hurt him a few times. Imagine what Tyson and Liston would do to him?
Jefferies was so successful because he was bigger and stronger and more powerful than anyone he fought. In Tyson and Liston he would be fighting guys not only as big and strong as him but who were much better all around fighters. It wouldn't even be close.
And how can you expect a level playing field with modern fighter and a turn of the century fighter? How do you know modern technology would have helped a fighter like Jefferies, especially with his style? Maybe the era he fought in was the perfect time for someone like him to fight in?
If matching fighters from such different eras is so unfair to do why even do it in the first place? Why make the claim that Jefferies would have licked Tyson and Liston?

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 24 Sep 2007, 22:23

Why would you do something as inane as that?!?!? Liston was the better fighter, and he had the better resume by far. He trounced Patterson twice in his prime. Why would anyone rank Patterson above him?

Patterson was the youngest linear champion in division history. He was the first two-time champion in the division's history. His level of competition was not far below Liston's, & he fought better opponents after he lost the crown to Liston, even as he got older.

All this, for a man who wasn't even a natural Heavyweight. By contrast, Liston had some impressive wins over good competition, but also struggled with certain lesser opponents. He was a one-time champion, in which he made just one defense in two years as the titleholder.

I absolutely place Patterson's accomplishments ahead of Liston's. But there's no getting around Liston is superior head-to-head.

jezzamundo · Post by **jezzamundo** » 26 Sep 2007, 06:05

The difference with me is that I couldn't imagine putting Tunney ahead of Tyson and Dempsey, and I could imagine putting Lewis ahead of Holyfield or Marciano. #8 through #10 are tough for me, because I think Lewis is better than Holyfield, but Holyfield is better than Marciano, and Marciano is better than Lewis. Tunney, Charles and Walcott might be the same way.

That's a bit confusing, but I'd be really interested to hear your spin on the Holyfield, Marciano, Lewis trio! Personally I think that Lewis would win a clear decision against Marciano, but I rate Marciano higher due to his being undefeated and having wins over prime or near-prime Walcott and Charles, which are better than any of Lewis's wins IMO.

How do you like this all-time heavyweight list?

How do you like this all-time heavyweight list?

re

Re: re

Heavyweight List

Re: How do you like this all-time heavyweight list?

Heavyweight List

re